In order to understand what solutions to our energy predicament will or won’t work, it is necessary to understand the true nature of our energy predicament. Most solutions fail because analysts assume that the nature of our energy problem is quite different from what it really is. Analysts assume that our problem is a slowly developing long-term problem, when in fact, it is a problem that is at our door step right now.
The point that most analysts miss is that our energy problem behaves very much like a near-term financial problem. We will discuss why this happens. This near-term financial problem is bound to work itself out in a way that leads to huge job losses and governmental changes in the near term. Our mitigation strategies need to be considered in this context. Strategies aimed simply at relieving energy shortages with high priced fuels and high-tech equipment are bound to be short lived solutions, if they are solutions at all.
OUR ENERGY PREDICAMENT
1. Our number one energy problem is a rapidly rising need for investment capital, just to maintain a fixed level of resource extraction. This investment capital is physical “stuff” like oil, coal, and metals.
We pulled out the “easy to extract” oil, gas, and coal first. As we move on to the difficult to extract resources, we find that the need for investment capital escalates rapidly. According to Mark Lewis writing in the Financial Times, “upstream capital expenditures” for oil and gas amounted to nearly $700 billion in 2012, compared to $350 billion in 2005, both in 2012 dollars. This corresponds to an inflation-adjusted annual increase of 10% per year for the seven year period. (If you have problems viewing the images, attached is a PDF of the article, including images: A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work | Our Finite World)
Figure 1. The way would expect the cost of the extraction of energy supplies to rise, as finite supplies deplete.
In theory, we would expect extraction costs to rise as we approach limits of the amount to be extracted. In fact, the steep rise in oil prices in recent years is of the type we would expect, if this is happening. We were able to get around the problem in the 1970s, by adding more oil extraction, substituting other energy products for oil, and increasing efficiency. This time, our options for fixing the situation are much fewer, since the low hanging fruit have already been picked, and we are reaching financial limits now.
Figure 2. Historical oil prices in 2012 dollars, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013 data. (2013 included as well, from EIA data.)
To make matters worse, the rapidly rising need for investment capital arises is other industries as well as fossil fuels. Metals extraction follows somewhat the same pattern. We extracted the highest grade ores, in the most accessible locations first. We can still extract more metals, but we need to move to lower grade ores. This means we need to remove more of the unwanted waste products, using more resources, including energy resources.
Figure 3. Waste product to produce 100 units of metal
There is a huge increase in the amount of waste products that must be extracted and disposed of, as we move to lower grade ores (Figure 3). The increase in waste products is only 3% when we move from ore with a concentration of .200, to ore with a concentration .195. When we move from a concentration of .010 to a concentration of .005, the amount of waste product more than doubles.
When we look at the inflation adjusted cost of base metals (Figure 4 below), we see that the index was generally falling for a long period between the 1960s and the 1990s, as productivity improvements were greater than falling ore quality.
Figure 4. World Bank inflation adjusted base metal index (excluding iron).
Since 2002, the index is higher, as we might expect if we are starting to reach limits with respect to some of the metals in the index.
There are many other situations where we are fighting a losing battle with nature, and as a result need to make larger resource investments. We have badly over-fished the ocean, so fishermen now need to use more resources too catch the remaining much smaller fish. Pollution (including CO2 pollution) is becoming more of a problem, so we invest resources in devices to capture mercury emissions and in wind turbines in the hope they will help our pollution problems. We also need to invest increasing amounts in roads, bridges, electricity transmission lines, and pipelines, to compensate for deferred maintenance and aging infrastructure.
Some people say that the issue is one of falling Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), and indeed, falling EROI is part of the problem. The steepness of the curve comes from the rapid increase in energy products used for extraction and many other purposes, as we approach limits. The investment capital limit was discovered by the original modelers of Limits to Growth in 1972. I discuss this in my post Why EIA, IEA, and Randers’ 2052 Energy Forecasts are Wrong.
2. When the amount of oil extracted each year flattens out (as it has since 2004), a conflict arises: How can there be enough oil both (a) for the growing investment needed to maintain the status quo, plus (b) for new investment to promote growth?
In the previous section, we talked about the rising need for investment capital, just to maintain the status quo. At least some of this investment capital needs to be in the form of oil. Another use for oil would be to grow the economy–adding new factories, or planting more crops, or transporting more goods. While in theory there is a possibility of substituting away from oil, at any given point in time, the ability to substitute away is quite limited. Most transport options require oil, and most farming requires oil. Construction and road equipment require oil, as do diesel powered irrigation pumps.
Because of the lack of short term substitutability, the need for oil for reinvestment tends to crowd out the possibility of growth. This is at least part of the reason for slower world-wide economic growth in recent years.
3. In the crowding out of growth, the countries that are most handicapped are the ones with the highest average cost of their energy supplies.
For oil importers, oil is a very high cost product, raising the average cost of energy products. This average cost of energy is highest in countries that use the highest percentage of oil in their energy mix.
If we look at a number of oil importing countries, we see that economic growth tends to be much slower in countries that use very much oil in their energy mix. This tends to happen because high energy costs make products less affordable. For example, high oil costs make vacations to Greece unaffordable, and thus lead to cut backs in their tourist industry.
It is striking when looking at countries arrayed by the proportion of oil in their energy mix, the extent to which high oil use, and thus high cost energy use, is associated with slow economic growth (Figure 5, 6, and 7). There seems to almost be a dose response–the more oil use, the lower the economic growth. While the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) are shown as a group, each of the countries in the group shows the same pattern on high oil consumption as a percentage of its total energy production in 2004.
Globalization no doubt acted to accelerate this shift toward countries that used little oil. These countries tended to use much more coal in their energy mix–a much cheaper fuel.
Figure 5. Percent energy consumption from oil in 2004, for selected countries and country groups, based on BP 2013 Statistical Review of World Energy. (EU – PIIGS means “EU-27 minus PIIGS’)
Figure 6. Average percent growth in real GDP between 2005 and 2011, based on USDA GDP data in 2005 US$.
Figure 7. Average percentage consumption growth between 2004 and 2011, based on BP’s 2013 Statistical Review of World Energy.
4. The financial systems of countries with slowing growth are especially affected, as are the governments. Debt becomes harder to repay with interest, as economic growth slows.
With slow growth, debt becomes harder to repay with interest. Governments are tempted to add programs to aid their citizens, because employment tends to be low. Governments find that tax revenue lags because of the lagging wages of most citizens, leading to government deficits. (This is precisely the problem that Turchin and Nefedov noted, prior to collapse, when they analyzed eight historical collapses in their book Secular Cycles.)
Governments have recently attempt to fix both their own financial problems and the problems of their citizens by lowering interest rates to very low levels and by using Quantitative Easing. The latter allows governments to keep even long term interest rates low. With Quantitative Easing, governments are able to keep borrowing without having a market of ready buyers. Use of Quantitative Easing also tends to blow bubbles in prices of stocks and real estate, helping citizens to feel richer.
5. Wages of citizens of countries oil importing countries tend to remain flat, as oil prices remain high.
At least part of the wage problem relates to the slow economic growth noted above. Furthermore, citizens of the country will cut back on discretionary goods, as the price of oil rises, because their cost of commuting and of food rises (because oil is used in growing food). The cutback in discretionary spending leads to layoffs in discretionary sectors. If exported goods are high priced as well, buyers from other countries will tend to cut back as well, further leading to layoffs and low wage growth.
6. Oil producers find that oil prices don’t rise high enough, cutting back on their funds for reinvestment.
As oil extraction costs increase, it becomes difficult for the demand for oil to remain high, because wages are not increasing. This is the issue I describe in my post What’s Ahead? Lower Oil Prices, Despite Higher Extraction Costs.
We are seeing this issue today. Bloomberg reports, Oil Profits Slump as Higher Spending Fails to Raise Output. Business Week reports Shell Surprise Shows Profit Squeeze Even at $100 Oil. Statoil, the Norwegian company, is considering walking away from Greenland, to try to keep a lid on production costs.
7. We find ourselves with a long-term growth imperative relating to fossil fuel use, arising from the effects of globalization and from growing world population.
Globalization added approximately 4 billion consumers to the world market place in the 1997 to 2001 time period. These people previously had lived traditional life styles. Once they became aware of all of the goods that people in the rich countries have, they wanted to join in, buying motor bikes, cars, televisions, phones, and other goods. They would also like to eat meat more often. Population in these countries continues to grow adding to demand for goods of all kinds. These goods can only be made using fossil fuels, or by technologies that are enabled by fossil fuels (such as today’s hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar PV).
8. The combination of these forces leads to a situation in which economies, one by one, will turn downward in the very near future–in a few months to a year or two. Some are already on this path (Egypt, Syria, Greece, etc.)
We have two problems that tend to converge: financial problems that countries are now hiding, and ever rising need for resources in a wide range of areas that are reaching limits (oil, metals, over-fishing, deferred maintenance on pipelines).
On the financial side, we have countries trying to hang together despite a serious mismatch between revenue and expenses, using Quantitative Easing and ultra-low interest rates. If countries unwind the Quantitative Easing, interest rates are likely to rise. Because debt is widely used, the cost of everything from oil extraction to buying a new home to buying a new car is likely to rise. The cost of repaying the government’s own debt will rise as well, putting governments in worse financial condition than they are today.
A big concern is that these problems will carry over into debt markets. Rising interest rates will lead to widespread defaults. The availability of debt, including for oil drilling, will dry up.
Even if debt does not dry up, oil companies are already being squeezed for investment funds, and are considering cutting back on drilling. A freeze on credit would make certain this happens.
Meanwhile, we know that investment costs keep rising, in many different industries simultaneously, because we are reaching the limits of a finite world. There are more resources available; they are just more expensive. A mismatch occurs, because our wages aren’t going up.
The physical amount of oil needed for all of this investment keeps rising, but oil production continues on its relatively flat plateau, or may even begins to drop. This leads to less oil available to invest in the rest of the economy. Given the squeeze, even more countries are likely to encounter slowing growth or contraction.
9. My expectation is that the situation will end with a fairly rapid drop in the production of all kinds of energy products and the governments of quite a few countries failing. The governments that remain will dramatically cut services.
With falling oil production, promised government programs will be far in excess of what governments can afford, because governments are basically funded out of the surpluses of a fossil fuel economy–the difference between the cost of extraction and the value of these fossil fuels to society. As the cost of extraction rises, the surpluses tend to dry up.
Figure 8. Cost of extraction of barrel oil, compared to value to society. Economic growth is enabled by the difference.
As these surpluses shrink, governments will need to shrink back dramatically. Government failure will be easier than contracting back to a much smaller size.
International finance and trade will be particularly challenging in this context. Trying to start over will be difficult, because many of the new countries will be much smaller than their predecessors, and will have no “track record.” Those that do have track records will have track records of debt defaults and failed promises, things that will not give lenders confidence in their ability to repay new loans.
While it is clear that oil production will drop, with all of the disruption and a lack of operating financial markets, I expect natural gas and coal production will drop as well. Spare parts for almost anything will be difficult to get, because of the need for the system of international trade to support making these parts. High tech goods such as computers and phones will be especially difficult to purchase. All of these changes will result in a loss of most of the fossil fuel economy and the high tech renewables that these fossil fuels support.
A Forecast of Future Energy Supplies and their Impact
A rough estimate of the amounts by which energy supply will drop is given in Figure 9, below.
Figure 9. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.
The issue we will be encountering could be much better described as “Limits to Growth” than “Peak Oil.” Massive job layoffs will occur, as fuel use declines. Governments will find that their finances are even more pressured than today, with calls for new programs at the time revenue is dropping dramatically. Debt defaults will be a huge problem. International trade will drop, especially to countries with the worst financial problems.
One big issue will be the need to reorganize governments in a new, much less expensive way. In some cases, countries will break up into smaller units, as the Former Soviet Union did in 1991. In some cases, the situation will go back to local tribes with tribal leaders. The next challenge will be to try to get the governments to act in a somewhat co-ordinated way. There may need to be more than one set of governmental changes, as the global energy supplies decline.
We will also need to begin manufacturing goods locally, at a time when debt financing no longer works very well, and governments are no longer maintaining roads. We will have to figure out new approaches, without the benefit of high tech goods like computers. With all of the disruption, the electric grid will not last very long either. The question will become: what can we do with local materials, to get some sort of economy going again?
NON-SOLUTIONS and PARTIAL SOLUTIONS TO OUR PROBLEM
There are a lot of proposed solutions to our problem. Most will not work well because the nature of the problem is different from what most people have expected.
1. Substitution. We don’t have time. Furthermore, whatever substitutions we make need to be with cheap local materials, if we expect them to be long-lasting. They also must not over-use resources such as wood, which is in limited supply.
Electricity is likely to decline in availability almost as quickly as oil because of inability to keep up the electrical grid and other disruptions (such as failing governments, lack of oil to lubricate machinery, lack of replacement parts, bankruptcy of companies involved with the production of electricity) so is not really a long-term solution to oil limits.
2. Efficiency. Again, we don’t have time to do much. Higher mileage cars tend to be more expensive, replacing one problem with another. A big problem in the future will be lack of road maintenance. Theoretical gains in efficiency may not hold in the real world. Also, as governments reduce services and often fail, lenders will be unwilling to lend funds for new projects which would in theory improve efficiency.
In some cases, simple devices may provide efficiency. For example, solar thermal can often be a good choice for heating hot water. These devices should be long-lasting.
3. Wind turbines. Current industrial type wind turbines will be hard to maintain, so are unlikely to be long-lasting. The need for investment capital for wind turbines will compete with other needs for investment capital. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will drop dramatically, with or without wind turbines.
On the other hand, simple wind mills made with local materials may work for the long term. They are likely to be most useful for mechanical energy, such as pumping water or powering looms for cloth.
4. Solar Panels. Promised incentive plans to help homeowners pay for solar panels can be expected to mostly fall through. Inverters and batteries will need replacement, but probably will not be available. Handy homeowners who can rewire the solar panels for use apart from the grid may find them useful for devices that can run on direct current. As part of the electric grid, solar panels will not add to its lifetime. It probably will not be possible to make solar panels for very many years, as the fossil fuel economy reaches limits.
5. Shale Oil. Shale oil is an example of a product with very high investment costs, and returns which are doubtful at best. Big companies who have tried to extract shale oil have decided the rewards really aren’t there. Smaller companies have somehow been able to put together financial statements claiming profits, based on hoped for future production and very low interest rates.
Costs for extracting shale oil outside the US for shale oil are likely to be even higher than in the US. This happens because the US has laws that enable production (landowner gets a share of profits) and other beneficial situations such as pipelines in place, plentiful water supplies, and low population in areas where fracking is done. If countries decide to ramp up shale oil production, they are likely to run into similarly hugely negative cash flow situations. It is hard to see that these operations will save the world from its financial (and energy) problems.
6. Taxes. Taxes need to be very carefully structured, to have any carbon deterrent benefit. If part of taxes consumers would normally pay to the government are levied on fuel for vehicles, the practice can encourage more the use of more efficient vehicles.
On the other hand, if carbon taxes are levied on businesses, the taxes tend to encourage businesses to move their production to other, lower-cost countries. The shift in production leads to the use of more coal for electricity, rather than less. In theory, carbon taxes could be paired with a very high tax on imported goods made with coal, but this has not been done. Without such a pairing, carbon taxes seem likely to raise world CO2 emissions.
7. Steady State Economy. Herman Daly was the editor of a book in 1973 called Toward a Steady State Economy, proposing that the world work toward a Steady State economy, instead of growth. Back in 1973, when resources were still fairly plentiful, such an approach would have acted to hold off Limits to Growth for quite a few years, especially if zero population growth were included in the approach.
Today, it is far too late for such an approach to work. We are already in a situation with very depleted resources. We can’t keep up current production levels if we want to–to do so would require greatly ramping up energy production because of the rising need for energy investment to maintain current production, discussed in Item (1) of Our Energy Predicament. Collapse will probably be impossible to avoid. We can’t even hope for an outcome as good as a Steady State Economy.
7. Basing Choice of Additional Energy Generation on EROI Calculations. In my view, basing new energy investment on EROI calculations is an iffy prospect at best. EROI calculations measure a theoretical piece of the whole system–“energy at the well-head.” Thus, they miss important parts of the system, which affect both EROI and cost. They also overlook timing, so can indicate that an investment is good, even if it digs a huge financial hole for organizations making the investment. EROI calculations also don’t consider repairability issues which may shorten real-world lifetimes.
Regardless of EROI indications, it is important to consider the likely financial outcome as well. If products are to be competitive in the world marketplace, electricity needs to be inexpensive, regardless of what the EROI calculations seem to say. Our real problem is lack of investment capital–something that is gobbled up at prodigious rates by energy generation devices whose costs occur primarily at the beginning of their lives. We need to be careful to use our investment capital wisely, not for fads that are expensive and won’t hold up for the long run.
8. Demand Reduction. This really needs to be the major way we move away from fossil fuels. Even if we don’t have other options, fossil fuels will move away from us. Encouraging couples to have smaller families would seem to be a good choice.
Free will is an illusion. It is a post-Renaissance concept, none of the ancients believed in it in the modern sense of the ability to incline to any option regardless of breeding, character and social influence. Our law and morality supposedly depends on the theory of free will. History then is deterministic. There is no chance to what happens. The story of the human collapse is the story simply of whether humans proved up to the task, in a determined, necessary way. The outcome could not have been otherwise. The collapse is natural history and it is foreordained.
Nearly all species, 99.9% of species have gone extinct. We too will one day. The simple fact will be that our species eventually proved an evolutionary dead end. How soon that will happen depends on us. There is nothing to blame but ourselves. Sorry people, no excuses. That seems to be my theme tonight. Or we could blame Nature LOL. We need to orientate our civilization on sustainable principles, likely not the latest liberal PC theories. But what will happen will happen.
Thanks for the link. Sam Harris is as close to an idol as I have. (Although all scientists and philosophers have let me down by not recognizing the water they swim in, fossil fuel.)
I have to say, I was not convinced by any of his arguments. And many of them were just bizarre. I have thoughts on-going in my head: what does this prove? Free will is a very nebulous concept (to say the least), but the human mind, consciousness, even the concept of “will” itself, are almost complete mysteries. (That said, we should take causality much more into account and investigate that a lot more.)
Hello Peter, he seems to argue that thoughts appear in consciousness. They have an origin behind consciousness. Our awareness of an intention is simply that. Consciousness is like a passive receptacle, it does not ultimately control what comes into it. We do not choose our thoughts, they just appear to us. He labours the point that we (or at least some of us) can “observe” or “notice” that in our own mental experience. Our decisions are similar, we have an awareness of an intention accompanied by an awareness of various thoughts that “explain” the decision. But free will in the modern sense says that we have conscious control over our decisions, we think about things and then make a conscious decision. Yes but thoughts — and decisions — originate behind consciousness as science has shown. Some important stuff does go on in consciousness when we make decisions but in what sense does that make it free if the whole process is determined by causality and it all originates behind consciousness? Does freedom from external compulsion (force) suffice for our acts to be free or must they be free of internal determination?
“And some neuroscientists have even claimed that by examining patterns in the brain, they can predict decisions that we will take six or seven seconds before we ourselves consciously choose to take them…But we are all physical beings in a (largely) deterministic universe. Why is one physical cause – a tumour – different from any other? Might, in future, neuroscientists be brought into court to explain away all manner of transgressions?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23666726
Yes causality is a key issue. The world as a whole changes according to causes. Efficient causality is “transcendental” to all understanding of the natural world and events. Are we the exception when we resolve upon a purpose? Science suggests that we are not.
I agree with you that the subject may be more complicated than Sam allows in his short presentation. What do we even mean by “will”? Is that too a myth? FN thought so but it remains a useful concept when we talk about the world.
Interesting, the BBC article suggests that the modern concept of free will dates back to the Augustine-Pelagius debate. I would question whether Pelagius had a modern concept of free will or whether it is a much later concept that polemicists then rhetorically associated with Pelagius. I too suspect that FW likely owes more to the dilemmas of Christian dogma than to any serious attempt to understand the world.
The correlation between crime rates and our exposure during childhood to lead in paint and petrol provides another example of how our acts may seem to be “free” but they are decided by neurological factors of which we were not aware. Tens of millions of people were convicted for crimes that they would not have committed if their brains had not been poisoned. Their choices seemed to be “free”, and they were judged to be morally responsible, guilty and they were punished, but it was the lead that made the difference. Maybe all of our choices are like that, they seem to be “free”, even to ourselves, even to the magistrate but they are actually determined by complex biological and environmental factors. The important thing is that society should provide good breeding (good genes) and good social conditions rather than trying to blame people. Punish by all means but lets not fool ourselves about the theoretical justification. Arguably free will, moral responsibility, guilt and merit (good and evil) are medieval nonsense, at least if taken in a literal Christian sense. True goodness is good breeding and good natural health! That makes for a well functioning society. Reason tells us how to go about that. Sorry but free will looks like a myth that is dangerous to how well we can understand society and how well we can plan for the future. The danger is that we blame it all (or most of it) on free will and that we totally fail to understand why people act as they do and how our behaviour can be improved – genes, health, a well-ordered society.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ban-on-leaded-petrol-has-cut-crime-rates-around-the-world-398151.html
Published in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Research, the study reports a “very strong association” over more than 50 years between the exposure of young children to the toxic metal and crime rates 20 years later when they are young adults. And it says the association holds true for a wide variety of countries with differing social conditions, law and order policies. Rates of violent and other crimes began falling sharply in the US in the early 1990s, and have continued to do so, followed by similar tends elsewhere.
From the same article:
Research at Pittsburgh University found that adolescents arrested for crime in the city had lead levels four times higher than their law-abiding contemporaries, and a study of 3,000 possible causes of criminality in 1,000 young people by Fordham University, New York, found that high lead levels were the best predictor of delinquent and violent behaviour.
I’m going to read your post carefully later. But for now I will say that there is no definite line between will and fate (for lack of a better word). Many things can be predicted, but most things can also not be predicted. And history, context and background have a great deal to do with the “choices” we make (much more than people admit), but that does not prove that will does not exist. Just because so much of our society doesn’t take context into account doesn’t suddenly mean there’s no such thing as also having a choice.
Not to mention that we are goldfish swimming around our little bowl, claiming to know this deep secret of the universe. We as a species, and even each individual, know the tiniest percentile of what there is to know. Even these concepts such as “know,” “existence,” “will,” “reality,” “causality,” “fate,” and so many more, may just be our inventions. They’re blunt, nebulous concepts that fall apart under real scrutiny – how much more would they fall apart with a truly intelligent being (i.e. not a human being). I seriously doubt we can be so confident to claim anything. We don’t know anything about our own minds.
I can’t prove it to anyone else, but I know that I have will. Since you can’t see my mind (no disrespect intended), nobody else can tell me otherwise, anymore than I can tell or prove to someone else that they are not a conscious being. I can’t prove that (although I strongly suspect it in some people!).
I would also add that it is really dangerous to believe that there is no such thing as choice, as people would gravitate towards just accepting the situation and take no responsibility for their actions – I would say a total lack of responsibility is the cause of our society’s coming-soon problem. Not believing in will could lead to fatalism (and in my opinion, it will when this crash happens) – what’s the point if it’s already going to happen? Why even bother, it will make no difference.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don’t think this can be a black/white issue. This morning the wind blew me over, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t stand up on my own.
As for your examples of crime being influenced (or even caused) by a number of factors – I agree with you. People and society far too easily dismisses the causes of crime. I mainly believe that crime is the symptom, not the cause. But that’s a far cry from ruling out “will” altogether, which I believe is what the video was getting too. (Also, don’t you think it’s funny that the man who doesn’t believe in free will, is trying to convince us to choose his model of reality? I found that a little funny!)
I have to read a lot more (not sure how much this will be a priority for me, considering our coming economic situation), but science in general over history towards the present day, as it moves further from belief in “intelligent design” (god) towards an atheistic viewpoint, also seems to generally move from a living, creative universe towards a mechanistic, determenistic universe. One reason so many people (including scientists) believe this, is that in modern times we have seen so much success with our capitalist and engineering society. We have had a constant progress in technology – so when scientists tell us that the universe is also fated to behave like much more complex machine.
I wonder what future scientists and societies will believe about the natural laws we live with. From this perspective it almost seems that we have decided to believe in a deterministic model of the universe – ironic, no?
We would like to believe that we can control everything, but in fact, physical laws are all important. One of those is with respect to how rising population and diminishing returns plays out. Unless we find ways around the limits nature imposes on us, we are out of luck.
You are right. It is virtually certain that humans at one point will go extinct. We don’t know when that is.
Sustainable principles are not the latest high-tech gizmo that might save us. It is likely we need to move back from dominating the earth, so that other plants and animals can play their role as well. But as long as energy supplies are available, the humans are likely to keep increasing their footprint, making the species less and less sustainable.
This _is_ a Malthusian collapse.
Why would it not be? Reality, human, divides entirely into quantity and quality. How do we explain the collapse in those terms? Are we not collectively ultimately responsible for our own fate? Do the limits lie in the environment so much as in ourselves? How _adapted_ are we? How well do our dominant liberal moral and political ideas adapt us to natural reality? We survive and prosper according to how well we are adapted. Is liberal economics well adapted to natural reality? Is liberalism generally well adapted to natural reality?
Malthus, Darwin, Galton. We cannot say that we were not warned and that collapse has come upon us of a sudden. We were warned centuries ago of what would happen. Really, _what_ did we expect? Nature has its laws of breeding (and sustainable production) and we either go along with them or we end as a laughing stock. See it as a Greek god might look down upon it, with sympathy of quite a different sort, no dishonesty in the name of charity. Tragedy is also comedy. LOL @ social reality.
In the final analysis we are confronted not just with finite limits in the environment but also with finite human limits, the limits to the human capacity to think, plan, organise and execute. Finitude is “transcendental” (touches everything) in the sense that we too have a tendency to fall short of the desired measure, genetically, intelligence and behaviour — which underpins planning, survival etc. Our civilization is about to fall because _we_ are f upped! not because of finite limits in the environment. We would have handled the whole thing better if we ourselves had been better. Facts were always facts, the theories were long clear and notorious, and we planned the whole thing _really_ badly. It lasted for a while and it was often a real blast but a civilization based on liberty, equality and fraternity, let alone globalism, proved stunningly unsustainable.
Yes the world is finite as Gail says and we have to cope with that. We always did. Our civilization is about to collapse because of human limits, our own inability to plan according to natural finite limits. Don’t think that we have now f upped! the story is that we have f upped the whole time which is why we are here at all, _us_ here and now.
Aristocratic feudalism proved sustainable for a thousand years in Europe. We would be bloody lucky if we could return to that! Otherwise we may end up back in the caves, hunting for the odd berry. Communism does not follow capitalism. Total collapse follows capitalism. We were always warned of that.
Feudalism is the stable “default setting” for our civilization and we should all aim to return to that.
Gail, perhaps you could argue this for them in detail: it is a Malthusian collapse? You will likely be OK in PC limits if you stick to quantity (maybe not.)
(People are all and the people shall be subject to the people in the name of the People, right? Yes we saw all that with Russia and the gulags, thank you very much and no thank you.)
Yes, what we are facing is a Malthusian Collapse. People have just not understood what such a collapse looked like. The collapses analyzed in Secular Cycles by Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov are Malthusian Collapses, and the path we are on is disconcertingly similar. Prior to collapse, there was rising disparity of income. Because of the resource shortages, (often lack of farmland) young workers could not get good-paying farm jobs. Governments tried more programs to fix this, like bigger armies, but it became difficult for the government to collect enough taxes from the impoverished workers. Sometimes governments would try resource wars to fix the situation. Dieoff tended to come from increased susceptibility to epidemics because citizens could not afford adequate foods, and casualties of war. The whole process took many years.
I wrote about this is my post Diminishing Returns, Energy Return on Energy Invested, and Collapse.
I think that the stages of the discontinuity will involve government confiscation, commandeering and conscription of all relevant resources. The executive orders already exist to accomplish command and control of anything of value during the coming fall down the stairs.
The strategic reserve, oil in the ground and methods of production and refinement will become the property of and direct functions of government, and central control of those resources will last as long as the can pump oil gas and condensates out of the reservoirs. The military model is scalable and will incorporate the “true believers” to continue the paradigm ’till the bitter end.
The problem may start with financial markets failing; think of 2008 as 1929, and today as 1934. Many of the prescient knew what was going to transpire in Europe by 1935, but had no idea as to how events were going to play out for the next decade.
If the defense industry are the only ones hiring in the economy, then it’s clear that you either sign up or starve. I don’t see that we will have the choice to opt-out.
It’s not much of a stretch to think that we are not at the beginning of the resource wars, but that the US has been on track to secure a foothold in resource rich areas since 2001. I just think the benevolent mask of “We’re here to help” is going to be drooped and “We’re here for your resources and there’s nothing you can do about it” is coming soon.
The coming black market will be a fascinating thing to see.
“but that the US has been on track to secure a foothold in resource rich areas since 2001. ”
I would say much earlier than that, since Roosevelt meeting with Ibn Saoud in 1945 (aboard the Quincy) one could say. Or don’t forget for instance that CENTCOM (US central command) , initiated by Carter in 1977, has the Gulf region as area of responsibility.
Sir, I think it’s probably more accurate to describe US strategy as ‘market based’ in that it wants all suppliers to keep pumping and minimize disturbances to the free flow of oil. That demands a slightly less aggressive policy viz-a-viz opponents than would have been common earlier. Following the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force was first established by President Carter in 1977, and after basing rights were gradually accumulated in the Persian Gulf, the Central Command was established at MacDill AFB, (near Tampa), Florida, in 1983, replacing the RDJTF. Bahrain hosts the assemblage, and with the smaller Arab Gulf states rely on US forces to counterbalance Iran’s occasionally aggressive bullying.
If you want … doesn’t make a huge difference.
The basic deal is :
-The US (and friends) “securing” the region (and oil flows)
-The oil market in $
-The $ as reserve currency (or petro dollar)
-Ability to sell bonds, etc
And by the way the “OPEC embargo” role in the first oil shock is highly exaggerated.
The first oil shock (defined as sudden barrel price rise) is much more the direct consequence of US peak in 1970, and dropping B Woods in 1971, Short summary below :
http://patzek-lifeitself.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-ghost-of-julian-simon.html?showComment=1371721873280#c873625013773638550
Not to forget that during the seven sisters era (before wwII up to around 70ies), the region was already more or less colonised by the majors (and gvnmts behind them).
See for instance below documentary about that :
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=244178&sid=5a91d9fb57aab20c88d0fdf43617b7b4
As to CENTCOM, the logo is rather clear though :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Logo_of_United_States_Central_Command.png/150px-Logo_of_United_States_Central_Command.png
And the deal with the Saudis in 1945 even if not written, truly a major event.
Yves: Thanks. Good points all.
And of course Nixon’s taking the dollar off the gold standard was the primary impetus for the founding of OPEC in the first place. All the Arabs wanted was to be treated honestly and respectfully. Well, we didn’t really give the Iranians that sort of preferential treatment, at least in 1953, so we had to learn the hard way later.
I haven’t watched the documentary you cited, but will. I do remember that CentCom was affiliated with or grew out of the US Readiness Command, headquartered at MacDill, but Readiness Command had no assigned forces.
Cheers, CWJ
Chris, Thanks to you.
In retrospect it’s quite amazing the number of events that happened beginning seventies.
OPEC was founded earlier (1960), but really took of when the “rebalance deals” between the oil majors and the countries started and this was beginning seventies (Khadaffi was the first to push to 50/50 in 1970 I think), also the time when the spot markets started, US peak, and the “embargo” (but not from Iran, Shah period after ousting Mossadegh in 53, not for from Iraq, lasted 3 months …), with dropping the gold standard on top of that.
Another great documentary on the oil history is the one in two parts in below page :
http://iiscn.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bataille-et-lenergie/
(but only exists in French and German to my knowledge, second part for the first oil shock).
Especially for the key guys interviewed, and James Akins in particular.
He was the guy named by Nixon in 1970 or 71 to do a “tour” of the majors to know what was going on after US peak, and was then US Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, see below for instance :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072605298.html
And about the embargo, he clearly states that it was never effective from KSA to the US (for the US Army in Vietnam in particular) : tankers kept on going during the embargo from KSA, though Bahrain to make it more discreet, and then to the US. In particular he states that two senators were starting to have “strong voices” about “doing something”, he asked the permission to tell them what was going on, got it, and they shat up …
About Akins, there is also his key article in 72 “The oil crisis : this time the wolf is here” :
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/for_aff_aikins_oil_crisis_apr1973.pdf
But the report he did for Nixon after US peak (and that was also presented to the OECD) is still classified to my knowledge. It would be interesting to know if it could be declassified now, isn’t there a 30 years limit or something for this ?
This report must clearly be the time when the peak oil concept became known in high(or some) political circles …
In a way the “embargo” story was practical on both sides :
– for the US (or the “west” in general), it allowed to “hide” US peak and put the blame on the Arabs for the first oil shock price increase.
– for the Arab producing countries, it allowed to show the “Arab street” that they were “doing something” for the palestinians (or against Israel and allies..)
Best,
Yves
Good points!
To some extent, oil extraction depends on the international trade of goods and services–specialized parts and experts. To the extent that international trade falls apart, I would expect that it would be hard to keep the oil companies going. Also, oil companies are high tech. The reason why governments have historically wanted to own them is because they could more easily grab the profits they were turning out. If they are operating at losses, it will be one more thing for governments to fund. Governments are not known for running any kind of business well. A high-tech business would be particularly hard to run well.
If we lose our ability to process resources, it is not clear to me that we will fight over, say, oil and gas resources. Groups might still fight over fresh water and arable land, since these don’t require the high tech extraction and processing.
A lot of things have been on my mind lately as reality slowly settles in. The baby boomer generation and the generation that begat them and perhaps every generation before them made the mistake of thinking that advanced technology begat cheap energy, when in fact it is the other way around. No one seems to understand what to thank for all our great technological achievements of the 20th century. We put a man on the moon, we developed a reusable spaceship, we conquered the land in the “green revolution”, and all the economic progress, the whole American dream. It’s as if no one has ever though to think of what made it all possible. Why do the lights come on at all? Why can I afford to put gas in my car? Why do I get to go out to eat and choose from just about every cuisine imaginable to satisfy my palate? People seem to not want to know they are taking part in the rapid depletion of one of the most precious resources (fossil fuels) mankind has ever discovered. We seem to want to credit to human ingenuity alone the technological, medical, and societal advancements that cheap, abundant fuel has allowed for.
Once we developed a fossil fuel based society and attributed it to technology, now technology was in the driver’s seat and would propel civilization and growth indefinitely. Few people seem to get this is not true.
As far as my personal reaction to realizing collapse is real and collapse is coming, I think about all the things that depressed me or gave me anxiety as a kid that were related to “progress”, population, and technology: nursing homes, trailer parks, public “housing” projects, cookie cutter houses, unending growth. I used to do thought experiments. I wondered when will Tampa and Orlando have grown so much that they meet? Will human population take up the entire state eventually? Will some future version of myself be living on this same planet with 7 trillion people, quietly wondering why there are so many people, quietly disturbed by it and assuming that if I don’t like my 300 sq. ft. abode in one of thousands of 100 story skyscrapers, if I don’t like things the way that they are then there must be something wrong with me?
I have no qualms stating that our modern industrial “civilized” world is insane. The disparity in wealth and opportunity, the whole of social stratification is an anathema to my soul. Our culture of one way communication via advertising has created an unthinking culture of consumerism. People don’t think for themselves! I guess it’s too meddlesome. But I also have to accept human nature. Things have not turned out this way by accident. Ernest Becker’s “Denial of Death” asserts that fear of death alone is the wellspring of human creativity. It follows from that that humans would use fossil fuels as quickly as possible as a way to psychically ward off death, and would quickly develop a culture based on infinite abundance, a proxy for immortality.
I have seen time and time again, usually baby boomers, who take it, as granted that human civilization and progress will go on forever. The authors of the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle seriously thought humans would take over the entire universe! All that based on empirical evidence, mind you. So much of our culture is invested in the belief that progress will continue indefinitely.
Lastly I remember the sign I used to drive pass everyday on my way to work, “Construction is Progress!” proclaimed a sign in front of a construction site at the college campus. I always wish I had the cujones to deface the sign and insert a “NOT” in there!
“Once we developed a fossil fuel based society and attributed it to technology, now technology was in the driver’s seat and would propel civilization and growth indefinitely.”
That’s a very interesting point. In fact that was a very interesting post. You should be an anthropologist.
As my mind thinks about our situation I sometimes wonder if it must be impossible, or almost impossible, to find life like ours in the universe. They would need to: not only be lucky enough to live on a planet richer in resources than ours (and we have been very lucky – yet could barely put 3 men on the moon for a few days), but also have a society/culture that does not squander it all in a relatively tiny amount of time instead of investing it into the species’ future. If we as a planet had had 100x or 1,000x the resources, I don’t think we would have done any better, or been able to get any further from our homeworld.
Thanks for your insights. I like your observation, “The baby boomer generation and the generation that begat them and perhaps every generation before them made the mistake of thinking that advanced technology begat cheap energy, when in fact it is the other way around.” Now the same people think we can walk away from fossil fuels, and everything will be fine, thanks to technology. It doesn’t work that way.
I hear that frequently in the media, “We are addicted to oil & must get off of it and use renewables instead.” The problem is as I see it is that we have become utterly dependent upon fossil resources & that no combination of “renewables” can save our asses. There are just too many of us to slump back into a preindustrial way of life without a mass amount of suffering.
Your right about most people confuse energy with technology. We wouldn’t have todays technology without cheap fossil resources.
I still have the book “Limits to growth” that came out in the 1970’s & it’s still relevant but people don’t want to hear that, they believe that humans are so “smart” that we will come up with a new & cheaper source of energy or that “Jesus” will soon return & he will fix everything so don’t worry. As for 4% of the land being able to feed 9 billion, I would like to know what their taking to believe that?
It’s been a great ride but all good things come to an end & I hope that we won’t lose our arts, music, knowledge & libraries of books during the collapse.
When Egypt collapsed, the museums were robbed & many treasures were lost, same thing happened after we attacked Iraq, the museums & archeological sites were robbed.
How much we have lost of the past when civilizations collapsed or were overrun by “barbarians”? Far more than we can ever know.
How much will be lost in the next collapse? Will the survivors wonder who built those gargantuan cities & what lived in them? The “gods”?
Can a complex high tech society – like that of the US – afford a relatively rapid (5 to 10 years) significant energy demand reduction before it collapses?
In any case, countries having a significant level of high EROEI domestic energy supplies will likely last longer than the others unless their high EROEI energy reserves are “somehow” confiscated by others.
Energy wars are almost inevitable… unless a “miracle” solution in the form of a new plentiful high EROEI energy source – such as aneutronic controlled thermonuclear fission – pops-up very rapidly.
“Energy wars are almost inevitable…” Not real sure how that works, or why. Talk about scorpions in a bottle! Why not just escalate to full TN strike in the first 15 minutes? At least you’d have a better likelihood of dimiishing the ‘bad guys’ retaliatory capabilities. And all the people on this site who incessantly complain about over population would have to find something else to complain about… But then if you can tell me how ‘that energy war’ or ‘those energy wars’ develop and get going, then I’d have to consider your remarks seriously.
Resource wars can take many forms…
But the ones that are most likely will involve a nuclear power with one that is not but has significant high EROEI fossil fuel reserves that the other wants.
The first step will be an “offer that cannot be refused” for vital strategic energy resources.
Think about the terms of the “Carter Doctrine” and about what is currently happening with the Sengaku Islands and in the South China Sea.
@ John Drake re ‘Carter Doctrine’, Senkaku/Diaoyu and South China Sea.
Sir, the kabuki dance currently on center stage has been rehearsed innumerable time with little variation in outcome. One fun aspect of this medium is the interplay between actors and audiences, who occasionally become conflated and appear to be aiming their weapons directly at their own most vulnerable spots, all in the interests of stimulating their fans.
Transferring application of the Carter Doctrine to ECS / SCS is a little tricky also, as the situations are incomparable. I would propose that Carter Doctrine was instituted for domestic more than international purposes: he wasn’t exactly running high on the average voter’s ‘strength index’.
The issue is financial. Many of the high EROEI reserves will end up staying in the ground. People have gotten too much confidence that high EROEI tells them something. It tells them a small amount about how much energy of mixed types is needed to extract certain types of resources. It doesn’t tell you much else. Wood that can be cut down with an ax is a high EROEI resource that will undoubtedly be used, leading to deforestation. Other high EROEI resources will still require too much of a long distance supply chain, and will be as useless as low EROEI resources.
I don’t think we have five to ten years to do anything. Demand reduction usually looks like loss of jobs. It doesn’t really help anyone. Demand reduction through higher mileage vehicles won’t happen–the new cars are too expensive and too slow to feed into the system.
Gail,
Thank you for your fantastic insights and willingness to (at no small effort)
share them with us. I check daily to see if you have a new post. I also admire the way you support your positions when questioned.
TGN
You are welcome. I learn from the commenters–if nothing else, what points I didn’t make well.
Dear Gail and All
I recommend that everyone find an hour to listen to Geoff Lawton talk about permaculture.
http://www.permaculturevoices.com/permaculture/permaculture-voices-podcast-031-geoff-lawton-talks-permaculture-the-past-the-future-and-the-land/
In this Q and A, Geoff covers an awful lot of material. It will help if you are somewhat familiar with common permaculture ideas, but even if you know nothing you will learn a lot.
Just a few highlights:
1. The subdivision in Davis, CA, which was built 40 years ago, is probably the best example of a modern housing development. There are historic towns which are just as good, but the subdivision in Davis is excellent. (I posted the link to that several weeks ago).
2. Geoff emphasizes that ALL our needs can be met by living systems…not just food.
3. Geoff estimates, at the 55 minute point, that all the nutrition which is currently produced by industrial agriculture can be met using 4 percent of the land currently used by industrial agriculture. He emphasizes that there is a big difference between quantity of food and quantity of nutrition. Which leaves us with a lot of land to return to natural areas. This observation is similar to the position of Lenton and Watson in Revolutions That Made the Earth.
4. New permaculture people should be working on urban food systems (as opposed to homesteading, I suppose).
5. You will see that Geoff emphasizes ‘energy audits’ as one of the tools for evaluating designs.
Don Stewart
“Geoff estimates, at the 55 minute point, that all the nutrition which is currently produced by industrial agriculture can be met using 4 percent of the land currently used by industrial agriculture.” Absurd. I could go into more detail but it’s not worth my time or effort.
While I think that farmers like Joel Salatin have introduced innovative organic techniques that have increased yields dramatically I find it difficult to digest that comment re: 4% of the land…
4% sounds absurd but intensive growing where you plant things really tight by hand and have multiple yields during the same season can give a lot higher total yields per acer than industrial farming. However it requires A LOT more man hours.
Dear Robert
‘Four percent sounds absurd’.
It does sound absurd to the man on the street, who visualizes ‘amber waves of grain’ receding into the horizon. So I wish that the interviewer, Diago, had followed up with some questions about his statement. Diago would probably respond that clarifying questions could easily have extended the interview for another hour.
It may be instructive to think about why the clarifying questions would have led to so much more complexity. There are at least all of these interwoven issues that have to be answered in constructing models of food production for a changed world.
1. Is there plenty of energy available? Lenton and Watson think that we have plenty of solar PV and nuclear reactor energy available to us. Gail would say that we are probably going to be very short of energy in a matter of months, not decades. This blog contains more than enough opinions about that, already.
2. Will people be willing to change their behavior? Simon Fairlie’s detailed study of Britain’s ability to feed itself found that Britain can feed itself with well understood methods, but that it will be necessary to have more people working and living in rural areas. Yet, I read, that the prices of the houses in London give them more market value than all the other houses in Britain combined. This doesn’t sound very much like ‘reruralization’.
Geoff Lawton makes a distinction between ‘the nutrition people need’ and ‘food’. Diago didn’t ask him to elaborate, but we know from other comments that Geoff pays a lot of attention to mineral content of food. Those amber waves of grain mostly go into the production of junk food or confined animal food. Geoff probably doesn’t consider those as satisfying ‘nutritional needs’. Will people give up junk food and switch to leafy greens and grass fed cows?
3. How much can gardens and garden farms actually produce (as opposed to large scale farms)? Geoff is a proponent of gardens (‘We can solve all the world’s problems in a garden’), while Diago thinks that perhaps the Restoration Agriculture model of Mark Shepard in Wisconsin is needed for larger farms. I will note that Shepard is interested in selling the raw ingredients that go into the industrial food system. So there is some link back to the issue of junk food.
There is also a pretty sharp distinction between nutrient density and calorie density. Our health depends on eating nutrient dense foods, such as leafy greens. But, since we diverged from the chimps, we can no longer get enough calories without eating some calorie dense foods. Potatoes are a calorie dense food which is well adapted to gardening, but it has a very high sugar content and the whole question of diabetes enters the picture. If we look around at other calorie dense foods, we find grazed animals and grain fields. Neither of these are very workable in a backyard garden. Although things such as rabbits eating the kitchen waste are useful.
Backyard gardening, rabbit recycling, small garden farms, getting rid of junk food, putting food by….these are all behavior changes. And note Geoff comments about trying to teach permaculture to people who don’t have even a basic understanding of the life cycle of a mosquito.
3. Lenton and Watson cite studies showing that if we restrict agriculture to the most fertile land, but make abundant nutrients available in that soil, we can increase production to feed additional billions of people while returning more land to the wild. But, remember, they are assuming that there is plenty of energy available to transport the food from the fertile land to the teeming cities. Where is Geoff on this question. First, I would note that Geoff is a big proponent of gardening around our houses. He thinks every apartment dweller should be growing something in a pot, and a typical suburban yard can grow a huge amount of food…and he has the videos to demonstrate. My guess is that he considers what the home gardeners can do as ‘free’…not counted in his 4 percent number. The amount of land in the world today which is used for vegetable style agriculture is tiny…around 4 percent, I think. So if we think of changing our diet from amber waves of grain to gardens, with animals being used as integral parts of the garden or garden farm, and intensive gardening of all available urban and suburban spaces, then we could come out around 4 percent. We have to remember that vast sections of the world are used by very low production industrial methods.
4. What is required to increase the productivity of the land we choose to farm or garden? Geoff will start off with water. We have to manage the water better…and he has a bunch of tools in his kit bag. Some of those tools use fossil fuels and bulldozers. Darren Doherty, another Australian, is an advocate of grazing and very light weight industrial products such as electric fences and plastic tubing for water to restore the fertility of the land. More traditional urban methods such as John Jeavons or Square Foot Gardening have their own characteristics and dependencies. I expect Geoff would say that it is inexcusable for humanity to indulge in the gross excess we currently engage in and fail to take care of the productivity of the land. Which loops us back around to the question of whether people will change their behavior.
Lenton and Watson would emphasize recycling. They will point to the enormous efficiency of Mother Nature’s Recycling Machine and say that the human ‘once through and throw away’ culture has to go. We are running out of the raw materials. They will cite the previous few billion years of history of Life on Earth…a new innovation resulted in explosive growth for some organism which produced pollution (because no other organism used the waste) which led to a crisis. In each case, Mother Nature solved the problem by evolving creatures who used the waste. But we humans have innovated so rapidly that Mother Nature has not been able to create critters that use our waste. So we need to stop using fossil fuels to stop the atmospheric pollution and we need to use biological recycling (such as permaculture employs) because Mother Nature does it so well. Lenton and Watson also assume there is plenty of energy. Every historical revolution involved a big increase in energy usage coupled with, eventually, recycling of waste.
I will close here. There is a lot more that could be discussed. I hope that I have given you some sense that Geoff’s statement about ‘4 percent’ opens up a wide array of questions.
Don Stewart
I agree with the comment above that producing high yields organically will require a lot more man hours — still not sure on the 4% issue though — but when the SHTF there will be a lot of people without anything to do because there will be no jobs — so perhaps they will shift to organic farming doing grunt labour on small scale farms or plots of land — just to feed themselves and their families.
I don’t see the intensive labour need on organic farms to be an issue at all.
The ‘new normal?’
Note – Jim Rogers has been saying since 2008 on the major financial channels that people should learn how to farm — off course the presenters all chuckle with that thinking he’s kidding….
He ain’t kidding.
Paul
If you listen to Geoff Lawton’s video, you will hear him say that converting a conventional farm to an organic farm does not make it ‘sustainable’. There was no follow up by the interviewer, but I will hazard a guess about what Geoff was saying.
Hunting and gathering in the simplest sense don’t need much in the way of design. More advanced hunting and gathering, such as was practiced by the Aborigines in Australia and many Native Americans, to my knowledge, used some design. The Aborigines used fire very deliberately and skillfully. The Native Americans in the tropics used selection as well as transplanting. That is, they eliminated plants they didn’t want and encouraged plants they did want. Whether you call what they did farming or hunting and gathering is just a matter of taste and definition.
When you get into what we commonly call ‘farming’, it takes design to ensure that the land regains lost fertility and maintains the new fertility at a high level indefinitely. There are a number of different design schools, one of which is permaculture, which is what Geoff practices.
The narrow definition of ‘organic’ simply means that one complies with certain ‘thou shalt nots’,..it doesn’t require any positive actions to maintain fertility. As originally conceived by Sir Albert Howard, ‘organic’ included The Law of Return, which required that any nutrient removed from the soil must be returned to the soil. That requirement is in the spirit of modern permaculture and other biological farming systems.
In short, maintaining the fertility of a piece of land, keeping it well hydrated from rainfall, and providing a synergistic mix of plants and fungi and bacteria and animals involves some rather skillful design. Unskilled labor really doesn’t get one very far in terms of sustainability or regeneration. So it’s best to start learning now if one sees it in their future.
Don Stewart
Dear Robert Thoglund
Here is another little tidbit that is probably related to Geoff Lawton’s distinction between ‘nutrition’ and ‘food’. The title of an upcoming lecture at North Carolina State:
Dr. Salvador’s Lecture, “Fooling the Nine Billion:Why We Need Good Food, Not More Food, and the Role of Land Grant Universities” will last approximately an hour and be followed by a question and answer session
Don Stewart
Perhaps. But you also have to replace the lost nutrients pretty regularly, or you lose fertility.
Yes, thats why people probably need to grow and consume their own food. So that they can compost all kitchen waste and their own feces and put it back into the system.
Thanks!
Gail, thanks for yet another great synthesis. Figures 1 and 3 are truly impressive, are they based on actual data or on something like a 10% growth a year in cost per unit for oil (and waste for metal ore) ?
In any case they truly represent the core of the “issue” (or more simply the situation).
As to figure 9, you see the break point in 2015 ? And what kind of degrowth function (or percentage per year) did you use ?
Best,
yves
Figure 1 is hyperbolic growth. It is the 1/x function, as it approaches as limit. It is closely related to the reciprocal of EROEI.
For Figure 3, I simply took ore concentrations of .200, .195, .190, and so forth, and calculated how much total ore I would need to get 100 units of metal. I then split the ore into the waste and the metal portion.
Thanks a for the precisions.
(yes, get it for figure 1)
Italy is wasting away month after month http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026533/italy-is-wasting-away-month-by-month/
Something has to break here — which will be the first domino to fall? Spain – Italy – France – China????
Japan.
“Something has to break here — which will be the first domino to fall?”
The US will lead the others into carnage (because the USD is the reserve currency) via rising interest rates. That’s when the dominos begin colliding and falling around the world. The question should be; how long can the US keep interest rates down?
Paul,
Some reports from Greece are very negative; I’m not sure if a domino metaphor is the most accurate in these conditions. But if not, what is? Fracture? As in EU splitting into two or three groups? With some singles lining the walls hoping someone will ask them to dance… Will trade suffer? Employment? What to do about all the ‘excess’ foreign migrants from less popular origins? To recover, Europe needs another 24 months of easy growth and continued good news.
In Asia, will China increase its vituperation against ‘imperialist aggressors’ (Japan and USA) or merely maintain the current tempo to keep the population focused on what the party wants them to be focused on (and it’s not their economic / social / environmental conditions). But will Beijing push that to the brink of hostilities or step back?
Can Russia contribute anything that Sicilian mafia couldn’t?
The Middle East? Not much change is expected for 12 months, after which the Syrian situation could begin to unwind since Assad’s Alewite coalition will have declined in numbers sufficiently to end his rule. Iran might pop back. Nothing but continuing frictions.
Africa? Some local progress will probably continue — Angola, Congo, Tanzania. But problems elsewhere, to varying degrees.
Latin America? Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela are hurting worst, but even Mexico has been struck by declining global demand, despite many new jobs / factories shipped over from China… BTW, Mexico’s GDP per capita PPP is almost three times that of China,
($13,000 vs. $4,500), and now China’s wages are climbing higher than elsewhere…
I am a physician who plans to get out of medicine and let me offer a slightly different opinion.
It’s one thing to talk about draining abscesses and setting bones. It’s another thing altogether to talk about death. You see, that can’t be avoided in the end, right? Every last person who has benefited from modern industrial medicine still has to go from something or the other. It’s not going to be pleasant.
If you plan on becoming a nurse or physician, you are basically agreeing, “I want to be around the poor, angry, old, diseased and dying people during the collapse of industrial civilization.” And as it stands right now, our society has no way of transitioning down in medicine, of accepting limited care for most and hospice care for the dying. It’s not accepted. The basic idea is that everybody deserves socialized yet Ferrari level care and an endless array of dubious drugs and procedures in an attempt to reach perfect outcomes on patients who are in terrible shape as it is.
The people in healthcare now, they are not happy, but they accept it because they need jobs. It won’t get better, it will only get worse.
Broadly speaking, I think agriculture, mining, production of basic commodities, as well as low level service and maintenance jobs might tread water. I don’t know for sure because I’m not in those fields but that’s my feeling.
Anything “advanced” like healthcare, finance, IT, or frivolities like modern entertainment, is going to suffer.
Paul:
I have no fear of a fast collapse. This is something that exists only in the minds of those corrupted by the Hollywood idea of a “happy ending” for everybody in which we all live forever and become billionaires.
So when people realize this isn’t true, they then think the sky is falling, run for the hills!
Even during the good times, you are born into the world, play a part, have a kid or two, compete a litte bit, and die. Everybody faces the same fate.
I agree with what you’re saying. But I don’t understand fatalism. I would rather die doing something, than nothing. I would like to find a skilled physician, and I would learn the important things. But I agree, it’s probably not a good thing to study professionally now. You probably know more than me, but it would be a very different kind of medicine with extremely scarce drugs, equipment, hospitals/clinics and anti-biotics.
I see a lot of grim acceptance on these message boards. And yes, we will all die, and it may happen soon, but I still want to live. It’s not enough to survive, to live we need a reason. Much good can eventually come from this situation. If we are lucky, in 100 years, we may actually have a trully environmentally and more natural way of life.
This generation (and past ones) doesn’t care about future generations. But we should, and we should do it for them.
Peter S wrote:
“If we are lucky, in 100 years, we may actually have a trully environmentally and more natural way of life”
We must be careful for what we wish for. I agree with Dolph (above), who suggests that we have all been immersed in the Hollywood “happy endings” for so long, that these have insidiously influenced our expectations. As a result, many people expect some “reset” which will produce a future life with all the present “good stuff” and none of the “bad stuff”.
The future “more natural way of life” is as follows (as I have written elsewhere on this website):
Dilworth (“Too Smart for our Own Good” pg 136) notes that high childhood mortality rates on the order of 60% have long been “normal” for humans and most other animals. This is during the childhood years alone.
Velasquez-Manoff (“An Epidemic of Absence”) reports what appears to be a “natural” infant mortality of 25% for the first year of life, and another 5% until puberty (i.e. 30% total, again for the childhood years alone).
In short, the “natural way” is a very high childhood mortality, and an average total lifespan closer to what it was in the year 1900. In that year, at a time of less industrialized medicine, and a “more natural” way of life , this was the average total American lifespan:
46 years of age
Accepting the TRULY “natural way” means a big change in expectations.
Maybe a 60% mortality rate is a more natural way of life. I never said anything about a Hollywood fantasy. I’m well aware what life was like in 1900 – and we’ll be very lucky to have that if that ever happens. Perhaps the native american Indian lifestyle may be a better approximation. That has also been hopelessly idealized (after first being demonized) by Hollywood. But read how they really lived – not Pocahontas or even Dances With Wolves. That is about the level of civilization we could be heading too.
And “be careful what you wish for”? There’s no wishing involved. Wishing is closing your eyes and hoping something will happen. If you’re ready to give up just because the going got (very) tough, then you’re just a product of this civilization – this is the civilization of only doing something when it’s easy.
“Accepting the TRULY “natural way” means a big change in expectations.”
I have to say, that’s very patronizing, since you have no idea what my expectations are. You took one word “natural”, and assumed you knew what I was thinking.
You have no idea what I’m thinking, but I have a good idea what you are thinking now. We don’t just need to survive, we need to work towards something. And if you want to “accept” (quit), then that’s your choice. Not mine. I’d rather die doing something, than “accept” and do nothing. Your idea is again just another idea of “TRULY natural”, a reactionary view against the Hollywood image. That is just as fictional as Hollywood.
To quote Hobbes on life… expect “”solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”
We’ve been lucky. Most of the world has always been in poverty. For them life was always much worse than that. It’s thanks to oil that us lucky few (even when we complain about bad work, a mean boss, a mother-in-law who doesn’t like us) have lived better than kings from 100 years ago.
I know what to expect, but that doesn’t mean I accept. Life is the journey more than the destination, and that includes what you fight for. Whether that is to just survive or work towards something better. It’s about trying.
@Peter Very insightful.
My wife says why bother — if it’s going to be as bad as we predict we can just split a bottle of sleeping pills.
But I say — when the time comes instincts will kick in and you will want to live — and you will be happy that we did what we could to live another day or week or year.
If it’s as bad as some people here think it will be, I think many people will take the “pills”. How many people do you know who would come through when the going gets really tough, just for food and water. And I’m putting that mildly. This is not a happy time at all.
I can’t even find anybody remotely aware of how “the system” works and capable of grasping the limits we are running up against, or those that can entertain the possibility that we are running into limits simply do not want to discuss it. I guess what is merely “the way things are” to me is absolutely terrifying to others. I don’t think people generally want to acknowledge how utterly dependent their existence is on something that is essentially entirely out of their control, the actions of the collective. What will be the actions of the collective when we hit certain limits? That is the big unknown. That is what makes collapse so hard to prepare for.
Perhaps with so many unknowns it is not really productive to talk about worst case scenarios? It seems for most people the uncertainty only creates anxiety, nothing more.
I think the real problem is that we are going to run into a problem much larger than us all.
I am reminded of a metaphor someone used during the 2008 financial collapse “it was like an earthquake where you realize the are forces out there far more powerful than you right underneath your feet.”
To timl2k11
I recognize a lot what you’re saying. I have spoken with business studies students and economists, and they are completely clueless how money works, how the economic system works, and aren’t capable of recognizing our world’s limits. I have had similar reactions to you: either total denial (glassy-eyed and uncomfortable looks), or complete ignorance of how our economic and social system works.
I used to work in a library 10 years ago and I talked with a young mother, married with children, who kept repeating “you have to get on the property ladder.” When I told her (this was 5 years before the big housing crisis) that “what goes up, always comes down”, she first gave me a blank look, and when I pushed it she got angry with me. People can’t accept anything outside what they’ve been told their whole lives: everything will always improve, forever. They just refuse to even contemplate anything different.
I had an argument with a business studies student at university years ago, he swore blind that high oil prices will just make it more economical to get the more expensive stuff. Essentially, they believe that the earth is a perpetual motion machine, and we could spend millions of dollars on a barrel of oil, and have the exact same lifestyle. Or fly jets with a solar power economy. (So I suppose that when we’re paying a million dollars a barrel, we’ll be sucking oil right out of the air! And still have the iPhone 26 or whatever) Economics seems to basically deny that there is a limit on any natural resource or that you have to constantly spend more energy to get an always constant amount of energy back, “market forces” will save us (completely unregulated, as if economics was a natural law of nature) and human ingenuity will find a way out. Why? Just because, that’s why.
It’s petty to say “I told you so”, but these people are toying with the lives of billions through their actions. This is shaking me up almost as much as the crisis that’s coming.
Peter: “I had an argument with a business studies student at university years ago, he swore blind that high oil prices will just make it more economical to get the more expensive stuff.”
I correspond from time to time with a few of the major financial bloggers and I got the exact same response…
“Higher prices are good thing because it encourages more exploration”
When I point out that high priced oil has always correlate with low growth/recession they have no response.
Stupid smart people?
Paul
I have always thought that “religion” is not only the belief in a blatantly named “god”, but it really covers the unquestioning belief in anything that has a greater, unknowable power. In this sense economics could be a religion, since so many economists belief that it “just is” and that economics will save us all.
Or yes just stupid smart people. Can’t see the woods for the trees, and only accept what they’re taught, and they’re taught not to question, just to think inside the box they’re given and repeat and cite arguments that other economists have written.
Without anesthetics and antibiotics there will be no meaningful surgery. So forget surgery. It will be more nurse level clean and sew up a cut, drain an infection. As for the dying that will be the problem of the family not the doctor. Don’t forget dentistry and eyeglasses, these may be lower tech and last longer. But mostly start farming.
If you can make antibiotics low tech you might corner the market and have a fairly wide market base.
Or figure out how to extract and concentrate Vitamin C, which the Linus Pauling Institute still claims is far superior to any/all antibiotics in both curing the problem and avoiding bad reactions and gradual ineffectiveness. Big Med & Big Pharma much prefer antibiotics for one very basic financial reason: it allows MDs to pay off their student loans…
We might not have to wait for collapse to see what life is like without antibiotics. There are a growing number of bacterial strains resistant to ALL forms of antibiotics and they can transfer this resistance to other strains (species?) of bacteria. Frontline documents the ongoing problem here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/
Well said – I too have no fear of a fast collapse — if I don’t survive this then so be it — better to go down this way than withering away drooling in a suburbic stupor watching re-runs of American Idol.
One of my favourite lines ‘Everyone wants to live like a rock star – they have realized that that is not possible — and they are very pissed’ I think that was Matt Taibi…
I’d add ‘and they are taking a cocktail of prozac and xanax to deal with the disappointment’
Watch the documentary called “We’ve Got the Power”. Its on YouTube.
The movie is not there, but the trailer is. What I saw is a lot of people who don’t understand the scale of the problem. For example, there was a segment on using biofuels created by algae. It took plankton over 100 million years to create the oil that we’ve used up in 100 years. One quote from the trailer is that “more light falls on the earth in one day than our entire planet can use in a year.” So somehow we simply have to figure out a way to convert 1/365th of ALL the energy that falls on the planet into useful energy 24/7. Easy peasy!
They are actually working on converting oil to algae.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/12/23/green-oil-scientists-turn-algae-into-petroleum-in-30-minutes/
I don’t know the probability of this coming to market – and in large enough quantity – to alter where we’re all heading. Because back in 2009 I read other reports (it mentions this in this article) that they had developed another method to turn oil into algae. But then it all went quiet. This was because the original scientist couldn’t find the right algae to make it economical. This time they’re saying they’ve cracked it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they found another stumbling block before they can make it economical. Let’s see what happens.
I also wonder about the focus of todays powers, governments, scientists and companies. If peak oil or “the limits of growth” are not recognized as the originating cause of our problems, I don’t think they are focusing their efforts on these. They will focus on fighting for resources, or fixing up the economy to keep it chugging along. And so innovations like these will not receive the all the attention or funding they need.
A really good documentary on the machinations of the Federal Reserve bank is Money for Nothing. It costs a bit ($20) to download, though.
http://moneyfornothingthemovie.org
I second that. My takeaway from this was that this crisis started well before 2008 – and that the only ‘solution’ put forward is more of the same – more debt, more easy money, more QE, more ZIRP…. it’s been a progression towards more desperate policies year after year.
If I recall it did not delve into the cause of all of this — the end of cheap oil
“If I recall it did not delve into the cause of all of this — the end of cheap oil” This is true, but I gave it some leeway their as part of a larger cultural bind spot.
It seems to me that it does give a good idea of how we are squandering all our natural resources, using them to build what is basically a huge pyramid scheme.
Most people on this blog seem to believe that there is an imminent collapse that will result in a massive die-off of people — global famine — chaos — violence — basically a dystopian world.
I wonder do you feel any anxiety/depression because of what you believe to be imminent?
Personally I sleep pretty well at night — although over Christmas I was on holiday in the UK and read an article in the FT.com (I posted it on an early topic) that basically said we are starting to hit the wall on oil (basically what the Guardian article above states).
It was then that I realized that I was not having a bad dream that I might wake up from and all would be well — I realized that there were no longer any gray areas here — this is very real — and that there would be no Hollywood movie ending.
I had a difficult time getting to sleep that night – but since then I have reconciled that and am using the time remaining to accelerate plans – I plowed up a big chunk of our expensive landscaping here in Bali and am getting it ready for crops (and I am still regretting landscaping at all – I should have put the whole thing to crops from day one!!!) – I am also piling boxes of canned food (fish and meat) into our storage + massive sacks of rice, pasta and beans — I am ordering a coupe of more large LPG tanks so we can keep our water bore going during dry periods. I also ordered some solar gear – nothing extravagant — mainly energy to power some solar flashlights and LED…
Of course all short term solutions but hopefully they are a bridge to a self-sustaining situation as we try to adapt (if we survive).
I wonder how others have experienced anxiety/depression — and how you are dealing with it.
(Of course the masses need to drop a Xanax if the pizza man is 5 minutes late so let’s leave them out of this discussion 🙂 )
One other question: If you had inside knowledge that the Central Banks were going to throw in the towel in say 3 months from now — that they were going to announce martial law… that the reality going forward from that point would not resemble life as we know it…. effectively total economic collapse was to start as of that announcement.
What would you do between now and then?
How am I dealing with it?
I have very few resources (but at least, no debt, and nothing to tie me to anywhere) and money, and I don’t belong to any kind of meaningful community. I first read about peak oil in 2004, by chance, on a page in a magazine. I checked out lifeaftertheoilcrash website, and more and more I couldn’t avoid it. I actually got very shaken up, but back then nobody would listen (except my dad, although he generally takes it as a sign of the “End Times” and would start talking about God, the Devil etc. – not practical at all).
A few years ago I assumed that with the “oil boom” from fracking and shale oil that we had a few more decades. But a few months ago I have discovered again, that we probably only have years. I’m pretty shook up, to put it mildly. I can’t really write what I’m feeling. Especially because I go on the metro every morning, and I see the last days of “the good times”, but nobody else does. I have told a few more people, but mostly I get blank looks, and then complete denial (without even bothering to read the news): “I think it will happen after I’m dead,” “I’m going to buy an ethical diamond for my engagement” (seriously, she said that), “oh that will just make expensive oil economical”, “I’ll live on the farm outside the city… if that ever happens”, “I prefer not to think about it”. It’s depressing, and it’s making me cold inside. I just see a society that is basically killing itself, knows it, and doesn’t care. All for an iphone (in fairness, we have all contributed to this).
I’m working on getting to Canada next year, if the world holds itself together that long. I hope that I have a few years, to at least find a community to live in, and learn some useful skills. I don’t understand fatalist people. Maybe a lot of people will die, but I’d rather die doing something. I have no intention of just accepting it. We know the problem, but we have no idea how it’s going to play out. It could be slow or fast.
A lot of overlaps with my experience — the fracking thing almost got me thinking much ado about nothing — but of course never get sucked in by the MSM….
Doing nothing is not an option — I am hoping to be able to knock together a small log cabin on some remote ag property we bought in BC Canada last year and get a proper set up before this falls apart — if we can get that done we’ll shift there — we live in Bali now and are doing what we can here — but we are foreigners and I am not sure how welcome we will be….
As long as I have my books and my wife 🙂 I can live anywhere — I have in fact just bought a solar package and will get a kindle soon — a friend just gave me 4000 classics in mobi format — so I figure I am set!
I was thinking that too. It probably seems strange, but what I would miss most of all would be books and music. Surviving is one thing, but a sense of culture and learning would be very important. I don’t know how long a Kindle would last.
Guys, its good to build resilience since the future is unknown. But don’t start mourning yet. We have no idea what is going to happen, things may play out very different from what we believe.
roberthoglund
That’s true. Things will probably be very different from what we imagine or secretly hope. I’m trying not to mourn!
I think a Kindle battery should do a few thousand charging cycles — and because a charge lasts for some weeks it should last for quite a few years using a solar charger. I’ll likely buy two + I have accumulated a few hundred hard copy books.
I’d definitely invest in a couple of tablets to read and keep myself occupied. Also remember we will need to learn a lot of new skills. So I should recommend books on practical things like carpentry, hunting, fishing, building, medicine (first aid, emergency stuff), fires, cooking etc.
If you have any suggestions on good books like those, I’d really appreciate a list.
Music was around long before electricity. Books were around long before Kindles. People who are concerned about power supply keep their important reference books in paper format, rather than Kindle.
Fortunately we can always make our own music.
I’m more worried about losing the music that we have already. Books need paper, need printers, needs infrastructure. If this does get bad, it’ll be a long time until we’re ready to make those things. Pianos and guitars will be very low on the list of things people need to survive. They would probably burn them for fuel.
I’ve come across peak oil a year and a half ago reading Chronicle on the Beginning of the End of Oil, a french blog. I was so impressed I researched everywhere in the net and started a blog to share the findings (I rather think of me as an intellectual but was doing nothing of this sort for some years, so it was quite good for me). I’m good writing in spanish and use a lot of irony to shock the readers, so family and friends are becoming quite aware of the situation. Denial is disappearing and being mostly replaced by desperation, for the moment. I have also published a short article in the town’s magazine, analyzing a specific event (last year’s national elections) under the light of PO. It was a success, a lot of people got shocked and some of them started thinking.
But a couple of months ago I realized the shit will hit the fan pretty soon and I’m now anxious and obsessed, concentrated is a nicest word. I will not slow down until being sure my son will have some kind of future (he is 4), moving to a farm and/or changing national policies. I was already in politics for a couple of years and some people believe I could be the next town major (population 10k), but I see it’s not enough at all (even if other candidates would never beat me in a debate, what can do a major under such a global skid?). So I’m working now to reach national leaders and work on this at that level, which I expect will happen soon (have already appointed a meeting with a provincial representative next week). Hope I will have some relax after that.
I’d be interested to know what comes of your meeting. I’m surprised people have listened and taken notice. In my experience (having lived in the UK, and now I live in Madrid), people will give you glassy eyed looks, then complete denial. If you push them, they get angry.
Peter S
The modern consumer lifestyle has come late to Spain, after years of poverty, regressive dictatorship, and 3rd-rate status within Europe. Spain has been on the skids since 1640.
The Spanish are in many ways a primitive (and I’m not using that pejoratively, I like and admire many aspects of ‘primitivism’) people, only newly admitted to the party which the rest of us have been enjoying since the 1940’s.
Most will not wish to listen to bad news for that reason.
You will observe a real terror, in press articles and comments, of a return to the old, cruel, days among ordinary Spaniards, and rightly so.
The recent past meant a cruel landlord class, a hypocritical Church, semi-starvation, hard labour, typhus and TB for a great many. My family now extremely left-wing most of them, such irony) were landlords for centuries in nice manor houses, many of the labourers lived in caves or hovels up to the 1960’s when Franco decided that was bad for tourism (except for picturesque gipsies!): that is what they fear………..
I should say, however, that I think there is a cooperative subculture here. “Okupa” they are called, from “occupying” buildings after the financial crisis. I can’t say how big they are as I don’t have direct connections with them, I mostly give English classes to working professionals (middle and upper class). But that gives me a little hope for Spain.
I know a little about Spanish economic history, they were a relatively poor nation until about 20-30 years ago. The financial crisis has hit them hard, and they are only just coping (it’s very precarious though). Again, I live in a good area and only meet lucky people, so I don’t see much of the worst side.
Another reason to take an opportunity to leave Spain if I have the chance. I don’t want to be selfish, but I have to be practical. I don’t think only Spain will be in trouble soon. The UK is also fast turning into a two-tier society.
You clearly have a skill that I do not have — the usual reaction when I bring this up is ‘blank stares’ (same as Peter S) — actually I think I am quickly getting a reputation as a Chicken Little in my circles haha — too bad nobody will be around to listen to me say I told you so…..
Thanks for writing. I really am more in the “Limits to Growth” camp than the “Peak Oil,” camp but the difference is mostly in terms of what the oil limits do–do oil limits affect the financial system and governments, or so oil limits just mean that production goes “up and down” by itself, without much connection to the economy.It is a lot easier to mitigate, if oil production just goes up and down by itself. Then we can assume that everything will be fine, all we need to do is figure out how to use a little less oil, or substitute electricity. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is the problem we are facing. If the problem is that the financial system and governments break, then we have big problems.
I’m in your camp, Gail. The dollar is the basis of a ponzi scheme that requires ever increasing supplies of oil to keep growing, and once that stops, or even slows too much, the dollar breaks. We’re watching the dollar break in slow motion right now. Break the dollar, and all of a sudden, the US has to rely a lot more on the oil that it pulls from its own soil. Given that an enormous amount of our oil goes to centralized food production, processing and shipping, this spells out a recipe for catostrophic failure that will take the government and the financial industry with it. They have signed their own death warrants by pushing for further centralization when decentralization is what is needed.
There is not enough knowledge about self sufficiency in our population for this to end well.
It is a travesty that instead of working towards a post oil economy, we’ve been trying to maintain the status quo. This will leave most people unprepared for what is coming both mentally to cope with the horrors that await and in their skillsets to physically cope.
Keep your powder dry, your compost hot, your crop genetics diverse and know how to get water should the power go down. Water is especially important and especially overlooked by many.
You could have a heart attack tomorrow, or be run over by a truck in three months. If you were a hunter-gatherer, you could be eaten by a bear practically any day. How are our current new risks all that different? We never know how long we will live–we just think we do.
Hey, Obama is sincere he will decree higher wages? Must be careful not to start hyperinflation, because that would mean shifting some money from the banks into the street.
I doubt his sincerity, or lack thereof, matters. It will never happen with Republicans controlling the House.
Christian, you’re right. My goodness, just think of how many trillions will be needed just to raise the minimum wage by a buck fifteen…
How many federal contractors pay their employees less than $10.10? I think they vendor out those jobs. I did not hear the president say that the employees of vendors of federal contractors will get $10.10. Smoke and mirrors.
Why is the Fed Tapering?
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/01/30/fed-tapering/
Thanks–the Fed Tapering article is very interesting. It may be that the economy is now getting pushed in several directions simultaneously, and potential loss of the dollar’s reserve currency status is the big concern. It is hard to see how that raising interest rates would help anything.
I wonder what scares the FED more deflation or inflation? I know Bernanke has always said he will never allow a 1930’s deflationary depression. So in that type thinking when we get to that stage they will be flooding the cash out as a last chance to save the world system. All the other countries will be running to invest here as safety measures and fear roils. I am not saying it is a great idea just that is what I fear they will do….
I’m still trying to figure out how deflation=evil, inflation=good. In his seminal work Bernanke referred to deflation as “it” as if it were the plague of all mankind. I know that it hurts borrowers, but it also encourages saving, reduces demand, and that seems like the sort of medicine we need. Painful but necessary, unless, I guess, if “it” causes collapse.
In a world where the government and businesses are huge debtors, the government and businesses need inflation in order to push the burden of the debt off to the holders of the debt. In an era of deflation, the burden moves the other way. I expect that much of the past burden of debt has moved to holders of debt through inflation.
The FED’s money printing to date hasn’t really gotten to the consumer. More, it has tended to inflate stock and real estate markets. Also, it has helped keep oil price from falling.
I am not convinced the FED can really prevent either a deflationary depression of run-away inflation. I expect they are now more concerned about deflation.
Haven’t you folks heard? America is overflowing with cheap energy!
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000236030
(If you follow OFW only watch if you are a masochist, also keep a vomit bucket nearby!)
CNBs —- I cringe even looking at the link — we could solve the world’s problems if only we could give Cramer and Kudlow unlimited coke — and harness the hot air blasts that spew from their blow holes
It’s OK, this video only features Steve… (cough) Steve…(cough, cough) Forbes! (vomits violently)
Doctors today aren’t worth their weight without all the medical devices and drugs! They have basically become algorithms….what would they do without labs!
Danny wrote:
“Doctors today aren’t worth their weight without all the medical devices and drugs”
Whether there is some overwhelming permanent global meltdown, or just a gradual lowering of standard of living to where it was 75 or 100 years ago, there will be little use for heart transplants, MRI machines, or facelifts.
There will be a lot of lacerations to be sutured, babies to be delivered, and abscesses to be incised & drained (i.e. “I & D”). A reasonably-resourceful RN who has been paying attention can do this stuff, once the formal licensure/regulatory system becomes irrelevant. I should caution however, that these tasks are presently NOT allowed to be performed by standard RN’s & LPN’s.
A ER doctor, nurse or a paramedic would be very useful people in the communities of the future…. but then anyone with extensive medical training would be.
Paul wrote:
“anyone with extensive medical training”
This raises an interesting problem. Once things “go south”, it will be difficult to verify the credentials of anybody who claims to have “extensive medical training”. Indeed, much of the established medical community itself might be so desperate that you have dermatologists trying to deliver babies for the first time in their life, X-Ray technicians saying they know how to sew up that facial laceration so it does not leave a big scar, EMT’s trying to “set” the very common Colle’s fracture of the wrist properly without benefit of X-ray or anesthesia.
I’m afraid there will be quite a bit of quackery.
All the more reason to get somebody in your family through Nursing School…
If I split my hand open with an axe chopping wood — beggars can’t be choosers — if someone says they have a med degree and can stitch me up — I’ll have no choice no?
You are right but over time the community learns Dr. X is good, Dr. Y is bad. If your Dr. does a bad enough job he may face fine, attack, exile, or worse. Doctors will soon learn honesty is the best policy. “I am an EMT, I am willing to take a crack at removing your appendix but I have never done it and you have a fair chance of dying the choice is yours.”
Yep. Modern doctors just take your symptoms, consult the internet and dispense prescriptions. Without all of that stuff, most doctors wouldn’t know what to do in a primitive health care setting. Surgery, however, is a skill and would certainly come in handy.
I actually completely agree with that. In my opinion, out of all the medical profession, a heart surgeon may be the most flexible and useful. But even his skill may be very limited when drugs, equipment, hospitals/clinics and antibiotics are in either short supply or non-existent. And we don’t have time (or money) to train to be one.
My father who is no longer alive learned to be physician about the time of World War II. He learned a lot of techniques modern doctors don’t learn, because they didn’t have all of the tests and medical devices back then. Until his death, he would be very disgusted with doctors who didn’t recognize symptoms that seemed obvious to him. All they seemed to be able to do was rely on devices and medical tests. My father also learned hypnosis, and used it both in sewing up patients after auto accidents and in delivering babies.
I can see those skills being in demand. And the level of specialization in our society, with almost each individual only having a very specific set of skills, only one part of a much larger production chain, with almost no use outside of that chain, does not bode well for general survival. With all due respect, I hope you are being pessimistic with your dates, because I would like a few more years to learn (and tell people).
That’s very interesting about your father, Gail. Many useful techniques of diagnosis and treatment have been set aside in the progress of the 20th century, with its emphasis on drug intervention (and very welcome antibiotics were, they have saved my life twice!).
I had gained the impression that hypnosis was actually a very important element in the skills of physicians in the Ancient world, the Greeks, Persians and Arabs, etc, but had no idea that it was used in the West so recently.
The famous musical piece ‘Bolero’ is in fact a variation on music that was, and probably is, employed in North Africa to treat illness.
The Tarantela dance of Southern Italy was (is?) also prescribed by doctors in the 17th and 18th centuries as a general therapeutic treatment, not just for snake bites but also melancholy.
For anyone who has tried them, the traditional dances of Spain ( the jota, the Basque auresku, above all) have very clear benefits as a good physical work-out and not just as entertainments. They clearly have an Arab origin, and hence probably a Persian descent.
This are things to ponder in a no-tech (and no gym) environment.
I am not sure that hypnosis was used widely very recently. I know that my father read widely, and ran across an ad for “Teach Yourself Hypnosis to Help in Medical Practice.” He learned it at home. The other doctors in the area weren’t using it. My father understood the dangers of anesthesia, also the need for it in emergency settings.
Hello all
I have a serious question, and I apologize in advance if this is not the appropriate place to post this (I don’t know any good peak oil / limits of growth forums, so I would be grateful to hear suggestions to those too).
I am British and 32 years old. I am aiming to emigrate to Canada (I think it will be relatively safer than Europe), and the only feasable way I have found is to study in higher education, which permits me to apply for a state-sponsored residency permit. I already have a UK university degree, and I’m finishing a master’s in advanced anthropology in a Madrid university. I’ve been teaching English in Spain for 5 years, and I’ve learned Spanish, and I’m learning French.
My question is: can someone recommend a good, useful master’s program (I’m open to other programs if relevant) in Canada? If I have to study to get a residency, I want to study something that gives me some useful skills after this all starts to go down. The best I can think of right now, is something like “sustainable environmental management”.
I know that higher education may all be totally useless in a few years or decades. But this is a requirement to permit me to move, so I want to find something that can help us.
If anyone has useful information, I would be very grateful. I would like to meet like-minded people, concerned about where this is going, but everyone I know in my life refuses to take it seriously.
Hi Peter:
I am probably not the best advisor to address your query, but am not abashed. If you believe that transition to 1800s level socio-economic conditions are inevitable in the coming 5 to 20 years, then the most potent question appears to focus on what educational field offers the best chance of survival and flourishing. Maybe I’m wrong, but anthropologists might not be in high demand or command high salaries in an agrarian society. Perhaps courses in engineering and agronomy might be better. Is there an academic fielld that includes study of permaculture, or the traditional agricultural methods, or ‘survival studies’? Mechanics, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering could also be useful.
Good luck.
Agree Chris – intensive permaculture – emergency health care (community colleges offer this) – engineering/carpentry/or other hands on skills —- that’s where I’d be looking
But pretty much all education – permaculture, farming, agriculture, even renewable energies (!) – are predicated on the failing system we have now.
Carpentry I would love to learn. And real architecture – how to build. But again, you wouldn’t find this in higher education, I think I would just as well learn it from a good book (and we may have to) and practice of course, which I cannot do yet (hopefully in Canada).
Yes most assume that tractors and other oil-fired gear will still be required.
But the concepts can be applied on a small scale without all this machinery.
All we have are manual tools on our property here in Bali — and we are able to operate a small scale farm using organic principals.
It is bloody HARD work — I spent some time in the field today preparing the beds and turning manure into the soil — and it was exhausting (and I am in not bad physical condition biking 20k per day). My hands are a mass of blisters and callouses.
I am spending more and more time on this hoping to get the old body used to the hard labour – will also volunteer at a local organic farming charity org — its tough – but its rewarding and doable – without the high tech machinery
You’re absolutely right. But I asked about higher education schemes that would be good to join. None of what you say exists in higher education schemes, and I said that.
To Paul and Peter:
One other set of considerations is climate. Portions of Canada are more difficult than others; the West Coast, perhaps Fraser Valley, is an accommodating climate. The plains and East Coast can be far less attractive for extended periods every years. Peter, you might also consider Mexico if you have a good handle on Spanish. Of course, Paul is in a touch of paradise almost year round…
I’m aiming for Canada because considering it may (of course, who can be sure) be a better place to survive this. Their economy has survived reasonably well, there is a lot of land, relatively low population, very few (or no) nuclear power plants, I like the culture, plus other things.
Mexico is getting dangerous (also possibly related to their own decreasing oil production), and I can’t imagine it being a safe place to be in the future.
We can turn 3 crops in Bali — but it’s not necessarily a safe place to be when the SHTF — we are foreigners here — and there are 4.2 million on this small island — the island is a nett importer of rice — farmers use industrial farming for rice — and rely on mechanized plows
There is already a food issue — take away the fertilizers and pesticides and production drops — perhaps not so good to be the foreigner squatting the land with the garden.
We are implementing a share plan with our staff and the village — we have expanded and give at least half to them – hopefully that is something they would continue after the SHTF.
I am aware that this may not be a Bali specific issue — if one is in one’s home country — and neighbours are hungry — and you have a garden…. they may overlook your tribal affiliation with them.
To Paul
I can’t predict the future, and what will happen when all this goes down is impossible to guess. Because we are just making educated guesses. But from what I can see, I think it would be better than other places. Europe has too many people and not enough land, there are very few places to hide. Some places in Canada are better than others, but it has a low population, lots of wood, wild animals, and a relatively good economy, plus oil. I’m under no illusions of the challenges of living off the grid – but it’s possible the whole world may have to do just that. And I would want to be somewhere that has communities, but not too many people fighting over dwindling food supplies and then limited natural resources (even things like wood).
I have no idea if anywhere would be safe, but I have to make the best plans with the options I have. I am sure everything will wind down, but we don’t know if that will happen slow or fast. If it’s a slow slope down to a more local, community based way of life, then we have a better chance.
Hi, thanks for the reply. No, anthropology will probably not be in high demand (although understanding societies and groups and individuals might be, which is what anthropology studies).
I actually discovered peak oil 10 years ago, just before doing my degree. I didn’t know how it would play out, and didn’t have many resources, so I went to university and kept up-to-date as best I could with energy news and peak oil websites. A few years ago I heard the “oil rush” news (propaganda?) and assumed that peak oil wasn’t dead, but was pushed back a few decades and my best bet was still getting a job and getting some resources together over the next few years. I studied anthropology just because it’s interesting and has broad applications.
If Gail is right (and I can’t fault her logic at all), then now we probably have years, not decades. Your suggestion of studying permaculture, traditional, “green” methods is what’s making me think “sustainable environmental management” is the closest thing I can find in higher education.
Regular agriculture, farming studies would only study current (failing) methods – all oil based. We live in very specialized times. Virtually nobody is a real farmer, hunter or maker anymore. Everyone has specialities, and higher education reflects this. If this scenario plays out, then virtually all higher education will be useless. I’m just trying to find the best I can, as I need to sign up to get a residency (even then it’s not certain). I’m getting very nervous about staying in Europe. We have too many people, and not enough land to support them. At least Canada is sparse, and the culture a little more connected to the wilderness (only a little, but anything will help). More land, much less population sounds better.
Peter S wrote:
“I know that higher education may all be totally useless in a few years or decades.”
Two words:
Health Care
It’s difficult to get into Medical School to become a physician, costs a lot of money, and is followed by a long, gruelling internship & residency. Forget about that. Depending upon your academic background, nursing programs can take as little as a year.
People will ALWAYS be getting sick, especially during times of widespread hardship. Becoming a professional nurse will always provide you with income. It will also be a very good skill so you can take care of your family. At present in New York State, the unemployment rate for nurses (RN’s) is almost zero. Even if most hospitals close, there will be an ENORMOUS need for “home health care”. The doctors won’t be making “house calls” because they will be afraid of getting robbed. It will be nurses.
There are also various other routes. Some places still employ the lesser-trained “LPN” or “LVN” nurse. This would require even less additional college for you. There is increasing use also for “Medical Technologists” which are sort of like the old “Nurse’s Aides” (females) or “Orderlies” (male). They also are extensively used at present as “Home Health Aides”, and make the equivalent of “house calls”.
Starting salary in NYC for RN’s fresh out of school is >$70 K/year. About half that for the more financially-depressed rural American areas. If the NYC RN wants to work in a “critical care” area (ICU, Recovery Room, maybe ER I’m not sure) there is a “differential” pay increase of about 10-15% (takes >1 year Med-Surg experience). If the RN wants to work the night shift, there is an additional 10-15% extra on top of everything else. IN NYC, there is often (maybe 10% of working days) mandatory overtime, at “time-and-a-half” for Union positions.
At least for NYC, this means the RN choice is a good one, “Medical Technologist” and other ancillary professions less so. Don’t know what it’s like in Canada or Britain, though. I do know that a) people in the Industrialized countries are getting older & sicker, and b) Once TSHTF, security professions, health professions (esp RN/LPN), and farmers will be at the top of the food chain.
We have 8 different health professionals in my family with combined professional experience of >150 years. We talk about this stuff all the time,
We tend to forget today, now that the medical system has become so over-privileged and bloated, the very low status that earlier societies accorded to most doctors and all nurses and that it was not a route to riches.
However, they always got by……and that is the question being asked.
Seems like the best bet to me if one can qualify quickly. A useful skill for one’s family and friends, and something to barter. Probably best run alongside other practical skills.
It’s very clear from the literature that ancient doctors were very skilled in disinfecting common wounds, this will clearly be in high demand, but eventually one might envisage medicine becoming a tribal art, folk medicine – like the Berbers who forgot most of it and ended up treating nearly everything with hot pokers!
A priest/pastor who has the Holy Book by heart, who has medical knowledge and carpentry or welding skills: not a bad survival profile……. The old surgeons cut hair as well: get some well -made scissors and basin?!
I have gipsy cousins in Spain who make a decent living from the Tarot and healing, combined with more regular occupations: as the crisis deepens, the Tarot is more and more in demand. The wife of an ambassador comes regularly. A sign worth heeding…….
Right on target, Xabier. And how long before minstrel teams begin to rove? Middle Age societies were not totally static and stupid.
Chris
Indeed, to get from the collapse of 400 AD to the flourishing culture and beautiful architecture of 1300, they were damn smart, resilient people with a sense of beauty.
Hello, thanks for the reply.
But I’m sure you know as well as I, that if we have years (if we’re lucky) until this plays out – we don’t have 10 years to study medicine. Plus, medicine is highly specialized. I doubt the nurse in the local clinic could perform much more than I in an emergency. And if this plays out, there will be an extreme shortage of equipment, drugs, anti-biotics etc. Also, it’s very difficult and expensive to train to be a doctor. I don’t think spending thousands of euros, dollars (I have very little, mostly thanks to my family, which was never practical or forward-thinking even in the good times) or effort on something which is very unlikely or immpossible to be used, is a good investment of our very limited time.
I do, however, really want to study first aid, nursing and perhaps emergency medical treatment. Again though, we don’t have time. We have years, if we’re lucky. I’m planning on reading lots of books this year. And with luck, in the future, we will have to learn from real doctors and surgeons. I can see a heart surgeon being very needed, but I do not have 10 years (or the money, or the opportunity) to do that.
Perhaps a community college course in emergency medicine?
If the main goal is to get into Canada when the SHTF then it would seem that all you need is a student visa that allows you to stay – when things fall apart I doubt anyone will be rounding up people with expired visas and sending them home….
We have no idea when the “SHTF”. So no, a student visa is not enough. But then again: I need to choose a subject to study to even get a student visa. This thing could happen next year, or in 10. We have no way of knowing anything, except that it is sooner rather than later. And why wouldn’t they be rounding up people with expired visas? It may not collapse over night. There could be decades of a country trying to keep out immigrants, migrant workers, invaders, terrorists, and who knows. The borders may suddenly become very important for a while.
But yes, I would definitely enroll in what you mentioned, when I do get to Canada.
The most basic medical care and experience will be highly valued if things are tough.
One of my cousins managed to integrate into a very inward-looking town on a Spanish island, where feud murders are not that uncommon, solely on the basis of her personality and her helpfulness to people as a local nurse.
This is a place where if a stranger walks down the street, people stop talking and stare until they have passed…..
Certain things are a key to being of value and valued.
I don’t see heart surgeons being needed. I see someone to handle basic would care as being needed, and dentists as being needed. Midwives will be needed. Without modern equipment, heart surgery will be beyond what we can handle. Even cancer treatment and surgery will mostly disappear, I expect. Think simple and cheap kinds of fixes. Being able to make aspirin would be helpful.
Dear Gail
I was looking at some pictures of teeth from hunter gatherers recently. Those who had access to starchy foods had bad teeth. Flouride toothpaste has changed things for us today. My dentist once commented to me that I was in the last generation that had bad teeth from childhood…all due to flouride.
If we lose flouride toothpaste, things will go downhill in a hurry.
Don Stewart
Don Stewart
I think there are other ways to keep teeth clean. I want to look into it, but I’ve heard that salt is a good toothpaste.
I agree with you. But we don’t have 10 years to study, and I don’t have the money to pay expensive fees.
And doctors’ usefulness will be greatly limited by the extreme shortage of equipment, drugs, hospitals/clinics, other staff and antibiotics. Plus they are all highly specialized. Actually, I would prefer a vetinary surgeon, since they have to study many different skills, they truly are multi-talented, would be useful. They are not specialised, they can treat everything.
Peter, you might try a different approach. Enlist in the Canadian Forces contingent on acceptance into the medic program. Combat medics train for 18 months and really know their stuff. They routinely get RN degrees quickly, and then step up to Physician Assistants. Now that we in the west appear (am I hoping against hope?) to have re-learned some lessons about when and how to use force for what reasons, and the converse thereof, perhaps we won’t be putting our youngsters into harms way for a few years. The Canadian forces are well respected for their professionalism.
But I’m not Canadian, I’m British. Otherwise, I’d look into that. I still will look into it, when I get over there.
In my original post, I was asking for recommendations for a useful master’s program, which is what I need to hopefully get a residency.
Peter, I don’t know what Canadian rules might be, but the close ties with UK should have some impact. I would not be surprised if the CF accepted Brits with no questions asked, and would issue the equivalent of a green card. Note that US forces are so generous as to offer green cards to undocumented Latinos. Again, I don’t know one way or the other, but it might be worth exploring. And one other thing, the forces send those guys/gals out to third world environments to work with aid teams to get hands-on experience.
It’s a possibility I may get in easier being British, but I wouldn’t count on it. I checked out the residency details, and as far as I can tell, everyone is treated equally, from whatever country.
It sounds interesting, and I’ll look into it. But again, we don’t know where we will be or how fast it will come. If it comes very soon, then do I want to join the army? If it comes later, then I can get a job and hopefully put myself in a better position. But it’s still worth looking into.
These are all theories, and we just don’t know much for sure. But I’m trying to use common sense.
I am not familiar with Canadian programs, but perhaps someone else can offer some suggestions.
So far I’ve had some suggestions, and the best I can think of is something like “sustainable environmental management”. Perhaps also based on bad theories, but at least it may prove useful as we go down the slope. And hopefully it would put me in contact with people more interested in alternative ways of living.
That said, and I already did want to study because I like to study, if your prediction plays out, in a few years or decades I’m guessing most master’s programs will have much much less worth.
I’m still open to suggestions though.
Can you get residency based on working say teaching Spanish or anthropology? I would say if you must waste time in education pick something that makes lots of money now. If it were the US I would say nursing or PA. Use the money you make to buy land and install things like a barn and a house and a well, etc… For learning something useful, I would say start farming on your newly acquired land, build that house yourself. Do not dig the root cellar by hand that will only teach you that FF backhoe are great.
I don’t know, I suppose I should look into that. But I don’t see there being much of a demand for those teachers (I’m not exactly top of my field – I haven’t even finished my master’s yet). I’d love some newly acquired land, but I do not have any. My resources are very limited, but I’m at least not tied down to anything (no family of my own, no debts, mortgage, job etc.). But I certainly want to learn permaculture and farming. If by the grace of God we have a few more years, or even a decade or two (pushing it) then my aim was and is to work and save and find a space to support myself (and help others I hope).
But as many have posted here, we have no idea how this will play out, and if this turns into the worst case scenario, having a safe-haven could even be a liability. Desperate people will do anything for food.
This discussion is an anthropocentric view of what is happening in the physical world, the decisions that people are making and what is possible to overcome some of the emerging problems. There is no discussion of the fundamental physical principles that have been, are and will continue to govern what happens to civilization, regardless of the decisions made by people.
These fundamental physical principles are:
1.The technological systems of civilization irreversibly use up limited natural material resources, including those supplying energy, in an unsustainable process.
2. This process produces immutable material waste
3. The technological systems irrevocably age due to the action of natural forces such as various forms of friction so have limited life times.
4.Technological systems only use natural forces to consume natural material resources. they do not create anything.
Human civilization is the greatest entropy generating force on the planet, perhaps anywhere.
Good points. These points belong somewhere as well. I have a problem with posts getting too long, but these points need to be made.
Very well put.
Read Jeremy Rifkin’s classic book, “Entropy: A New World View”. Much of what is being discussed or felt today has been covered by him and others 30/40 years ago. A few were listening. One of which is the organic farmer and author Eliot Coleman.
For a vivid account of his early life by the Helen and Nearing Homestead is a recent book by his daughter, Melissa Coleman, “This Life in Your Hands”. Tells of their attempt to life “sustainably” and the challenges they encountered. She wrote it was “insane” of him to try to live that way in a modern age.
Permaculture or no permaculture (I know of many and these only actually grow a marginally amount of there own food, relying on staples like rice and pasta for the bulk).
it is a hard existence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/books/review/book-review-this-life-is-in-your-hands-by-melissa-coleman.html?_r=0
The book can be had at Amazon, plenty of used copies there too. I recommend it highly
Thanks – I’m ordering this
Great article and very courageous to pick a near-term peak. My family is preparing as if financial collapse could happen any day. We are converting financial assets to real assets (farm improvements) as fast as possible.
I do have one minor nit to pick. The line indicating “value” in Fig 8 should have a slight upward slope, since ongoing increases in energy efficiency have given us more value per unit of energy. Of course, the rate of increase in cost is far greater than the increase in value, so the intersection of the two curves will be only slightly later.
Thanks for pointing this out — the value line should indeed have a slight upward slope. Technology improvements and energy efficiency make it possible to use slightly lower EROI fuels effectively. But when things are going to pieces–prices shooting up–this effect doesn’t do enough to offset the problem.
Pingback: A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work | Our Finite World « Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse
HnH alluded to the nationalization of parts of the system – without doubt that will include the energy majors themselves further roiling the picture.
But on the other hand the constant trend here in uk is to privatise (gift away to rich corporations) everything that’s profitable. Only the loss-making remains in public hands.
A good lesson in the matters of energy decline is Argentina and its economic collapse in 2001.
South America is poor as regards the coal deposits:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/business/industries/coal-energy/world-coal-deposits.html
The percentage of urban population of Argentina is very high:
http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_urban.aspx
The oil production of Argentina at the time of the economic collapse in 2001 was after its peak:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ar&v=88
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=ar&product=oil&graph=production
Argentina tried privatization, but it did not bring the awaited results, probably also due to the debts inherent to the system.
Now, Argentina is even deeper in its energy problems:
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/11/05/argentina-oil-and-gas-output-continues-to-fall-ypf-reports-a-better-performance
Nationalization of the energy sector can not happen without the possibility for higher yields. This way Venezuela failed, when its regime nationalized their oil production:
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/oilandgas/venezuela-suffers-declining-oil-sales-production
There are better solutions for the governments to have the control over the income from the sale of the energy resources and from monopoly businesses, namely through taxation or joint-ventures, co-ownership. Privatization can buy some time for the governments and the governments can pump additional money into the indebted sectors this way. The real problem is the accumulation of the debt, as Gail Tverberg writes.
That is why that both the solutions of the parties at the left side of the political spectrum (in the form of the nationalization) and the solutions of the parties at the right side of the political spectrum (in the form of the privatization) finally fail.
I agree that a big part of Argentina’s problems are energy related. It is a country that is already entering collapse from energy problems.
When costs go up or the number of buyers who can afford the services go down, the public corporations can just walk away from their responsibilities. No transit? No problem. No roads? No problem. No jails? No problem.
This has been the problem with Entergy owning nuclear power plants. Nuclear not profitable, no problem, hit the off switch, send the “you are fired” notices, and walk away. Natural gas going to run out in ten years and you will need the nuclear plants, not our problem, thanks for the profits, bye.
Yes, I think that is the way it works. Give priority to wind and solar, and the backup gas plants disappear in Europe–perhaps some here too. A gas company has to earn enough money to be profitable. Taking a slice out of the profits doesn’t work.
Ore quality degradation supported by http://phys.org/news/2014-01-costly-ores-rich.html
Thanks. That is a very good article. One quote:
I note that it says that iron costs have increased more than others. The chart I show of base minerals excludes iron (because that is the way the World Bank puts together its index). If the index included iron, the increase would be worse.
Gail, here is another great article on the rising costs of extraction from peakoil.com: http://peakoil.com/production/big-oil-companies-struggle-to-justify-soaring-project-costs
Not much to show for 120 billion expended to increase extraction.
Thanks! I think Peak Oil copies a Wall Street Journal. (Took it out from behind a pay wall.)
There are four kinds of debt/credit.
1) Debt owed to rich individuals. If it is repudiated the worst that happens is the person is anger but still well feed and housed.
2) Debt owed to low income retired people. If it is repudiated people starve, but even that need not destroy the system.
3) Debt owed to business that do something useful. If that is not paid then that business does less or none at all of whatever – mining, oil drilling, food growing, etc.. society steps downward
4) Debt owed to banks. The bank goes bankrupt and new banks are started. Some temporary delays in the system but it carries on. Without confidence no large quantity of new capital is possible. It takes time to build trust.
It is #3 and #4 that represents the inability to marshal resources for new production be it food or oil.
I think it is the inability to put together new banks on a reasonable basis, and the failure of governments of countries that don’t have banks, that does us in. Also, money issued by some new small country or little tribe does little to purchase goods outside that tribe. There needs to be international (or perhaps intertribal) trade to make goods and services of the type we have today. It is that problem that is likely to completely mess us up.
Just a few thoughts that occur to me. I believe in everything Gail has laid out on this site. If it were me I would say the same message without saying “2015” or some precise moment. While big forces will not be turned, there will still be the hundred little catalysts that are really unpredictable. One example comes to mind. many folks say the Fed can’t continue with their bond buying much longer. No one I have read says exactly what and when they will be prevented form continuing this practice.
two graphs I find interesting and one I would like to see. First, the unemployment graph should all ways be shown along side the work place participation rate graph. They are well on theor way to taking the unemployment rate to zero, while no one can get a job. The graph I would find an interesting indcator of our current economy is a home price graph that was broken into a top third, middle third, and bottom third groups. We keep hearing how home prices have been rising lately and helping the slow economy. I suspect that the same folks that are gaining from a rising stock market are experiencing their home values going up; while the rest of us are not.
great work, keep it up. Mulemandonn
Thanks! I don’t think I am saying 2015 precisely. The graph looks that way, because I am only showing points at five year intervals. If I showed individual points, it would be somewhat smoother, and the point could be 2014 or 2016–but it is about now.
The financial system really has not been fixed since 2008. If interest rates rise, because of the end of QE or because the US dollar loses its place as reserve currency, we will have big problems. There are other problems that could bring down the system as well. We have a networked system, so even if it is Europe of Japan that fails first (or some Middle Eastern countries), it will tend to pull down others.
I think people will discover that without electricity from the grid, few people will be able to survive more than a few weeks. As someone who went without it for about 8 days in Slidell after Hurricane Katrina, I can tell you that virtually nothing works without electricity. You need it to refine oil, and it can’t be intermittent power because refineries can’t be frequently stopped and started. You need the electric grid energized to pump oil and oil products.
Without electricity, cities in developed countries can’t function. There is no light, no refrigeration or heating, no water or sewer treatment, no communication after a few days, no subways, no traffic signals, no elevators, no Internet or financial transactions, no food processing, and a long list of other problems. I doubt if the government officials will ever let the grid fail. But if they do, very few of you will survive a full month after it fails. That is a fact. There is a big difference between living without electricity for a few days, and living without it for a few weeks. It is the difference between life and death.
Bill
Few of us grasp this, having been brought up in the complex machines we call cities: a complexity and vulnerability which didn’t exist until very recently. What use is a machine without fuel?
Drinking water will become the main problem once the electrical grid goes down. Without water you can barely survive two days. You can survive two to three weeks without food.
Any good good get away bag, puts water and heat as higher priority then food.
just
The experience of millions in WW2 in Europe shows that one can survive for a long time indeed in a malnourished state, (although very vulnerable to infection as a result) but, as you say, without liquids, hardly anytime at all.
Excellent high-quality bulk water filters are very cheap today and readily available, with spare parts, and here I have easy access to a river and local streams, as well as being able to catch and store water off a lot of roofing, which covers every base. I would not be happy to be in a town apartment in an area with water supply problems…..
Iodine, bleach, chlorine and fire can purify water easily. Some light cooking pot and a way to make fire are also good. You just need to bring your water to about 70 degree celsius for one min to kill most bacteria. A small vinyl tube of 1/8 inch of inside diameter is also good to aspire water from small crevasses.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/outdoor-plein_air-eng.php
I agree that almost everything that we use today uses electricity, especially in the city where water must be pumped uphill electrically. Electricity is also used in the sewage treatment plants. There are so many people in cities, that we would have a lot more disease if we had to get along without modern sewers and water treatment plants.
Back 100 years ago, economies were planned without electricity, and it was not a huge problem. Now that we have electricity, we use it everywhere. This is an example of why we don’t just have one problem, like peak oil, or no electricity. We end up with a problem that is very difficult to work around, even for those who want to try. I have been saying that our economy is a complex adaptive system. It adapts to the technology we have today. This technology uses both oil and electricity. It is very difficult to get along without for very long.
Even having a solar panel or two is not too helpful. First, they don’t fix basic problems like the water and sewer systems, unless that is where they are used. Inverters and batteries wear out quickly, so I am doubtful that they would be long lasting for using alternating current or working at night. This would be the case, whether the city attempts to use them to keep water and sewer going, or a homeowner tries to use them. They would work best for keeping today’s computers and phones charged, until the batteries in the computers and phones wear out, or for pumping water from a stream (as long as the pump still works).
Gail, super article. Why do you show nuclear declining right away? I agree no new plants will be build after the slowdown starts. But existing plants can carry on for 30 years. I do not see them needing much repair.
I still hold out some hope for land based wind and PV. Also for Kirk Sorenson’s thorium reactors see http://www.flibe-energy.com
Gails graph seems to show to me that nuclear and renewables seems to add about the same to our total energy mix through 2035. The big drop in Gail’s graph seems to me to be coal, oil and natural gas.
I did try to let renewables drop less than others. The main thing helping is that some hydro-electric would remain working. Perhaps there would be enough transmission lines working near the hydroelectric that those living in the vicinity would be OK. (I know that Charles Hall retired to Montana, near a hydro-electric plant, with this in mind.) There would also be wood as a fuel–something that is used today as a fuel as well. It might increase in use, as in Greece. This isn’t necessarily good; it could mean widespread deforestation.
Yes, people use wood. If the electric goes out I will use wood. I will not deforest because I have enough wood lot for my family. I will defend the wood lot from use by others. Of course if over powered by others I am trouble. In my little valley there are a few hundred people many with guns. The access points are controllable so I have some level of hope.
Nuclear is already declining in Europe, and some of US plants are being closed as well, for financial reasons generally. BP shows the peak in nuclear production to be in 2006. I expect 2013 will show more decline. A lot of European and US plants are reaching the ends of their planned lifetimes. We don’t have the money to replace more than a few of them, and I am not sure that people are really convinced that they are safe. We don’t have a plan for the spent fuel, and if we are reaching Limits to Growth, with lots of governmental problems, there is likely to be more civil disorder. In theory, we can get fuel for nuclear power plants indefinitely, but that may be less true if the governments of countries producing the fuel are collapsing, and if there is not credit available for investment in uranium extraction. Uranium prices are now quite low http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx In fact, at this price level a person would expect that production would drop back.
I think it is too late for thorium reactors. Anything new is hard to get approved. Also, nuclear doesn’t fix our liquid fuel problem.
Gail, now that you mention it Vermont Yankee nuclear just closed basically for financial reasons. There is talk of the owners shutdown Indian Point nuclear outside NYC again for money reasons. On the other hand the UAE are finishing 5000MW of nuclear by 2020. I guess they still have some capital to invest from their FF.
Yes, the UAE has capital to invest, and they know that electricity from oil is terribly expensive. They are not competing (very much) in the world market to sell goods other than oil, so even if electricity is somewhat high priced, it doesn’t hurt them. Also, there is a big range in cost of nuclear plants, depending on the level of safety devices added. UAE may be using lower cost approaches than would be allowed in the US or Europe.
“Also, nuclear doesn’t fix our liquid fuel problem.” But it does *with* EV’s and boron and more public transport. Boron trucks can mine and harvesters can gather and cranes can build and dump trucks can dump and road crews can repair. Boron allows the infrastructure to carry on. Boron can do the heavy lifting: cheaper EV’s will allow the lighter loads. And pushbikes. And trains, trams, and trolley buses. Nuclear can provide the sheer electrical GRUNT to charge all that (with its very high EROEI). So nuclear power on its own produces electricity, for sure. Boron and EV’s only have to grow slightly faster than oil declines. Then the liquid fuels problem is solved, and we’ll have cleaner air and cities, and we’ll wonder why we didn’t do it decades ago. (We’ve had IFR technology for decades).
How do we ever get to the point where we can afford all of the expensive battery powered cars? Most citizens can’t afford them now, and the government can’t afford to subsidize them. Citizens will cutback on other spending, if they need to spend a large share of their salaries on battery-powered cars.
Another problem is that the government wont’t be able to maintain the roads, partly because it can’t afford it and partly because it needs oil to maintain the roads. Businesses or governments need oil to maintain all of the electrical transmission lines as well.
Gail:
Re ‘expensive battery powered cars’: are you aware that the production cost / sales price of battery packs for EV’s has been dropping by about 50% per year for the last 5 years. In fact, within the next 5 years the technical experts in the automotive industry are expecting the cost of EV powerpacks to drop to equivalence with gasoline powered engines.
Re maintaining roads and electrical transmission lines, I hope you are not proposing that they will all die at once. Much more likely is gradual reduction of oil supplies, offset by increased production of EVs…
By the way, have you considered the bitumin content of the Tar Sands? Minimal refining required for a huge road repair supply, but extensive refining needed to make fuel, fertilizer or anything else. And lots of pollution…
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/01/21/ten-reasons-intermittent-renewables-wind-and-solar-pv-are-a-problem/#more-38749
Gail
WSJ quote:
“But the three oil giants have little to show for all their big spending. Oil and gas production are down despite combined capital expenses of a half-trillion dollars in the past five years. Each company is expected to report later this week a profit decline for 2013 compared with 2012, even though oil prices are high.”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303277704579348332283819314
But 2015?
Several others have asked why so soon? Financial return on investment becomes low enough that it becomes a collapsing bubble? Just guessing.
best
Phil
QE seems to be the scotch tape that is giving the ultraslow interest rates that have allowed us to go this far. These ultra-low interest rates have allowed a lot of investment in oil that wouldn’t otherwise be there. Some of it is the low cost of debt; some of it is equity investment that can’t find a better home, so is willing to invest in Bakken oil companies with negative cash flow and claims of profitability (that look pretty iffy if you look at the numbers closely). If interest rates go up, we lose this bubble, besides seeing a big downturn in housing prices. I expect stock market prices will fall as well, and there will be a spike in debt defaults.
IF unwinding QE doesn’t do us in, we have a choice of other problems–low earnings for oil companies, Europe’s problems, Japan’s problems, and a number of other countries around the world either in collapse, or nearing it. China seems to be having debt problems too. It really needs to grow rapidly, to keep far enough ahead of its debt bubble. The world is so interconnected today, that a problem in one part of the world is likely to lead to problems elsewhere.
Gail and all, the financial conditions you describe have already arrived, only the scale effects have yet to take hold.
For example, the cumulative imputed compounding interest on total credit market debt outstanding to average term is now equivalent to private GDP. Total annual financial profits as a share of GDP now exceed the growth of nominal GDP.
Therefore, the net debt service costs flowing to the financial sector as a share of GDP already preclude growth of nominal GDP after debt service.
Moreover, looking at deposits/money supply currently, after hoarded bank cash assets, deposits/money supply are/is contracting yoy.
Combine the two coincident phenomena, and the US is already into a contracting debt-money deflationary regime, only most of us don’t realize it because we have been conditioned for nearly three generations by inflation/disinflation.
Take a look at the recent data for real US disposable personal income, which is contracting yoy in line with contracting deposits/money supply less bank cash assets.
Finally, household formations are contracting yoy for the first time in the post-WW II era. Economists and housing bulls don’t yet realize that Millennials do not have the paid employment and after-tax incomes to form and sustain the typical suburban/exurban/penturban household. The housing market is heading for another cyclical deflationary downturn.
Deflation is here, next manifesting in services, and the effects will be global. Soon it will be apparent that there is insufficient growth of employment, real income after tax and debt service, purchasing power, and overall liquidity and cash flow for households and businesses to avoid a deflationary contraction.
Extreme wealth and income concentration to the top 0.01-0.1% to 1% and disproportionate flows to the financial sector as a share of GDP are by definition deflationary for the bottom 90-99%.
Thanks for pointing these things out. After a certain point, debt is such a big cost that it starts interfering with GDP growth.
The recent contraction in debt of course directly affect the amount consumers can afford. If they are adding debt, they can buy in addition to the amount their salaries would provide. If they are reducing debt, it works the opposite way. Increasing government debt has helped to hide this trend. Educational debt (quite a bit of it through government programs) also has been increasing.
I know my own three young adult children are having difficulty with getting established. None is married or owns property. One was recently laid off from work. I bought a fairly nice condo when I was 28. My kids couldn’t have considered this.
“I know my own three young adult children are having difficulty with getting established. None is married or owns property. One was recently laid off from work. I bought a fairly nice condo when I was 28. My kids couldn’t have considered this.”
Gail, this is the emerging normative condition today for those under 35. The average FICO score for this demographic segment is 628 (scale of 300-850).
Real consumer credit per houshold,
Real median US household income,
Real median US house price,
Real US wages per capita:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rGX
Real consumer credit per household less student loans:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rGZ
Total consumer credit per household today is twice the level as when peak Boomers entered the labor force in the 1970s, whereas real wages and real median household income are back to the levels of 1998 and 1986 respectively.
Were the real median house price to reflect real wages and real household income, the median US house price would be 15% to 25-30% lower today. Perceived differently, the real cost of housing to real wages and income is as much as ~30-40% higher for peak Millennials today than for peak Boomers in the 1970s.
Growth of the mass-consumer economy per capita in real terms is over, only most of us don’t yet know it. The bottom 90-99%+ of Millennials will experience a decline in their material standard of consumption in real terms per capita over their lifetimes. The only practical long-term solution is for them to double and triple up for employment, housing, utilities, transportation, etc., forgo having children, and learn to find comfort, purpose, and meaning beyond the crass, hyper-commercialization and -commodification of existence.
Thanks! It is a very difficult situation for today’s young people. Fortunately the son who got laid off lives with us. He is the one with Aspergers’ Syndrome. The handicapped have an especially hard time of it.
Gail :
This QE thing has me scratching my head. I just can’t get past the thought that QE hides something. And we’re missing (that), something hidden in plain sight. Let me elaborate. If you strip away all the bank assets, fed bond, swap, stuff first, to clear the core thinking?
~ Debt is an account, but it is not tangible, it has no real existence other than on a hard drive or ledger. So for the thought experiment.
Let’s say we have a debt of (minus) $ 1000,000,000,000 on the books.
~ QE (As with Debt), is also an account, and is not tangible, and has no real existence other than on a hard drive or ledger. Let’s give QE a number.
Let’s say we create some QE, (plus) $ 1000,000,000,000 on the books.
What we have done here, surely is simply cancel out a (-) with a (+), but to the tune of billions. A minus + a plus = 0
QE it seems to me, was in fact a kind of back door Debt Jubilee for the system. It was never designed to help the wider economy, which is why no-one can quite work out where all the QE money went. It didn’t go anywhere!!, because QE’s sole purpose was to throw a whole lot of pretend (++++++++’s), at a whole lot of pretend ( – – – – – – – – ‘s) to cancel each other out. In other words a Debt Jubilee for an incompetent banking system.
Here is a link that perhaps better explains the point.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/07/13/the-untold-truth-about-quantitative-easing-is-it-simply-cancels-debt-and-that-means-national-debt-is-now-just-45-1-of-gdp/
@John Dunn:
Is it proper to regard the margins as the financial engine that powers the entire system? If so, then reducing the fundamental margin to insignificance surely cannot energize much of anything.
I’m simply pointing out that QE is little more than a fire-hose of imaginary (+) positives, intended to extinguish a banking system laden with too many imaginary (-) negatives.
QE, might very well taper, i.e. the pressure from the fire-hose turned down, but it will never be reversed. Because there is (0) zero, nothing there, TOO reverse.
And the reason interest rates will rise as the taper progresses, is because the banking system fire still rages with many (-), negatives that the QE fire-hose (+) positives, never got to.
Interesting point! But that further makes it clear that it is totally impossible to unwind QE. If you do, you are brining the debt back, in addition to “normal” debt add ons.
To Gail and all other financial analysts:
Does QE not play another role, that of preventing / avoiding deflation by stashing so much cash in vaults all over the country & world that can be released into the local mix to maintain a slight inflationary appearance without the Fed (either district or central bank) saying a word. It all just sorta happens, kind of like the way the Chinese manipulate their growth percentages… Of course, I could well be wrong, and it probably doesn’t matter that much.
CWJ
I don’t think QE really works this way.
QE was effectively the Too-Big-to-Exist (TBTE) banks using their ownership of the central bank’s reserve printing press to print themselves $3 trillion in no-cost bank reserves to bail out their insolvent balance sheets, resulting in the TBTE banks having hoarded $2.5 trillion to date.
Bank lending has not increased since 2007 and is contracting yoy along with bank deposits less bank cash assets.
Banks still have a total of ~$375 billion in charge-offs and delinquencies (CO&Ds) on their balance sheets, which is near the secular high going back to the Great Depression.
Additionally, net interest on the federal debt is $400 billion/year.
Therefore, the combined CO&Ds and net interest of ~$800 billion is why the TBTE banks are still directing the Fed to print $65 billion/month. In effect, the banks print themselves enough to cover CO&Ds and to provide liquidity to purchase gov’t issuances, some of the proceeds of which go to federal net interest payments to keep the process going.
QE has next to nothing to do with “stimulating” the economy or reducing unemployment and other such silliness Fed officials espouse as political cover for the TBTE banks’ license to steal labor product, profits, and gov’t receipts in perpetuity.
Interesting theory!
QE may not have anything to do with stimulating the economy, but I would argue that it its absence, we would see collapsing banks and higher interest rates. So QE is holding the economy together with bailing wire and twine, preventing dire outcomes.
BC, What an eye-popping idea. But how to confirm it? And what to do about it? If Marx was basically correct — that they would end up owning everything — is there anything we can do about it?
Gail, Chris, et al., there is no reply link after your respective replies, so I am replying to myself in lieu of not being able to reply to Gail or Chris directly.
Please consider Mr. Duncan’s analysis, perspective, and expecations:
http://www.safehaven.com/article/32660/macro-watch-flows-and-a-liquidity-gauge
Please forgive me, but in my 25-30 years of economic and financial markets analyses, strategic investment advisory, asset allocation, trading, and hedging of equity, interest rate, and foreign exchange risks, my best estimate is that no more than 10% of the population ACTUALLY understands how the US financial system and economy functions, including the purpose, function, and objective of the Federal Reserve; and perhaps no more than 1% or fewer understand the system well enough to profit from the asymmetrical information from its functioning. The vast majority of us are quite literally CLUELESS about how debilitatingly exploitative the system is, i.e., purposefully “educated” NOT to know.
In fact, I can say without reservation that, were the typical person to understand how the system ACTUALLY functions, the response would be mass-social revolt against the existing financial, economic, and politcal system that effectively rewards the top 0.01-0.1% to 1% at the cost of everyone else.
To answer Chris’s question, at present, given the nature of the system’s hierarchical structure of power relations, division of labor, and wealth and income distribution, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you, anyone, or I can do to affect change within the existing structure, and this has been the starting point for every mass-social r-evolution in human history and the impetus for genuine progress of the human ape species.
Consider yourself informed. Whether you are sufficiently inspired is your choice.
This is going to take awhile to digest, BC. Thanks.
CWJ
Gail, What do you think of Robert Hirsch’s committee review of Lawrenceville Plasma Physic’s Focus Fusion and how my that change your views?
Our problem is a financial problem here and now. It is related to the high cost of producing liquid fuels.
As I understand it, the Hirsch committee said that the innovative research effort level of this group “deserves a much higher level of investment . . . based on their considerable progress to date.” Even if fusion were here tomorrow, it would only give us electricity–not cheap liquid fuels. It will take a lot of fossil fuel investment to do very much. I see it as a theoretical way to perhaps stop climate change, not solve our financial problem or our need for cheap liquid fuel. It is likely too late to do much of anything.
Hi Gail,
But a good electrical grid is the key to getting off oil when 70% of American driving can be charged by unused existing capacity overnight. (NREL).
I don’t want to rave too much about higher end luxury EV’s, because that’s not going to help the average Aussie or American. But the fact that Tesla remains profitable helps Elon Musk realise his goal of mass producing affordable family-cars, not just the luxury end. The Gen3 is mean to be around $30,000 to $40,000.
http://insideevs.com/tesla-gen-iii-coming-in-3-to-4-years-target-price-of-30000-to-40000/
“Tesla sold 6,900 cars in the 4th quarter of 2013. Tesla facing trouble in meeting the growing demand for its Model S. The auto maker is working on overcoming this limitation. The firm extended its agreement with Panasonic, last year in November, whereby it will supply about 2 billion automotive grade lithium-ion battery cells to the firm for the next four years. This is sufficient to produce around 300K cars [about 75000 cars per year on average, but about 40K this year and 100K in later years]. Tesla Motors also might open a battery giga factory to increase cell production.
Tesla is projected to produce 100,000 cars in 2016 Tesla would need to produce 200,000 Model S and Model X vehicles and 600,000 Gen IIIs in 2020 to maintain its stock position.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/china-should-be-electric-car-maker.html
So EV’s are on the way, and once the oil situation *really* starts to hurt economies the public will exponentially switch over to this next big thing. Then we’ll probably see a race between boron and EV’s. As EV’s enter the market and start eating up some of that overnight electricity, domestic oil demand will be cut some slack. The downward curve of oil will be offset by the upward curve of EV’s and boron. And the petrochemical sector can make high grade motor lubricants and sunglasses and plastics from household rubbish thrown through a plasma burner, so oil as an *ingredient* can be replaced by other sources. With enough electricity, we can get through this. Oil will be shown to be just another commodity after all. It can, and will, be replaced. One way or another. Now nations *could* fight over the last drops, or they could unite around James Hansen’s vision for a post-fossil fuel world. The way it goes largely depends on the type of memes we sow.
The problem in changing to EVs is not lack of electrical capacity. It is
1. Failure of the financial system in near term. This will eliminate ability to borrow to buy expensive cars. Government subsidies will go away. Many fewer will have jobs. All of this will cut back on ability of citizens to buy EVs.
2. Government inability to maintain roads as their finances fail. What good is an EV, without roads?
3. Utility inability to maintain electric power lines. Also their ability to maintain sufficient profitability to operate, with fewer potential customers being able to afford services.
4. Capacity aside, there still needs to be more fuel added to power the EVs. This has to include all of the parts of the system–bringing coal by rail using diesel fuel, importing uranium from somewhere, or extracting and transporting natural gas. As nuclear plants go offline because of age, we will need more capacity of other types from elsewhere.
5. Failure of governments as we go along. If a government fails, we no longer have laws, or anyone with the responsibility for enforcing laws. This is a problem. Perhaps new methods come about quickly–or perhaps not. Without banks, it is really difficult to pay employees.
Gail,
Why do you think this financial collapse will be different to the GD? During the Great Depression they built the Hoover Dam to create jobs. Then, in a world with hardly any personal cars, the economy gradually grew around oil and cars and the building of the interstate highway system on a *fraction* of the oil we use today. Oil is not going to *vanish* overnight: Hubbert’s peak and even the export land model do not suggest that. Instead, there will be various rationing systems imposed, depending on the country and local resources and those trading contracts that remain intact after the Export Land Model tensions are worked out. Rationing of oil will see to the maintenance of the most important infrastructure as the new model comes online.
“4. Capacity aside, there still needs to be more fuel added to power the EVs.”
It takes about 16 years to turn most of the car fleet over, so because NREL says 70% of Americans could charge at night, extra capacity for the EV market is not going to be an issue for a decade at least. If the government mandated that no new cars could be oil based, but domestic family driving *had* to be EV, then natural attrition of the old paradigm ICE cars would probably occur faster than peak oil’s depletion rate.
I simply don’t agree that government failure is inevitable, or that this economic crisis has to be the last. Drastic things can and probably will happen to avert Mad Max. Culture’s will change, and when society gets *serious* about energy then serious and optimistic scientific bodies like James Hansen’s SCGI will come to the public’s attention. Rationing the remaining oil and gas and coal will be directed into *massive* build outs of nuclear power and oil replacements (like boron & EV’s & fast rail & airships & synfuel for jets) and will stimulate the economy in new directions. Instead of America sending $600 billion overseas every year buying other nation’s oil, America can put this $6 TRILLION dollars / decade into local boron & EV jobs. Just this $600 billion annual redirection of funds into the USA will have a restorative effect after the GD. Maybe it will make the USA more protectionist in economic policies? Maybe there will be a resurgence in protection for local manufacturing jobs? Whatever the case, locally sourcing oil alternatives will create a substantial, if not total, recover package as America weans off oil and on to boron, EV’s, and trolley buses (which are 5 times cheaper to build than trams and much faster to deploy).
The big thing that got us out of the Great Depression was World War II, and the ramping up of debt that permitted. It also allowed a great deal more fossil fuel use, and more people (women especially) added to the labor force.
I don’t care what Export Land Model says or for that matter what Hubbert Peak Model says. The models are basically temporary models, that work as long as world oil supply is increasing, but they definitely do not work when total oil supply in declining. Hubbert did not claim his model would work on the downslope without other fuel–he always provided another fuel rising in great quantity, before the downslope hit. Hubbert’s Peak model is a mis-interpretation of what HUbbert said. An obvious problem is that it becomes impossible to feed the large population that has grown on the upslope. Without food, these people will be very unhappy, and things will be quite different.
The reason why government failure is inevitable is because government taxes are only available out of the surpluses of the economy. Cheap fossil fuels are what make these possible. As fossil fuel availability falls, the number of people with jobs will drop dramatically, because fossil fuels enable virtually every fossil fuels. With the lower number of people with jobs, it will be impossible to collect enough taxes from everyone to pay for promised benefits. While it may be that a few governments will be able to hang together, even as they dramatically cut programs such as universal healthcare, pensions for the elderly, education, road maintenance, and police/armies, I expect it will be easier just to start over. Or the federal level will collapse, allowing (requiring) states to handle everything on their own.
You can make fuels with ample available electricity. The problem has not been the way to do it but rather the availability of cheap electricity. I can think of at least ten unique routes to get liquid fuels from water and CO2 if electricity availability was not a problem.
To Dr.Tskoul, Gail, and others who may believe the human ape has a few tricks up his/her sleeve.
You might be interested in knowing that a project is now achieving results far more satisfactory than anyone expected. It’s goal: to inexpensively transform natural gas to gasoline. By inexpensive, they are getting it down to half the price of gasoline sold on the market. Natural gas is not expected to run out in 10 years, at least in the USA, and certainly not in Asia. Both China and Russia have vast deposits, as do other countries. Also Europe, but the French want to preserve their wine crop and the Germans want to preserve their coal smog, or something…
Negativity is understandable, but shouldn’t be the last word.
Cordially, CWJ
Dumkopf me, I forgot to name the company doing the novel research: it’s Siluria, established in California by a MIT trained Phd lady who appears to have broken the code.
CWJ
The irony is that even if this were successful, natural gas wouldn’t last nearly 10 years. You’re just replacing one problem with another, the scarcity of crude with the scarcity of natural gas! Unbelievable!
Well, BP and EIA and just about every other source I could find talk in terms of 187.3 trillion cubic meters lasting 55 years of natural gas reserves. And that was the 2012 number, which didn’t include recent findings in Europe and Asia. Tell you what, if it turns out that we only have 10 years left, then I’ll buy you a bottle of champagne.
Deal. 🙂
The limit is investment capital not natural gas or coal or oil in the ground. The limit comes much before the funny published numbers suggest. The limit is a financial one. See my post Why EIA, IEA, and Randers’ 2052 Energy For Forecasts are Wrong.
Re ‘the limit is investment capital not natural gas or coal or oil in the ground.’ Gail, I apologize up front, but I cannot accept that the USG or any other sapient government is willing at this time to throw in the towel due to a lack of investment cash. The world is still awash in cash, owned / controlled by the 1% of 1/10 of 1% or whatever. Atlas shrugs every now and the, but I’d bet my life that if the Treasurer of the United States needed to make something big happen, say in the Trillion dollar range, or the 10 Trillion dollar range, mox nix, arranging it would take two, perhaps three phone calls. The tricky part is distributing all the goodies and maintaining control. But money? that’s what printing presses are for.
CWJ
The problem is not really printed cash. It is the physical capital – oil and coal and gas and steel. As we use more oil for investment capital just to keep existing operations going, then there is less oil for creating growth. It is the physical problem that underlies limits to growth.
Dear Gail
May I interject myself into this discussion, because I think it is very important.
There is no doubt that, if the physical capital to do something is absent, then it doesn’t get done. A band of survivors on a tropical island can print all the money they want to, but that doesn’t give them the ability to build a steel mill.
However, in the world we live in, there is still a lot of capital. The access to this capital is printed money. When the government prints more money and gives it to favored causes, then those favored causes can command more of the real capital. If the governments decide that fracked gas is extremely important, they can print some money and give it to landowners to compensate them for the ‘pain and suffering’ they will incur (as I understand Britain is doing). So the fracking operations are able to externalize certain costs onto the government and hence the taxpayers, making fracking financially attractive where it might not be if they had to compensate the landowners themselves.
As the US, and other countries, have printed money, that money has ended up primarily with the One Percent and the financial institutions. Thus, the claims on real capital have been shifted in favor of the One Percent and the financial institutions, and away from the ordinary person who simply works for a living.
This is in line with Nicole Foss’ longtime claim that, ‘when people realize that there aren’t enough real assets to pay off the claims, then the scramble for real assets will start’. And most people will be left holding the bag.
The practical application to oil is, I think, as follows. The government can, through various mechanisms, including military force, subsidize the production of oil. The Bush II administration tried to subsidize the oil business by conquering Iraq, and spent 3 trillion dollars on it. The 3 trillion was at the expense of the US taxpayer. If oil shortages begin to really bind, then the government can simply buy bonds issued by the drilling companies, as the government purchased mortage backed securities.
Even the governments won’t be able to get blood out of a turnip, but it seems to me that a determined government can keep oil production at the expense of the rest of the economy for some time. I won’t argue that doing so is a smart or long term sustainable activity, just that governments have been known to do much worse.
Don Stewart
Thank you, Don.
And Gail, please accept my humble apologies. I’ll not argue the accounting for the various debits: people, resources, machinery, etc. My point is quite simply that our financial resources are neither unlimited no severely constrained, as of this date. Now that could conceivably change, perhaps in the blink of an eye. I’m not smart enough to argue that, either side.
Don, your patient explanation expresses very well the point I was trying to make. I may well be wrong, but when we hear that all the gigabucks the Fed has printed and distributed for the last half dozen years are mostly still in bank vaults, unused, unspent, not in circulation due to demand being lower than supply — then the question becomes ‘why do that in the first place’? And one plausible answer is that governments like to manipulate stuff sometimes without anybody really knowing much about it. And those that do they can squeeze.
Do you remember the LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) collapse in 1997? (I think it was 97…) They got caught overexposed to Russian debt to the tune of $700 plus Billion. Just before causing a big sucking noise on Wall Street, the Treasury made a few phone calls and the problems all went away. The power chiefs somehow lost their mojo 10 years later when the Lehman Brothers could have been saved with similar treatment — maybe — but nobody was really interested in trying, perhaps because the seniorest players all knew the party was ending. They also may have thought it might be educational to see how the ‘market’ really does correct itself. Or not
Bottom line: is there plenty of money available for whatever needs to be done? Yep. I’m not smart enough to call thousand dollar bills ‘capital’ rather than ‘money’, so please forgive.
The capital we have has a huge amount of debt behind it. If the debt starts to evaporate, our ability to access this capital will disappear. We can only get this capital through the credit system, which we know is near breaking.
Dear Gail
It seems to me that it comes down to an either/ or:
Either oil is a strategic material which is in short supply
or
Oil is important, but free economic substitution will work if we let it.
Let’s assume the first is correct: oil is strategic and in short supply. That means there is an awful lot of other stuff that is not in short supply. So a government would reason that doing whatever they have to in order to keep oil flowing for ‘essential’ uses may be the rational thing to do.
We can look, for example, at the monetary history of the Confederacy in the US:
http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focus/2005/fall/pdf/economic_history.pdf
The Confederacy had very limited ability to raise money through taxation, so they simply printed most of the paper that financed the war. As you would expect, this resulted in huge inflation. Most of the gold was stored in the North. Consequently, the rich in the Confederacy held monetary assets which were rapidly becoming worthless. Poor farmers who lived mostly by barter and self-sufficiency would have been much less affected. The paper notes that farmers moved away from growing for markets and moved toward farming for their own use.
The Richmond Fed paper emphasizes the terribleness of the destruction of the currency…and, of course, says that the Confederates needed something very much like the modern Federal Reserve.
My point is that the war did not end even as the paper money became worthless. The Confederate government found ways to supply its armies with guns and food. If the people who were so rabid for war in 1860 had been able to see the consequences, they might have been more amenable to a peaceful solution. But once the war started, it was a fight to the death. I imagine the same sort of thing happened in Germany in 1945. In The Third Man, Carroll Reed shows a Vienna where barter rules.
Which tells me that governments have the ability to move strategic materials to where they want them, even as they break all the rules of economics. There is enormous waste of oil in the United States. We can see that simply by comparing the US to Europe or Japan. A determined government can squeeze out the waste and appropriate the oil for its own purposes. It won’t be pretty, but history tells me that governments can and probably will do it. I think the ‘voluntary’ mileage standards now in place for the auto industry may be the harbinger of things to come.
Whether you say that the government has ‘collapsed’ and is no longer the government established by the Constituion depends mostly on how you want to use the words. The continuity would be in the ability to deploy deadly force…the military and police and spy apparatus. And also the ability to control the currency, as the Confederacy demonstrated.
Don Stewart
I would add a third choice to your list:
(3) Supply chains of all kinds are so badly broken that even having a little oil will do little good–workers can’t get to work, banks are closed, replacement parts for products of all kinds have “gone missing,” people are more concerned about lack of water and food than working at their jobs (where they won’t be paid anyway).
Maybe there is some point early on where your two options make sense, but I think the basic issue is the “system breaking” like humpty dumpty, and not being able to be put back together again.
Dear Gail
After my response, I checked Dmitry Orlov’s post today. Some correspondence with Ugo Bardi relative to the different reactions to peak oil in the USSR and in Italy. Dmitry’s concluding statement:
‘But I think that you are exactly right that whereas the average Soviet citizen could not be fleeced, Italy, and much of the EU, still have plenty of fat sheep that the government can shear to keep things running. Thus we are looking at a few more years of steady decline before the lights start going out. This, then, is the key distinction: the USSR collapsed promptly because it was already skin and bones, whereas the US and the EU still have plenty of subcutaneous fat to burn through. But they are, in fact, burning through it. And so, the conclusion is, collapse will come, but here it will take a little longer.’
The ‘fleecing’ is what I see in our immediate future. Abject collapse will happen when all the sheep are naked.
Don Stewart
That may be right. It depends on how long the financial system holds up.
Even with the Soviet Union, there was a delay between the time the decline in oil production started and the time the Soviet Union broke up. In the early years, exports were cut back, but Soviet consumption remained level.
Current gas to liquid projects are very front-end investment inventive (both stuff and $$). I expect the natural gas to gasoline project will be as well. If our limit is investment capital, building these plants will get us to the limit more quickly.
You are right. We just need very, very cheap electricity. M. King Hubbert talked about this when he thought nuclear would save us. He suggested “reversing combustion” with the too-cheap-to-meter nuclear electricity.
@Gail and Dr. Tskoul re making gasoline from natural gas.
Please take a look at the MIT Technology Review magazine article about Siluria,
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523146/chasing-the-dream-of-half-price-gasoline-from-natural-gas/
which is developing catalysts that convert natural gas into ethylene and water, and then the ethylene into gasoline, very cheaply, with very low electric power required. The low power requirements are very different from what you know about.
Yes, you can say that it’s merely an R&D project and it doesn’t ‘exist yet’ in the market, so you’re not quite ready to consider that it could work or have any impact, but I would hope you might keep an open mind about things like this that are actually working and are likely to yield economically attractive results. Undue pessimism is as dangerous as undue optimism. Balance is good.
Thanks Gail, you are the source of wisdom for our family since we met you at one of the 4 Quarters events a couple of years ago. Thanks for the doing the work! Comment and a question:
Comment: Lots of people talk about “we” can do this or “we” will do that as if some sort of organized collective will still function in the midst of all this coming chaos (I’m of course assuming nothing will happen until a crisis begins in earnest). But I’d suggest that all semblance of “we” collapses very early in the powerdown; once the grocery stores begin to go empty, the government militarizes the energy industry as a strategic resource, oil rationing begins, etc, it will quickly devolve into every man/family/tribe for himself. Crime will overwhelm any semblance of social order, gangs will overwhelm any sense of organized police and the predator/prey instincts of humans will rule the process. I just can’t get my arms around anything less than social chaos beyond imagining. I guess that makes me the ultimate doomer!
Question: That uber-doom comment said, in the short term why can’t the US Treasury just cut a check for, say, $100 trillion, cash it at the Fed, pay all of its debt everywhere (including that of all the states) and then have the Fed simply forgive the loan. Doesn’t that buy a short reprieve and keep the game afloat here in North America? Would it be hyper-inflationary if there are no new jobs and no cheap raw materials, so no new demand? I suspect there is a “reset” option such as this that will allow central govt to stay in business and in power.
I no longer pretend to understand how it all works, however. Just wondering what that would do.
john d.
Any reset ignores the problem of resource depletion, i.e. dropping eroei. As energy extraction costs more our complex society devolves. Think about it; EROEI descends while we insist on economic growth, which are headed in opposite directions. As Rod Serling would say, “At the sign post up ahead…”
A debt is in some sense an obligation to give the holder a share of future production from the economy. Big holders of debt are pension funds, banks, and insurance companies.
As long as the economy was growing rapidly, and debt not too rapidly, there was sort of a match between the two. The catch comes when the economy begins slowing or shrinks. Suddenly there are far too many people who want claims on future output. There are folks who think that they are getting Social Security or Medicare. There are people who are to be paid pensions by their former employers. There are people with automobile and other types of insurance. Debt also underlies the funds people think they have in the bank. There are also some rich people who hold debt, who might not miss the money too much, if all the debt were forgiven.
If the government eliminates all the debts, then the people who indirectly hold these debts don’t get a share of future production. Your bank balance isn’t worth anything. Your parents’ pensions aren’t there. Your insurance policies doesn’t mean anything.
It would be hard to run an economy on this basis. We are so used to being able to make future promises, it would be hard to do without them. But of course nature doesn’t really make future promises. We have what we have today, and that is it. The Lord’s Prayer says, “Give us this day our daily bread.” Nature doesn’t offer us “I Owe You’s.”
If the amount of food produced drops dramatically in future years, there will be a question: Who gets the food that is grown? Will it be the people who raised it? Will is be pensioners? Will it be the government to pay government workers? Without debt, certain people get left out of the distribution.
I can hear it now,
“Another fine mess you got me into to!”
Yep, can’t wait for the blame game to play out.
Thanks for this post. Just to pick up on your very last sentence Gail, the global average number of children per couple is currently 2.36. The number of children being born each year has already peaked. See http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ for a brilliant video which explains why the population is still growing slowly, even though the number of children born isn’t. I think you will like it Gail, as there are lots of great graphs 🙂
I find it amazing that globally we have managed to crack population growth. It always seemed unstoppable and out of our hands, but clearly we have not just thought as a species but acted as a species too. It makes me feel more positive that we can resolve some of our other problems.
Judy, I hope you may have considered that it’s not that “we have managed to crack population growth”, but that the ‘demographic transition’ from high birth and death rates to lower birth and death rates occurs naturally as societies climb the wealth ladder. It’s why Taiwan and Hong Kong and Japan have birth rates of around 1.3 — without government imposition as in China. This was first discovered 80 plus years ago, and occurs globally. Unfortunately, not fast enough, it seems. Africa doubled its population in the last 50 years and is set to double again in the coming 40-50. Or if some of the positive signs of economic growth continue there, those societies will see slower population growth.
Judy and Chris, consider that, given the rate of growth of births and population from the mid-18th century to the 1960s-70s, the human ape population will experience over the next 30-50 years the largest number of deaths from “natural causes” as a share of total population ever experienced by the human ape species on Spaceship Earth; and this does not include premature deaths from disease, famine, ethnic/racial/religious conflict, war, and infant mortality. The human ape species is due a mass die-off on a scale and scope one dare not even think about.
Thus, having children since the 1980s-90s is a virtual guarantee of their experiencing relative privation, labor underutilization, low income and falling purchasing power after taxes and price effects, economic insecurity, anxiety, fear, anger, resentment, violence, no incentive to couple and reproduce, and premature death.
Thus, don’t be surprised if ritualistic suicide, death cults, asceticism, monasticism, Spartanism, child sacrifice, “Hunger Games”, “Rollerball”, “Logan’s Run”, and “Soylent Green”, and other forms of fatalism emerge as mass-social trends during the coming zombie apocalypse along side the top 0.01-0.1% and the further evolution of their Elyisium-like rentier extractive corporate-state.
Nature has little use for 7 billion human apes hereafter, save for carbon-dense humus or fertilizer we can provide collectively in abundance to replenish forests, grasslands, and populations of fish, invertabrates, and terrestrial and oceanic mammals.
Evolution, if it needs us at all, would tolerate a mere fraction of our numbers today. How we accept, adapt, and acquiesce to the reality is what will condition the adaptive, self-selected traits of our successors.
Therefore, I’m rooting for those under age 30-35 to acknowledge the lack of evolutionary utility of the further growth of population of human apes, cease breeding, and demonstrate wisdom well beyond their age and experience in devising ways to humanely dispense efficiently with their elders, including the writer.
Soylent Green is people. It’s time for Sol to “go home”, but Boomers will fight the process to the end. It’s the job of Millennials to end the fight as soon as possible.
Boomers, “go home”.
I am not really sure what a “human ape species” is. I think we are much closer genetically to chimpanzees and monkeys that apes and gorillas. Having said that, my children appreciate being born and having a chance to live.
InAlaska
Agreed. Last time I looked in the mirror it wasn’t very pretty, but I’m certainly no ‘ape’.
Also, the ‘Millennials versus Boomers’ meme has obviously been introduced as crude propaganda by the political/financial class to distract from the real problems and to justify harsh measures to come, ie cutting pensions and welfare, higher taxes on ‘Boomer’ property, etc.
‘Boomers’ didn’t take anything, they just got born.
Freud said there are three things people do not talk about sex, money, and death. Which I would say are basically birth, life, and death. These are super emotionally hot topics.
I look forward to the day when women who are intelligent and well educated are able to reproduce at reasonably high rates. Maybe extra uterine gestation by technology will be the solution. Currently, it seems the genome is such that intelligence and high education lead to infertility a clear genome defect; solely from the point of view of evolution. I love and respect all who have few or zero offspring. .
Hmm…. Sorry but wrong. Chimps are no monkeys. Humans are genetically closer to great apes. (Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans (seven species))
Chimps are apes, as they are our closest primate relatives; ergo, so are we apes. If you don’t know that, well, sorry.
Having infant apes with 7 billion of us overpopulating Spaceship Earth is to ensure that they will be forced to engage in a “war of all against all” in a last-ape-standing contest for the remaining scarce resouces of the planet.
We can’t accept this because we imagine ourselves (Nature endows us with the capacity for self-delusion) to be rational, caring, well-equipped, and well-intentioned human beings to bear offspring and raise them to adulthood, conditioning them to want the same.
But US real GDP per capita has not grown in 5 years, real wages per capita have not grown in 15 years, and the US has not created a net new full-time private sector job per capita since the late 1970s to early 1980s. Yet, the population has increased 3.5% to 15-30% since 2008 to 1978-82, with 1 million legal immigrants entering the country and countless undocumented migrants invading every year. With no growth of jobs, wages, and real GDP per capita, every new birth and additional immigrant means less per capita for everyone else.
As I mentioned in the post, a big part of our problem is that we have moved so many people into being consumers of fossil fuel devices and of fossil fuels. Whether or not the population grows, there are an awfully lot of people who would like to have the same kinds of things people in the West do. That is a big problem in itself.
Chris, you are right that most of the population growth is happening in Africa. It is a big continent with a relatively low population. In the UK our population would be declining if it weren’t for immigration. Immigration is reliant on people believing they will get a better life here than elsewhere, which could change instantly with economic collapse. Look at the example of Ireland, where the young are emmigrating. It is not wealth though that changes the birthrate. Look at Bangledesh with a fertility rate of 2.2. They are certainly not a wealthy country. Watch the video on the link I posted and you will find out the world has changed a lot since 80 years ago.
BC, I don’t think a Zombie apocalypse, i.e. being attacked by dead people, is one of our problems. No doubt if our techno-society persists then someone would work out how to insert electrical sensors into a dead body so that it could be operated like a remote controlled car. I mean they have already done it with a live cockroach (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24455141), though I’m sure a decomposing corpse would be much tougher to work on.
Honestly BC, we don’t get any ritualistic suicides or death cults over here in the UK. I have never heard of any in the very long history of the country. Wars and invasions yes – death cults no! Are you just making it all up to frighten people out of taking sensible steps to prepare? Trust me when I say that nobody in the UK prepared for y2k, there are no ‘doomers’, guns are illegal (not to say that the aristocracy don’t have their sports rifles) and if the world is collapsing you can guarantee that the cows will still be milked and your newspaper delivered! Things will get tough, but don’t expect the British to degenerate into ‘mad max’ like charaters and I would say the same for most Europeans too. Isn’t it mainly in the US that all these apocalyptic cults and warmongering in general arise? I’m kinda glad there is a big ocean between us, if that is what you really think is likely to happen there.
Look at France for instance. They have a really rural culture, where they produce lots of local food on small farms all within pony-trap distance of villages and small towns where the produce can be sold. Even their capital Paris is not that densely populated. Do you think a lack of fuel or electricity will alter traditions that have been carried on for generations? So some city folk may have to relocate to the countryside as labourers, but there is no reason they would starve. The nuclear energy plants may be an issue though.
There was a fictional book I read as a kid called The Death of Grass, (though it is called something else in the US), where the grain crops round the world were all diseased and there was only enough food to feed one third of the population. The British government decided to drop bombs on the biggest cities to instantly wipe out a third of the population to retain order and allow the rest of the population to survive in peace. It isn’t beyond the realms of imagination for our government / army generals to have an emergency plan like this. I mean there are 7 million people in a very densly-populated London, who would struggle without electricity and regular deliveries to supermarkets, whereas more rural towns and villages would probably muddle through just fine, so long as they aren’t invaded by huge numbers of people fleeing London.
It is worth remembering that it may be a ‘global economy’, but every nation is different and unique in cultures and resources. I’m not saying that there won’t be protests and anger like in Greece and Egypt – I’m angry too that we bailed out the banks and I am surprised we haven’t seen more protests. But that is still people pulling together to display their disgust with their rulers. Its human nature to pull together not fall apart.
InAlaska, I am glad that your children were born too. Really we need the young people for the labour force and to give us hope, and we need the old people for their wisdom and knowledge of life before electric gadgets. The only people we don’t need are the wealthy – nobody ever says it! It is their greed to always want more and more that has got us into this mess. The rich can afford to fly everywhere, polluting the World and live in huge energy guzzling mansions. Cutting out the richest 0.1% could make life a lot more possible for the remaining 99.9%.
Gail, the wealthiest 1 billion people on the planet create half of the global carbon emissions. We may worry that car ownership is growing in China, but that isn’t the problem right now. It is the wealthy westerners who fly around the world for pleasure and consume so much energy and ‘stuff’. We need to take the lead for the rest of the world by cutting back. Besides the Chinese will still have their bicycle tucked away at the back of the garage for when they need it again 🙂
I like Positive Money’s (http://www.positivemoney.org/) ideas of taking away from banks the ability to create money. I would suggest going further and making interest on any debt illegal and annulling all existing debts (especially third world debts). This should cause a few wealthy individuals to have heart attacks and would hopefully solve the issue of greed. It would give us a level playing field to start from scratch with only the resources we have now – not stealing from the future.
@Judy
Thanks for the ‘tour d’ horizon’, Judy. I enjoyed much of what you said and will try to find time later to respond to more of your thoughts. For now, please allow this partial response regarding gasoline, cars, and development.
The first thing a newly enriched citizen of the world, regardless if he/she is from Ethiopia or Belarus or Uruguay or Mindanao, is an automobile. ‘Newly enriched’ is relative — this ‘first set of wheels’ might cost US$500, but it provides freedom and mobility.
We rich westerners don’t even consider the implications: Chinese buy more new cars than Americans. The problem is that 1.2 billion of China’s 1.3 billion population live in an area the size of Western Europe, or USA east of the Mississippi. Now that’s a problem. Their air traffic is so congested that they allow planes to take off from one place without clearance to fly to or land at their destination. Beijing recently said that only one out of 6 of its residents would be allowed to have a vehicle. Or was it 1/10?
India has similar problems, maybe worse in the long run. Have you ever noticed that the land mass of India is just about the same as that of Saudi Arabia? But the population of SA is 40 million while the population of India is about 1.2 Billion.
These fundamental conditions cause problems that we pampered westerners can barely conceive or imagine. And we do have a responsibility to try to ensure that solutions applied in one place don’t result in ‘buggering thy neighbor’ and thereby adding friction and aggravation into the mix. It’s going to be difficult enough even if we all keep smiling.
Thanks Chris.
I am hearing you that China and India are a big problem, but they are way out of my control or concern. If Gail is right then this ‘Globalisation’ is going to come to an end pretty soon. Which means we need to start looking for solutions locally. If we work on what we can do locally this could then spread. I am just thinking that many big changes that have happened before started in one country and then were adopted in other countries, such as abolishment of slavery, industrialisation, votes for women, consumerism, facebook. If something like ‘carbon rationing’ (and I am not saying this solves anything) or ‘abolishing interest’ got implemented in the UK, then other countries could see it working and may feel encouraged to follow suit. I just feel focusing on the local situation, the stuff I know about and understand, is more likely to yield results, than being overwhelmed by the global situation. I’m not trying to bury my head, I still want to know about the air polution in China, but we led the world into this situation and we need to lead them out.
I think China is unbelievable. It always amazes me how so many people can live together in such a small area. Just the engineering and logistics of getting food, water and sanitation to everyone is incomprehensively mindboggling. In a collapse scenario, I feel they have a far better chance of re-organising themselves to meet new contraints on energy or food. They have a leadership that can make decisions and a population that follows. I’m clearly far too opinionated to follow anything, even if our leaders could make a relevant decision on energy security and climate change 🙂
I rather believe land owners will not find their huge possessions very useful,
Few people understand that “ownership” whether of money or property, does not exist in reality but merely as some peoples’ beliefs in it. And when too many people don’t find it convenient to believe, the “billionaires” become merely pathetic two-legged animals who never learnt how to use a screwdriver or shovel or spreadsheet.
In reality, land ownership only exist if you can protect your land with violence and extreme physical force.
This is why owners have retainers. They have layers of middlemen that each benefit from their position and are willing to use physical violence to keep it.
Why wouldn’t the retainer turn on the land owner and take his land – why fight his battles?
I’ve recently put in place a sharing policy on the land I occupy here in Bali – half goes to people who work with us — hopefully that arrangement is allowed to continue in the future.
I suppose it all depends on if the village is able to produce enough food to feed themselves – if not my gesture will be forgotten….
Might is right at the end of the day
How to structure your servant class so they feel loyalty and are willing to die for “the cause” is the central issue for owners. It is not people several ranks down the hierarchy that can successfully attack the king/owner it is the first rank of “nobels” that is the most dangerous. One way to keep them in line is to use sons and daughters, another is to treat them well (as Machiavelli suggests), another is treat them extremely harshly (as Machiavelli suggests as a less desirable choice to treat them well). I think you have the right approach treat your retainer class well.
Re: how to create a loyal servant class…..
Now if I was Jamie Dimon I would hire a team of psychologists who would conduct interviews for all the people I plan to use to staff my island hideaway
I’d want particular attention paid to my private militia — the profile I would go after would be those with little ambition — no leaders — I AM the leader — nobody very bright — nobody with a streak of independence….
I would want mentally weak people who know one thing only – loyalty to their leader — who would protect me at all costs – who would never think to cross me.
And I would make sure those individuals and their families were VERY well provided for on my island.
You may be correct, unfortunately.
I am afraid you are right. If conditions get too bad, land owners may choose to abandon the land that they theoretically own.
These ‘masters of the universe’ have no doubt go their escape plans in place (Ellison with his island for instance)
But I agree – when the SHTF they will have the same problems we have — sure they will have their security force in place — but if I were the head of that force I might decide that me and the boys don’t need useless Jamie — we’ll just toss this piece of trash out on the street because might is right — and we have the guns — and we’ve just decided we want the caviar and champagne.
All bets are off — these guys will have nothing to offer going forward.
Paul
Too true.
The history of the Arab Empire and the early French kingdom show that once the leader has become a mere figurehead without real power or charisma, he’s highly dispensable in the eyes of the men with the swords and guns.
The early English were brought in to Britain a mercenaries as Rome collapsed, and then thought ‘Wait a minute, this could all be ours!’
People get worked up about TPTB saving themselves, when they are unlikely to be the powers of the future……
Yep. Owning land is only as good as the government you have to enforce your private property rights. When the SHTF the only right most will have will be the right to defend their land or have it taken from them.
This is why the first 90 fighters to form a group that can act cohesively wins. Lesson, make friends with your neighbors before the SHTF.
Good post Gail, congratulations!
Statu quo and growth are dead. It seems you’re right the way it happens is low oil prices, and this leads you to an estimation of future energy supply quite similar of Ugo Bardi’s. This makes me thrill, ASPO forecasting being already hard to deal with. Finances, debt and wages are concepts without future, but may be this is not so evident upon the language you still use (for instance, future “lending” and “taxes”).
Electricity is not at all to substitute anything, but I wonder if the grid itself is to decline so fast as oil and not with some delay. Another point is to privilege some parts of it: electric bulbs being increasingly in excess because of falling electricity supply, the places where they are most needed, such as hospitals, may still have some for a while even without producing new ones.
Industrial steady state is obviously impossible, but some low tech steady state can be undertaken. Take wood burning, for instance. This winter, Greeks are no more able to afford NG or fuel for heating, and have massively turned to wood. This is done so badly that smog levels have skyrocketed and deforestation seems to go the same path. Government doesn’t react and just advise the people not to do physical exercise the worst smog days… It’s pathetic, and if they continue this way they will be in a situation worst than Middle Ages in a few years. On the other hand, Nicaragua has a lot of rural population, which use of wood for cooking (not for heating, of course) in traditional stoves generated respiratory problems. So, the government is providing population with almost a million cheap simple design highly efficient wood stoves (I believe they are similar to rocket stoves) to preserve woods and improve health care. This is the way.
You don’t talk about it, but some people in this blog wonder if the State must buy land to give it to urbanites willing to move to the country. I rather believe land owners will not find their huge possessions very useful, and there will be no need to compensate them for it. The State will not be in a position to afford it anyway, and the only way will be just taking it, in a context where most private property will be disturbed.
Finally, I want to share some words Uruguay’s president Pepe Mujica issued yesterday at a Community of Latin American and Caribbean States summit: “Globalization is headed to disaster. If mankind is not able to think as a species, if mankind continues thinking as a country, and within a country as a social class, then civilization is condemned”. May be his words come too late, but he is the best guy in the world.
I think that electricity in not more than a few years behind oil in failing. In fact, it may be at the same time. Part of the reason is that government is needed to keep order. If this fails, there are problems with all kinds of energy supplies. Failure can come for reasons other than “running out” of supplies. It can come from bankruptcy of important parts of the system, or lack of a financial system to pay workers, or inability of citizens to afford the electricity, or inability to repair damage after storms.
Regarding taxes, if you plan to have any kind of government, you pretty much need some form of taxes. It can be a percentage of the grain and other farm products produced, rather than money as we think of it. Government can be pretty simple–a local ruler of some sort, without much staff.
There seems to be a lot of debt around, as well, just because barter is cumbersome, It makes more sense to have a general store, and have people bring goods of one kind and take other goods back. In such a system, a patron “runs a tab.” There may not be much time-shifting involved. Debt can also reflect the amount the government expects to be paid.
You are quite likely right about the government just taking land away from rich people. This has happened over and over throughout history. Government doesn’t have any way of getting enough funds to pay for it. It is possible that a new government will take over, and they will confiscate land above a certain amount per person. Or maybe government won’t pay much attention at all, and just let people fight over the land.
I like your general store, and see now it’s possible to give some words a non monetary meaning. Of course, the grid may overcome oil for a while just if there is a government who takes care of it.
Gail – your point that China and India’s use of cheap (and polluting) coal has buoyed their economies vs the more oil dependent economies was very insightful.
I think also the fact that the OECD countries are massively consumer driven also impacts things — they buy more than people in China and India (most of whom exist within a localized, barely subsistence economy) – and ‘stuff’ requires oil – no doubt that exacerbates the expensive oil growth discrepancies
The other thing that helps China and India is the fact that they are relatively warm countries. When energy supplies are scarce, having a subsidy from the sun is helpful. With globalization, there is pressure to equalize salaries. The catch is that people in cold parts of the world need to earn more, in order to have more substantial homes and the funds to pay for heating those homes. Cars are somewhat more of a necessity as well. People in cold countries have more of a need to store food for winter (or use meat instead of grains), if only one crop a year can be grown, instead of two.
The Industrial Revolution started in England, when there was a problem with deforestation, and someone discovered coal made an adequate substitute for wood. Those who figured out how to use coal for heating soon put coal to industrial uses as well. At that time, there was no manufacturing competition with warmer countries. But if we try now to compete with warmer countries, we are sure to lose, because we need higher salaries to support a similar life style.
Here in New York state we are moving to 100% natural gas fueled electric generation. If natural gas ever becomes unavailable the light go out.
Here in Birmingham Uk last year I went to a big meeting about energy in 2025 with top energy “gurus” Prof David McKay (govt energy advisor) and Mark Lynas (campaigner/author). Ten days before I had sent them my careful explanation that their ideas were nonsense because we already had a crisis of shortage of money and energy – basically the same themes as here. I also handed out 60 sheets of the same to the professional energy “expert” audience. Not one response has come back.
More generally, I have found no-one I talk to in Birmingham (where this modern energy-consuming/transporting world was invented!) takes any notice of the evidence I present. Ditto all family members. Meanwhile the city’s “leaders” are having wondrous visions of yet more airports and grand transport schemes and skyscrapers and that the the city “will” grow anyway. (All this despite the council simultaneously having to slash its budget by a third, closing down libraries and essential services.)
If anyone knows of any (other) sane people over this way could they please put me in contact?
Meanwhile of course the Ukraine crisis is “because” the country is so split between Russian east and Ukrian west. But that split’s been there for past 70 years. So what’s changed? Ukr is particularly dependent on energy imports, which are getting tougher. I think all sides are clueless that Ukr’s problem is energy deficiency which can’t be addressed by mere political musical chairs..
The media still don’t connect the dots towards energy. And neither did they connect the crisis in Syria to the energy and climate change conditions they went through. When people are unemployed and starving, its a recipe for riots. But its important for the media to pin these “dissidents” to either religion or political motivations as its considered taboo to report anything real about why industrial civilization even exists and especially why it will come to an end.
I think when it comes to critical issues — like this one — the MSM is instructed by the powers of the world to not connect the dots.
Because that would only cause panic — and it would bust the matrix — and the mother of all crashes would happen sooner.
A crash is a crash is a crash — so I prefer that that MSM stay quiet on this – it’s not like awareness will allow us to fix anything.
There is nothing to fix
The Mayan ruins show evidence of an entire population and civilization that just died out all at once. Jared Diamond believes it was triggered by a rapid ecological decline followed by a massive war. Within one generation it was all gone, leaving nothing but the stones, but it happened so fast that all the stuff remained behind virtually untouched.
Gail’s site seems to be about the only site on the planet that is realistic about these matters. I have disagreed with Gail on occasion and on details but more often than not I have had to retract, modify my views and admit Gail was closer to the mark than I was. I pride myself that real data can actually change my views. This is actually very rare. Most people entrench their views when confronted with disconfirming data.
People are actuated, in the main, by belief not knowledge. A number of studies have shown that most people do not change their views when real evidence debunks their beliefs. They “double-down” so to speak, investing even more belief, more psychological dependence and more money into their false beliefs.
Clearly, there will be a psychological disjunction point. When real material conditions get so bad that the collapse (or at least a severe economic depression) cannot be denied then people will react with shock and anger. Expect riots, revolutions and reactions (crackdowns by authority) to become the order of the day at that point. Disorder will worsen the situation further and imperil the lives of all involved in the disorder. The key to survival might well be to move to a really quiet, out of the way place where food can be generally assured from local sources. However, don’t underestimate the ability of hordes (some still with petrol powered vehicles) to scour the countryside for food and implements and easy targets.
However, I don’t plan on being a survivalist. I am 60. Maybe if I was 30 or younger and in prime health I would give it a shot. At 60, forget it. I wouldn’t stand a chance. I will stay quiet in my house on the periphery of a large city and see what happens. I don’t even plan on buying a gun. Australia does not have a civilian gun owning culture but that could change with collapse.
I expect Australia to initially maintain order and retain enough energy sources and food sources for a controlled power down. We are uniquely endowed to do that with a low population compared to our real carrying capacity. But I doubt that other nations like Indonesia and China will leave use alone in this situation. Once you realise that wars, invasions and mass migrations of millions or 100s of millions of refugees are on the cards, then you realise this event is so huge you cannot possibly plan for it or credibly plan to survive it.
“Once you realise that wars, invasions and mass migrations of millions or 100s of millions of refugees are on the cards, then you realise this event is so huge you cannot possibly plan for it or credibly plan to survive it.”
Are “millions of refugees” with the intent of taking other country’s or people’s resources really “refugees”? Where’s the line between needy refugees and armies, doing what armies have always done in the past, namely conquesting for the sake of resource and land?
Food for thought. By branding them as refugees, you give moral legitimacy, but calling them an army of invaders, not so much… ‘Hey, please, let me come in, or else I will have to break in!’
Ikonoclast
A fair view, very realistic.
On the whole, people don’t riot unless deliberately led into violence by interested parties: what is reported as ‘spontaneous and popular’ is rarely so.
If things are really tough, if not provoked by agitators, provocateurs and the like, most will be too busy in the perpetual search for food, clothing and fuel – or simply robbing others!
Not much time left over for mass protests after all that. They are the luxury of the still-fed……
Gail’s site is great. Two others:
http://questioneverything.typepad.com
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2013/12/11/the-fire-this-time/
There are a lot of people that believe what MSM tells them. They say what people want to hear.
There are a number of readers of Our Finite World in the UK. Maybe you need to set up a London fan club (or wherever you are).
Hmm, the madhouse “wealth”-bubble that is London is (thankfully, gasp!) 110 miles away by train from here (Birmingham). Of course on the transatlantic scale that’s cheek-to-cheek but for those who struggle to pay even a 66% discounted £30 train fare it certainly ain’t!
I live on the outskirts of one of the most densely populated cities in the UK, and the UK is one of the world’s most densely populated countries. Currently, I would say, we’re heading down the other side of the North Sea oil and gas boom which went a long way to offsetting the decline of the latter half of the 20th Century as coal mining was on its way out and manufacturing was disappearing to other parts of the world with cheaper (and less troublesome) labour forces. So we’re probably in massive overshoot now, in terms of the population our country could actually support long-term with its own resources. I completely agree with the analysis that so-called ‘renewables’ cannot magically replace fossil fuels as our primary source of energy – at least not to maintain anything like the civilisation and standard of living we have now.
Somewhere on another blog there was mention of “20 acres, a cow and some chickens” as being the minimum you could give a family and expect them to sustain themselves – something of that order, anyway. It would be interesting to try to work out very roughly how many people that would support, if adopted by the UK and based on available reasonable quality cultivable land in this country today. I really doubt it would amount to the 60+ million we have now – even assuming that the land use could be changed so dramatically and that people could be persuaded to leave their city homes and big screen TVs, and take up subsistence agriculture/permaculture/horticulture/whatever!
I am told by my organic farm instructor — that in a place like BC Canada — that an acre can produce enough food for a family of 4.
I’d heard 10 people per acre, from a permaculture enthusiast… but I’m sceptical. You would need quite a large area of coppiced woodland for fuel, I think… plus perhaps other land for livestock. The land I have amounts to about a tenth of an acre, and I can’t imagine that it could keep one person in food all year, every year.
I have a book “Five acres and Independence”. I will go with five acres for four people in an area that has winter and needs firewood. Sure, an always warm place does not need a wood lot and so less land is needed.
This is my problem with Permaculture activists. According to http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/arable-land-percent-of-land-area-wb-data.html there is 1.2 acres of arable land in the U.S. per person. Now not all arable land is created equal, so can the “average” acre of arable land support 4 people? I’m also not sure what the site counts as “arable”. For example do they really mean “arable assuming the input of fossil fuels”? How many hectares of arable land do we have without the input of fossil fuels? I imagine it would be much less. I have a hard time believing there is enough land for permaculture and related practices to support anywhere near 300 million people. My guess is that to live sustainably, without fossil fuels, even supporting less than 30 million people in an area the size of the US would be an incredible challenge, if possible at all. I’ve been told I should study Cuba, and I would like to, but even if all there fossil fuel imports were cutoff, were they not still able to import other items with “embedded” fossil fuel energy. If Cuba post-USSR is indeed a good case study, than we should all be taking a look.
I would caution you that Cuba has very different stories told by different authors. Some claim that Cuba imports 80% of its food. Cuba put in irrigation in Havana during the Special Period, but it is not clear that that is sustainable. Havana has problems with salt water incursion and a dropping fresh water table, at least according to some authors. Some people clearly grew (and still grow) vegetables locally, and that has helped some. But how big a dent that has made in their total problem, and whether it is really sustainable, are subject to different opinions.
I would guess that your organic farm instructor assumes that you have electric fences, soil amendments trucked in from afar, supplemental watering if you need it, a good way to store the food so that it is not attacked by insects, and refrigeration or canning available as storage techniques. All of these are fossil fuel dependent. Also, he is probably assuming that fruit and nuts tress are mature trees, not ones that you are starting this year. Somehow, your land (or some other source) will need to provide fibre for clothing and wood for heating as well. There is also the natural variability issue–you need to acre to feed you in the worst year out of 100, not on average. What it “can produce” is not the question.
My guess is that in the real world, the one acre for four people is way too low, especially that far north. You can get by with not to much land in warm parts of the world, where you can get two crops a year and you don’t need to worry about heating a home or dressing warmly.
The total amount of land given to agriculture in the UK is given as 43 million acres. Of that, 15.3 acres is arable, according to Wikipedia. At 20 acres apiece, the 43 million acres would support 2,150,000 families. If each family consists of four people (maybe some grandparents included), then the land would support 8,600,000 people. If we only use the 15.3 arable acres, the land can only support 3,060,000 people, again with four to a family. The answer doesn’t come anywhere near 60 million.
Houston —- we have a problem
Actually there has already been a very thorough study carried out by Simon Fairlie into how many people can be fed by the land in the UK. I think I read it in ‘The Land’ magazine, but I will see if I can dig up a reference. If you farm by hand then 1 acre can feed a family. This obviously isn’t to current standards, so you would eat the occasional rabbit, rather than having regular beef for instance. We currently throw away a third of the food, so that would have to stop too. Also it doesn’t include wood for heating. Based on a basic and mainly vegetarian diet with some meat (there are lots of hill farms for sheep which are unsuitable for crops) there is sufficient land to feed the full UK population.
It assumes that land is distributed fairly, so no large country estates or pony paddocks for the rich or golf courses. Would that ever happen? In the war it did. The government was allowed to take any land that was not productive and re-allocate it to someone else.
If you look back in history peasants used to have relatively small areas of land to feed their families and there was common land to graze the odd sheep. The current allotment system was always based on the old plots, which traditionally was 1/16th of an acre. It may seem small, but if it is worked by hand then every available space can be used.
Carol at http://journeyintofoodproduction.wordpress.com/ has spent the last year growing organic veg in a small plot and weighing and measuring the results, to determine exactly how much can be produced in a small space.
Even in the short term Vinay Gupta (http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/about) says that there is enough cattle and sheep stood in the fields to feed the population for 6 months in a crisis . I’m not so convinced that it would give us that long, however it is a good point that we would have a grace period to get cultivating.
I do think if you live in a city, you just see the view of the city, where not much grows, whereas if you live in a more rural area you see all the potential there is.
Dear Judy
I have referred to Simon Fairlie’s work three or four times, over the last couple of years.
My conclusion is that you cannot get people who want to believe in the ‘starvation theory’ to look at it. They are going to believe what they want to believe.
Don Stewart
If the farmer got the output of the one acre, plus was able to graze his sheep elsewhere, he effectively had the use of more than one acre of land. His calories included the calories from the sheep, and his clothing included the wool from the sheep. The animals also helped provide fertilizer for the land. Without the extra land grazing animals and going into rotation with the one acre plots, I doubt the scheme would work. Otherwise, it is necessary to let land remain idle from time to time, to restore fertility.
I wonder is the ratio better in Scotland? If so, they had better hurry up and succeed.
Gail, thank you so much for your work, to bring such clarity to debate. Please help us to know how many of us (by country or region), have read this post…. It would be useful to get a sense of how far or close we are from what could be a strong signal…
I don’t really know how many have read this post, or will read it in the future. My posts are copied on a lot of other sites, and I don’t know how many readers the other sites have. I know that on this site, this post is setting a record for readership (but not by a huge margin). I find that even after a post is put up, I have a lot of readers even months or years later. Lately I have been getting about 20,000 hits a week on Our Finite World, and I put up a little less than one post a week.
I wonder if it is not best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Most people could not handle reality.
I am surprised the makers of Xanax have not broken ranks and run ads ‘a horrible crash is coming — Xanax can alleviate all symptoms in the run up and after — two a day and you’ll forget all about starving’
They could sell 5 year mega packs on that campaign slogan
I have a difficult time handling the advent of this and I have known for forty years it was coming…
Recently spent a great deal of time trying to inform my locality that it is time to prepare. I backed off of a blunt approach because I realized how cruel it would be to crash people’s worlds. So I couched my words, hoping at least those who could read between the lines would take my advice.
Still it did not stave off a string of sleepless nights and extended grieving process. One only accepts the death of someone dear after years of grieving. You may emerge stronger or you may succumb to grief. Frequently, married couples die within a short span from the first to pass.
Pingback: A Forecast of Our Energy Future; Why Common Solutions Don’t Work | ResourceIndustry
I have changed my stance recently from “renewables might save something” to “nothing will save anything now”. This is not a bad thing. Civilization is a vanity project. Even farming or permaculture are civilization and vanity and doomed. Hunter-gathering is the only valid, sustainable system long term. Hunter-gathering systems create less net oppression per capita than any other system. Of course, I won’t be around to see hunter-gathering become the main system again.
One view is that we have been hunter-gatherers for 98% of our time on earth. It certainly simplifies climate change issues.
Hi Ikonoclast,
H&G’s wiped out the Mammoths. Today we’d put them in zoo’s and create a breeding program. Not everything about H&G’s was sustainable.
“Scientists are divided over whether hunting or (natural) climate change, which led to the disappearance of its habitat, was the main factor that contributed to the extinction of the woolly mammoth, but it is likely that it was a combination of the two.” – Wikipedia
Certainly Hunter-gatherers already have some technology; fire, spears etc. But overall, whilst possibly causing some megafauna extinctions on several continents, hunter-gatherers did not cause global warming, ocean destruction, land degradation, deforestation and a massive extinction event right through the global ecosystem. Hunter-gathering is sustainable overall in a way that modern industrial civilization simply is not.
Maybe. There weren’t a lot of them. That’s a big factor. Deer, without technology (or yeast in a vat for that matter) on an island can overpopulate, deplete the resources, and crash too.
Hi Ikonoclast,
I hear you! The damage HG’s did to the earth is minimal compared to today’s out of control industrial system. However, I see signs of hope. The exponentially destructive ecocide we see in front of us can have legislative, technological, and cultural improvements. Just weaning off fossil fuels onto clean nukes & oil alternatives (boron, EV’s, hydrogen, New Urbanism, trains, trams, & trolley buses that are 5 times cheaper to build than trams) would put us on a far more sustainable footing, and we already have the technology to do that. The rest is political and cultural pressure around adequate marine parks and valuing ecosystem services. EG: Food from seawater greenhouses in the desert are already economical (see Sundrop Farms outside Adelaide). The damage to our world is HUGE. There is a place for grieving that loss. But there is also hope for change. We do NOT have to tell young people to commit suicide!
http://m.guymcpherson.com/2013/04/the-irreconcilable-acceptance-of-near-term-extinction/
Well, as a part time hunter gatherer myself, I can say that hunting/gathering only works if there is something left to hunt and gather. But at a 6 degree rise in global temperatures, forests will burn, grassland turn to desert, rivers will run dry, mountain glaciers melt. Fish die with ocean acidification and animals can’t migrate fast enough to bear their young in safety. Plus hunter gatherers lived in low density populations, not in the middle of a 7 billion person die-off. Sorry, unless you plan on hunting and gathering other humans, hunting/gathering is a part of our past, I’m afraid.
I think I would say Hunter Gatherers are “less unsustainable” than today’s economy. It doesn’t really make them sustainable. The major issues I see are fact that we need (1) cooked food, (2) heat in many parts of the world, and (3) are smart enough to kill off large animals, and (4) we will burn down forests if it will get us what we want and (5) H – G population tends to grow because with control of fire, humans have superiority over other animals. These issues together pretty much mean that H-G life style is not sustainable either.
Nah – today we think on much bigger terms — we wipe out entire oceans of fish — heck, we don’t stop there — we have even set things up so that we wipe ourselves out!
Remember this: we feed 7.2 billion people only because we have oil and gas based fertilizers and pesticides…. reflect on the significance of that for a few minutes
I am increasingly inclining towards your position — those that survive will likely be living like the animals (that we are).
As Marlow (Conrad) said ‘Civilization is but a veneer hiding the savage reality of the human condition”
As there is nothing we can do to change the outcome beyond our personal preparations — we may as well sit back and observe this Titanic moment in history.
Reminds me of Network ‘Live is not a TV show’ — well — this kinda is — more like a movie though — Mad Max comes to mind….
PS Everyone: France went from 8% nuclear to 70% nuclear in 40 years? No. 30 years? No. Try this: “In one decade (1977–1987), France increased its nuclear power production 15-fold, with the nuclear portion of its electricity increasing from 8% to 70%.”
This isn’t speculative fiction, or wishful daydreaming, or even some form of denial. This is HISTORY folks!
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/climate-and-carbon-emission-study-by.html
PS: If they move to EV’s, 70% of American driving can be charged in existing grid capacity: at night. (NREL study from years ago). My guess is a lot of boron recharging would be done at night as well. As long as nuclear’s high EROEI is generating the electricity, even some hydrogen becomes feasible. (Although it’s a tricky beast to store). Boron and direct electric driving seem better. New Urbanism with trains, trams, and trolley buses and walking and cycling seems best.
Reblogged this on Damn the Matrix and commented:
Gail Tverberg at her best……. I hope nuclear wet dreamers take heed of this. ‘Doomers’ are realists.
“We pulled out the “easy to extract” oil, gas, and coal first. As we move on to the difficult to extract resources, we find that the need for investment capital escalates rapidly. According to Mark Lewis writing in the Financial Times, “upstream capital expenditures” for oil and gas amounted to nearly $700 billion in 2012, compared to $350 billion in 2005, both in 2012 dollars. This corresponds to an inflation-adjusted annual increase of 10% per year for the seven year period.”
Problem is, the *fuel* for nuclear isn’t the issue. We have enough sitting around in cooling ponds for half a millennia of clean, abundant, cheap enough electricity. With enough electricity + boron, that’s coal oil and gas replaced. Sorry to rain on your doomer parade, but I’ll take Hansen’s opinion over yours any day of the week.
The IFR reactor appears sound and much more efficient than conventional slow neutron designs. But it does need a higher degree of Uranium enrichment (20%) to get the show on the road. This rings alarm bells.
More importantly, though, when is all this going to happen? How long will it take to get a comprehensive fleet of these things up and running? Are countries like China, Russia and North Korea, who don’t give two hoots for NIMBYs (local objectors) and who presumably are up to speed with fast neutron technology and can see the benefits, are they actually planning to build any? And if not, why not?
My understanding is that there is not single IFR running anywhere today. (Is the Argonne test site still working?) I’ve read things like ‘they can be buried safely in a protective dome’; doubtless true, but try selling stories like that to your average householder in the populated west. You can’t even frack a well here in the UK without a chorus of protest, let alone bury liquid Sodium coolant surrounding enriched U and Pu. There’s a long wait at best to get Joe public to accept this type of nuclear power, and the clock’s ticking.
Why does it ring alarm bells Jonathan? IFR’s can be set up to burn plutonium through that phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor#Proliferation
Indeed, IFR’s can deal with nuclear bombs. In fact, many of today’s reactors can do the same thing, and something like 10% of American power comes from burning old Soviet bombs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
There’s still enough uranium in the world to run the planet on *todays* super-safe Gen3.5 reactors like the AP1000 (China’s just completing another 2 AP1000’s as we speak).
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/south-korea-will-start-building-to.html
So why are there no IFR’s now? The answer appears to be both financial and political.
1: FINANCIAL
While the EBR2 ran for 30 years and effectively *was* an IFR, so much so that GE’s S-PRISM is based on it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM
… the real problem is that it takes decades to fully commercialise these models. EG: With the S-PRISM, they’re not building *one* reactor, but the modularised prototype that will allow them to build any number of reactors on an assembly line. They’re concentrating on getting the mould right.
2: POLITICAL
Also, because Clinton misunderstood ‘breeding’ through the plutonium phase he shut down the EBR2 program. We probably would have had IFR’s by now!
But the UK are interested. “A 2012 Guardian article pointed out that a new generation of fast reactors such as the PRISM “could dispose of the waste problem, reducing the threat of radiation and nuclear proliferation, and at the same time generate vast amounts of low-carbon energy”. David J. C. MacKay, chief scientist at the DECC, recently said that British plutonium contains enough energy to run the country’s electricity grid for 500 years.[9]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM#UK_interest_in_PRISM
Re David McKay (/MacKay?), I have already posted my comment about his meeting, his failure to take into account the points made by G here, and his complete and utter failure to respond to my critiques of his notions. So I don’t find him to have any credibility, regardless of his Chief govt advisor status.
It’s like that joke ‘Free Beer – tomorrow’
Always tomorrow — always on the cusp — coming soon! — stay tuned!
Maybe if we put out the bat signal the miracle man will swoop in to save the day!
Or better still — let’s unite the religions of the world and designate 2 minutes of global prayer – for the Christians of course it would be most appropriate to recite — The Hail Mary (perhaps we do this on Super Bowl day with 2 minutes on the clock)
Tick tock….
Hi Paul,
China are building out AP1000’s now because we already have commercialised models for them. We simply don’t *need* IFR’s today. They *can* burn the waste ‘tomorrow’ because we know they work. It’s an OLD technology, from yesteryear! The EBR2 kicked off *decades* ago.
But here’s the reality. While it is *true* that today’s nuclear waste could run the world for centuries, there’s not enough waste right now. If I waved a magic wand and every coal fired plant were turned into IFR’s right now, there would not be enough waste to go around. It takes *time* to breed up the waste through the higher elements. So yes, today’s waste could run the world for hundreds of years, but no, not right away. So we have to build out tsunami proof nukes like the Gen3.5 AP1000’s *anyway*. And then when the IFR’s like GE’s S-PRISM finally arrive in 10 to 15 years, there will be even more waste for them to burn.
Eclipse — i read in the noos that Fukushima is a good thing — because it’s releasing cesium and plutonium into the atmosphere — and ‘medical experts’ have released research saying that our bodies need these crucial elements to achieve peak health – much the same as we need iron and other minerals.
There is even talk that all multivitamins will soon include cesium and plutonium.
So yes – more nuclear reactors of all sorts are absolutely necessary – we can call them ‘Vitamin Factories’ — that’s more palatable — no?
Why do you all keep praising Simon Michaux? It’s a *ridiculous* talk because YES ore grades are declining and YES it takes more energy to extract lower grades of ore but NO peak uranium will NOT prevent us using nuclear power to run mines! The way he skipped past the seriously deployable small modular reactors was woeful! He might know the mining game quite well, but the nudge nudge wink wink attitude to nuclear power (Oh dear, we don’t know what to do with the WASTE!) would have James Hansen, and even Hubbert himself, ask him to leave the room. (Hubbert also visualised us running for thousands of years on nuclear energy after peak fossil fuels). Why do these ‘smart’ people not realise that waste-eating nukes *exist*!? That it is an *old* technology? Don’t they know about the EBR2?
The other thing he of course ignores is the ocean and space.
OCEAN HAS 6000 YEARS OF METALS
“Previously we had talked about a researcher who indicated that ocean floor mineral resources could provide current world demand for over 6000 years.”
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/nautilus-minerals-first-commercial.html
Mining the oceans can start off small in some local areas while we study the biodiversity down there, and get a handle on how to do it with minimal impacts. But the oceans are BIG! It may be that we’ll have a space industry before we need to mine even a *tiny* percent of the ocean floor.
LICENSING NEARLY APPROVED
Advancing mining technologies are making the prospect of exploiting seafloor minerals—including gold, copper, zinc, cobalt and rare earth elements (REEs)—not only possible but also imminent, with commercial licenses to be granted by the International Seabed Authority from 2016.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/the-deep-sea-resources-rush/
After 6000 years of slowly mining through the oceans, and encouraging old areas to rehabilitate, then there is SPACE. Once we have a space mining industry, gifts will parachute in from the sky.
“UPDATE – The Near Earth Asteroids have thousands of trillions in metals. One asteroid Amun has over thirty times all of the metal that has ever be mined in human history”
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/04/peter-diamandis-of-xprize-gets-big.html
But not only that: with nuclear power abundant and plentiful, maybe we’ll just munch through the bedrock somewhere, extracting what we need from tiny ppm dirt? Yes concentrated ore bodies are running low, with many concentrated ores to be exhausted in our lifetime. But, with enough energy, we can recycle metal. It doesn’t ‘run out’ like burning fossil fuels. We just keep recycling the same stuff, over and over again. Also with enough energy, we have heaps of other options! Lastly, with new glues and state-of-the-art water systems, some architects are talking about wooden skyscrapers! Yep, wood panelling glued together just so performs like steel. If a metal becomes too expensive for a job, sometimes there are other materials.
The issue is rising use of oil to solve all of these investment problems. With this rising use of oil, less oil is available for all of our other energy needs.
We don’t have the plants to convert the cooling rods to fuel. In theory we could build the plants, but it takes fossil fuels, time, and someone able of finance all of the building to get the plants built. We don’t have the time to do it, or anyone willing to finance it.
I would suggest you cool your rhetoric. Otherwise it will be the end of your posting privileges.
Hi Gail,
do you have evidence that we don’t have time? I’m thinking of France. As oil and coal and gas wind down, nuclear will be winding up, keeping a stable electricity grid. All other transport systems will adapt to that.
The banking systems of all of the countries are interconnected. France has made way more promises to its people, in terms of government programs, than it can possibly continue to pay. I understand that France has a 12% unemployment rate, and a high tax rate, which is a problem for everyone. France hasn’t been building new nuclear reactors. Instead, it is facing an aging fleet of reactors that will need to be decommissioned at high cost, and new reactors built. France has run through its own uranium supplies, and now is faced with buying them on the world market–assuming they are available on the world market.
How do you expect all other transport forms to adapt to electricity, in France? Will someone come in and build $40,000 (or more) electric cars for everyone? How will the 12% unemployed pay for them? How about everyone else? Are you aware of plans for electric long distance trucks? (I’m not.) The lifespan of trucks on the road is very long–maybe 40 years, I haven;t checked. How will trucking companies afford to replace their trucks before they normally need replacement? How will they afford to pay a much higher cost for them? Then we come to construction equipment and diesel irrigation, and a whole host of other usages.
I don’t think France is any exception.
Not all electric vehicles are expensive. Take, for example, Renault Twizy. This is a fully electric car, with a price tag of $10,000, and a good fuel economy, doing 10 miles per kWh.
It has some disadvantages, though. It can carry a maximum of two passengers, and maximum speed is 30 mph. However, it could still be useful as a cheap in-city “per hour” rental car.
Regarding trucks, I would expect that as soon as oil is more scarce, a lot of cargo will be shifted to train transportation. I would expect the same for passengers, by the way.
There are also electric golf carts. But the US will not allow them to run on US roads, generally. The Renault Twizy is not available in the US.
Well — if that is the case then I’ll be watching the front page for the announcement of this miracle in the coming months — and it better come soon — because if you haven’t noticed — the collapse is happening in slow motion right before your eyes
And I don’t want to hear ‘but give us a another few years — we promise — we have the solution’
Giddyup — we ain’t got much time left dude.
Perhaps you might explain how this miracle cure is going to:
– allow airplanes to fly
– allow combustion engines to operate
– allow us to continue to make pesticides and fertilizers (which are made from oil and gas)
– how does that miracle help replenish fish stocks that are collapsing?
– and what about fresh water supplies – how does this grand miracle fix that problem?
Let’s start with those 5 rather significant issues.
Paul:
* I’m NOT saying this is going to be painless! I’m saying that there is a VAST difference between a Great Depression and Mad Max. I don’t know the future, and maybe it doesn’t even have to get down to a GD. Maybe a variety of things are going to kick-start a green economy before it gets that bad. But economies eventually adapt. America did AMAZING things in WW2, above and beyond expectations once the big car manufacturers and corporations had been quickly retooled for the ‘war time economy’. So the following is not a timetable of what is going to happen when, because I’m not a prophet. Just what is technically possible when the timing, or the pricing, is right.
* Nuclear power can run the electricity grid in the day and ‘recharge’ electric cars and boron for larger vehicles at night.
* Today’s existing overnight off-peak power supply can charge about 70% of American domestic driving. (NREL study a few years ago).
* Nuclear power can split water and make nitrogen fertiliser. Nuclear charged boron mining trucks and harvesters can mine and move stuff around for mineral fertiliser needs. The peak phosphorus guys in our sustainability institutes are starting up a conversation with our sewerage management systems so that one day we’ll be able to stop flushing all those NPK goodies out to sea and recycle them back onto the land.
* It DOESN’T all have to start overnight. As the price of oil rises, there will not be a sudden collapse of civilisation overnight. That’s a myth. There’s a vast, vast difference between the Great Depression and Mad Max. America built the Hoover Dam during the GD! It was a jobs creation process. America had some high oil prices and a GFC and the marketplace contracted and *suddenly* American’s were getting by on a QUARTER less oil. A whole quarter! Now imagine the ‘oil is running down slowly’ message finally gets out there. Can you imagine the new funds for Elon Musk’s Tesla cars? For Boron cars? (James Hansen’s preferred method of getting off oil).
* Some jet planes can run on nuclear power generated synfuel.
* Airships are making a comeback in some sectors. Instead of rushing to your holiday, you’ll pay a bit more and the ride there will be half the attraction: half way between a jet plane and an ocean liner. 4 days to get to Europe from Australia, and a gym and bed and bar on the way. You arrive refreshed and not jet lagged.
* Seawater + desert + solar power +(backup nuclear power) = food. Sundrop farms are building 4 HECTARES of food, and it’s just the first prototype. It’s already viable commercially. It’s starting to go around the world. Many of the nutrients actually come from the seawater.
5 minutes ABC science show Catalyst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4W-wOXTWM
* Other farmers are trying a vast number of soil rehabilitation and restoration schemes, from permaculture to biochar to biofarming to low till farming.
* THIS IS NOT ABOUT GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET! Supplying everyone with everything they *need* (food & water & education & dignified work & medical & birth control & security in old age) creates the Demographic Transition which sees populations declining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
* Plasma Burners can recycle ALL household waste into syngas products like lubricants, paints, varnishes, some jet fuels, though to the harder lava flow producing bricks, tiles, rock-wool for hydroponics through to insulation, then mix rockwool with glues = fibreglass or faux wood panels for the side of your house. In other words, Plasma Burners convert household rubbish into two-thirds of your next house!
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycle/
My money is on ‘Mad Max’ — I am hoping I can star in the lead since Mel Gibson is a bit long in the tooth.
Hi Chris Johnson,
my original tag-line back when I had my own peak oil awareness moment in 2004 was ‘We must eclipse ourselves or be eclipsed’. I had a kid with cancer and then learned that Mad Max was coming! I went manic, and within 6 months had helped gather a bunch of like minded people and we were presenting Hubbert’s peak to the NSW minority parties. My original website was all about the idea of so outshining ourselves that we ‘eclipse’ all previous paradigms, and that if we failed we could be cast into utter darkness. The eclipse is a time of opportunity and threat. Now I’m not so sure it is as binary as all that, and realise there are a thousand shades of grey between a bright green future and total collapse. As I say on my summary page:
////I think we can and probably will make it. I am not a doomer preaching rabidly about the end of the world. There are risks. The decades ahead really do appear to be dangerous as we bump up against a variety of feedback loops and cascading negative interactions. International tensions could well boil over into war if we compete for the remaining oil, water, and farmland. How will the world respond if climate chaos forces massive waves of immigration? As oil runs thin which nations will agree to oil rationing, and which will resist any proposals for any kind of Oil Depletion Protocol? What resilience does the western world have to climate induced droughts, especially as our industrial agriculture is destroying topsoil as we speak? What will America do about their water aquifers running dry? What other wild-cards are coming our way?
My motto used to be a bit too melodramatic: “We must eclipse ourselves or be eclipsed.” I wanted to highlight that while there are enormous risks ahead, there are also opportunities ahead for us to really shine. The reality is that there are a thousand nuanced and subtle ways we might succeed in some areas and fail in others. While we might not “be eclipsed” and cast into a new dark age, there is still a significant risk that we could end up stuck in the twilight. Today’s trends indicate our children will inherit a planet we hardly recognise, with half the biodiversity extinct by 2050 and many nations living in poverty and starvation. We can and must do better. Do we really want to leave them a depleted and denuded planet with weakened ecosystems and a shameful legacy of destruction?
Or will we change the way it goes? We have the tools design a prosperous society that preserves the natural systems that preserve us. This blog documents some of the experts I’ve been reading that indicate how we might get there./////
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/eclipse/
Anyway, James Hansen AGREES with Gail T on the many limitations of renewables. He says: “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/
For James its all about the fast build out of nuclear power and switching off oil onto that nuclear power through boron, EV’s, even hydrogen. Nuclear power will have to do the heavy lifting in the years ahead.
Thanks Eclipse for you good essay. I find much to admire in Gail’s analysis and, I suppose I’ll enjoy James Hansen’s views as well. However, one thing I’ve noticed is that new and emerging technologies and systems are generally ignored, regardless of their real or potential impact. Electric vehicles is a good example, as are cheap simple batteries for grid use of renewables. They might not be deployed until 2016, but they could begin making a difference then, while our industrial system is still viable. All too often the commentary is that ‘that’ll never work because we’re running out of money and gasoline and the roads will all be full of potholes and the entire economy will be shut down except for the gangs pillaging the neighborhoods. As if we’re on the verge of total social implosion, right now, and get ready to start camping out next week… If some people want to cry that the sky is falling, there’s little we can do to reassure them, I guess.
Paul,
I have twice taken the time and effort to answer your questions sincerely, to have you just basically blow a raspberry back at me. I’ll not be bothering in future.
What you don’t seem to get is that we need this to happen ‘overnight’
In case you haven’t noticed we are in the final innings of the collapse.
Always tomorrow — always a few years away — been hearing that for decades now so forgive me if I am cynical.
Wake me up when the miracle arrives.
Hi Eclipse
You clearly enjoy shining light, at least some of the time. Do you also enjoy limiting or obstructing it other times as your handle suggests? (I ask in friendship; your handle is kinda neat). Anyway, I wanted to point out that NO SINGLE TECHNOLOGY or SYSTEM WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. It won’t be just nuke, or boron, or geothermal or chemical reformation of natural gas into gasoline / diesel. It won’t even be the Keystone pipeline or the discovery of a way to turn coal into gasoline. The solutions will come slowly, perhaps painfully, and unevenly. They might not all arrive in time to prevent a difficult ‘flattening downward slope’ of economic activity and financial solvency.
Alternatively, the whole system could collapse, and it appears that many contributors on this site just can’t wait to practice their ‘post collapse apocalyptic survival skills’ shows that they’ve been watching on TV.
Here’s a question for a Poll Gail could run: How many of you believe the population of the world will reduce to 1 billion persons in approximately 40 years? 30 years? 20 years? 10 years?
5 years? Come on, quit beating around the bush; tell us what you really think. Or not.
I’ve noted previously that over-pessimism is as wrong (and probably as dangerous) as over-optimism, especially when assessing such weighty issues. Unfortunately, far too many of us sound like we’re intent on holding a ‘pity party’ rather than analyzing what’s wrong and whether or not we really are doomed.
Chris – all due respect I totally disagree with this “many contributors on this site just can’t wait to practice their ‘post collapse apocalyptic survival skills’ shows that they’ve been watching on TV.”
Personally I have not had a TV for 6 years — and never watched it much before that anyway — I have never seen one of these ‘doomsday prepper shows’ — and I will assume most of them are religious fanatics or simply whack jobs who pray for end of world scenarios because the lives they live now are filled with misery and disappointment.
I am no such person – I cherish the life I live — I run a business remotely which allows me and my wife to set up shop somewhere else in the world every few months for 3-4 weeks. We have great friends and are lucky to be able to live most of the year on our hobby farm in Bali.
The last thing I want to be doing is ‘practicing my survival skills’ in a devastated world — I am no rambo who thinks ‘bring it on – I will kick ass’ On the contrary – I think what is coming is highly likely to kick my ass
And I think I speak for most of the people on this blog – I don’t think anyone is eagerly anticipating the collapse – but if one applies logic to the situation it is impossible to conclude that what is coming is going to be anything but a crash landing.
And hence the discussions of how to prepare for what is almost certainly coming.
On a personal level I have accepted what is inevitable — and I do see the future as a personal challenge — can I survive this??? — but if it were up to me and I could kick this can another 30 or 40 years so that I don’t have to go through this — I would most definitely take that option.
I have zero desire to trade my current relatively cushy life for one where I am scraping and clawing to get my next meal — if it comes to that I will scrape and claw and do what it takes.
Congratulations to those who think a soft landing is coming and that we’ll emerge from this better off so welcome the crash — or to those who pine for ‘doomsday’ because it means everyone gets to join them in misery — but …
Be careful what you wish for. I have absolutely zero doubt that what is coming is exponentially worse than your worst nightmare.
This is not a Hollywood movie – Superman (or Jesus for the prepper crowd) is not coming to save the day.
As for myself, I unfortunately do not have any “post collapse apocalyptic survival skills”. (Nor do I own a TV, I think I ought to get a HAM radio though)
That’s a good idea — one with a hand crank charger or that can be charged by solar.
There will be no CNN coverage of the breaking news when the collapse gets into full gear — not even of Justin Bieber — wonder how people like Justin will cope when they no longer have their sycophants spoon feeding them.
Bieber and Cyrus will have to get even more outlandish. Meanwhile here is info. from zero hedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-04/us-economy-growing-much-slower-you-think
“The deceptive news was that the Fed, in its last Ben Bernanke moment, would stay the course. The course in question is the “12-Step Counterfeiters Anonymous” program popularly known as “tapering” of QE.
The Fed says it will stay on the program, leading investors to believe that the central bank’s PhDs were steadfast in their commitment to end their bond buying … and that the economy was healthy enough that it didn’t need QE to prop it up. Neither of those things is true.”
We’ll see if they can continue to taper. So far it hasn’t been very pretty for stock markets worldwide.
Recall that the US government recently revised how they calculate GDP resulting in a half a trillion dollar gain being added to the overall number.
Of course what the MSM prints and what people are actually experiencing on the ground are two different matters – no matter how hard people want to be sucked into the Edward Bernaysian PR that there is a recovery — when you don’t have a job and no money — that is a very difficult mental feat to perform — no amount of cognitive dissonance can overcome the cold, hard reality that you cannot ‘live the life of a rockstar’ that you were lead to believe was possible.
Of course such a realization can lead to intense frustration and perhaps clinical depression – so two choices:
1. Family Size Packs of Xanaz
2. Open fire on society with an automatic weapon – because it’s there fault that you are not ‘living large’
Evidence of this comes from the UK – where the right-wing UKIP party is now leading the pack to win the next election. Seems strange given that Cameron has lead the UK to what the MSM tells us is a momentum gathering recovery.
But if you dig deeper you will find that there is no recovery – the UK is simply playing at the same games – debt-fueled… stimulus-fueled ‘growth’ And the average person is aware that this is all smoke and mirrors – so they are looking for another solution believing UKIP can solve their problems.
Unfortunately popularism is the politics of the desperate- it has been going on for 1000s of years when any civilisation stagnates or declines. Ramasis II was supposedly the greatest Pharaoh but regional climate change caused a great deal of migration and famine- yet the monuments reflected a previous golden age. The narrative now is a golden age has been taken from us by a bad influence, the golden age of the European right was cheap energy and military prowess and the enemy is immigrants, or the left, or gay marriage, or the EU [for UKip] or the UN conspiracy of climate change and even peak oil.
The question is whether people will fall for the lie again- perhaps we can by-pass this fantastical politics this time round.
Ahahahah! Very funny
I mean Couterfeiters Anonymous
InAlaska
If it gets really bad, I’m sure we here at OFW can pose on wrecking balls, naked.
That should cause a media distraction of epic proportions.
You’ll have to define “OFW” for me.
Xabier
Oh, got it. “OFW” Our FInite World. Truly, we can extrapolate about the future on this blog. Sure it is fun, but prediction is a tricky business and I feel that most of what we have all said here can only be viewed as mostly flawed. The future never unfolds as we think it might, must or should. There are so many random variables over which we have no control or even insight into, that however brilliant our analysis we will fall short of understanding something so complex as the collapse of our civilization. If, when, how, and why. Sorry to throw cold water on y’all.
In Alaska
Heartily agree with you.
At best we are like the men in the old Persian story, in a blacked-out room trying to describe an elephant from what they feel as they bump into it. People use the phrase elephant in the room today to suggest that something big is being ignored, but that’s not the original meaning of the tale.
However, the elephant IS there, which is not what the MSM would have us believe. So I feel discussions are useful and particularly for people from different regions of the globe to offer their insights into what is unfolding.
I spent a few years of my life reading a great many diplomatic documents from the end of WW1. It was amusing and highly instructive to see how even well-informed and experienced people got nearly everything wrong about the course of events.
Similarly, reading about the ‘welfare state future’ of Britain as predicted in 1945 is very illuminating….
Though I did notice that the greatest errors originate in emotion and wishful-thinking (or pessimism) , which distorted what they saw unfolding.
And there was a clever man in 1919 who said quite calmly that there would be another world war with Germany in the next 20 years, not a bad forecast!
xabier,
You are of course correct. The best we can do may not be good enough but we must act as we feel the situation dictates at the time. We can do nothing else. My only criticism is that many folks on this blog speak with a degree of certitude about our collective future which I find to be arrogant, disturbing, ignorant, amusing. Enough said.
Just line Seven (7) people up in a line….take away one or two from that group. Those will be the ones left “standing”. To “plan” for this “event”, well is simply a flash in the pan.
Paul:
Offending you was not my objective; if it resulted from my writings, I apologize. On the other hand, my remarks are not baseless: some comments more than occasionally cast an “uber-doomer” pall, a thoroughly negative reading of a situation that has never existed and may never exist. I believe quite simply that excessive pessimism is as harmful as excessive optimism, and that if we’re not focused on exploring the parameters of reality then we shouldn’t be here. It’s pretty clear to me that you are.
CWJ
Chris,
It’s not pessimism to realise that our way of life (aka civilisation) is wrecking the environment on which all life depends and that consuming resources beyond their renewal rates (in order to wreck the environment) simply can’t go on. As this whole edifice is bound to collapse eventually, it really would be better that it collapses sooner rather than later (to limit the damage). Of course, one may only care about the present time, in which case one can be as optimistic as is necessary to wish for a solution. No one can foretell the future in an exact way but it’s clear that certain actions eventually lead to certain outcomes (in broad terms). I have no illusions about my survival skills (and I almost never watch television, so won’t “learn” anything there) but I am fairly rational when it comes to realising the impacts of our behaviour.
Thanks, Tony. Well said.
Chris – no offense taken – I just don’t agree primarily because the logic of the situation leads me to be pessimistic — and nobody here or on any other site has been able to even slightly convince me that a cataclysm is not imminent.
I always come back to this key point:
– 7.2 billion people are fed only because we use oil and gas based fertilizers and pesticides
– as oil and gas become increasingly expensive people will not be able to afford food
– if oil and gas are no longer extracted because nobody can afford to pay for them or the many products they are used to make – then food production will crash
– it takes 3+ years to convert industrial farms to organic methods and realize a crop
Now if you can explain to me how we get around the rather significant problem of food production in a collapsing world – I might exude a glimmer of hope.
Paul: Thanks for your explanation. I had not previously considered those factors, nor the timing and interrelationships. Nor do I have any fixes. Much to explore.
Chris
@chris johnson, Feb 1.
I took your challenge Chris;;;;; and discovered some startling numbers. I chose approx 1/2 the worlds population, 3.5 BILLION and divided it by 20 years (7300 days). What I came up with is, Close to 500,000 people/day, (479,450) would have to die every day for 20 years just to get it down to 1/2 the population. That is not taking into consideration the birth rate for the world. To get it down to 1 BILLION would be close to twice that number. Just looking at the numbers boggles my mind, about all I can say is, a whole lot of people are going to be in one world of “HURT” real soon………With those kinds of numbers I suspect it’s going to take at least a Century to collapse
@Charlie
Thank you for your insight and effort. What a remarkable finding. Perhaps a ‘sky coming to earth’, as in scripture, will be the approved method. The scenario you highlighted sounds sort of like waiting for the 4.15 train to Dachau.
Yeah, Charlie but numbers are just that, numbers. Who set 550k as the max. a day to perish? Remember how fast the numbers dropped when the mice that were over-running the Aussies outback ran out of food? Their numbers ballooned for months, then suddenly over a few days met their demise. How many bit the dust daily? Many millions I’m sure. In fact a strange phenomenon occurred when their moment of truth arrived. They found them in piles, with bite marks all over each other, so they actually killed one another. I don’t think people will bite each other, but the end result may not be much different, as I’m sure people won’t hesitate to kill in one manner or another to get their food, and then the rate of loss lives skyrockets.
I meant 500k a day.
Looking at the standard run of the Limits to Growth it seems about 450k deaths per day. 250k being normal deaths and 200k being above births. This carries on over 60 years and takes the population from 9 billion to 4.5 billion by 2100.
I’m curious Chris, have you watched this video? “Peak mining & implications for natural resource management – Simon Michaux” http://youtu.be/TFyTSiCXWEE
The analyzing has been done and yes, we are really doomed. But asking someone to predict when the population will hit 1 billion? That is a very massive die-off. Why should we have to predict when that population “milestone” will be hit?
Thank you, Simon Michaux is superb. He’s realistic, committed, and not ready to start running around in circles screaming ‘the sky is falling’, even if it might be ready to. There are things happening that I am not at liberty to discuss, but which could affect these considerations. My basic point remains the same: undue pessimism is as dangerous as undue optimism.
Sorry Mike, I forgot the James Hansen link.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/climate-and-carbon-emission-study-by.html
Also, here’s the free book that discusses boron replacing oil, and completely by passing the chicken and egg problem of supplier networks V enough customers to get things going. While there *is* a cheap oil civilisation in place, boron is so inert that it can just be *mailed* to the recharging depot. Have enough at home, and a boron car can even run your home’s electricity in a power outage. Boron cars could save lives in ‘Drunken Arctic’ storms across North America. (Free book below: backed by James Hansen’s SCGI).
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/prescription-for-the-planet.html
Some quotes from that book re “boron cars”:
“Unlike fossil fuels, metal fuels are not really energy sources.
They, like hydrogen, are energy carriers.”
“He has been pondering this for nearly a decade and early on came up with the inspiration of burning boron in pure oxygen. Therein lies the key.”
“Here’s where that two hundred dollars becomes vanishingly
cheap. The boron oxide would be hauled back to a recycling center.
There it would be heated to about 700° Celsius and processed with a
couple of catalysts to drive off the oxygen,”
“There are a number of marvelous aspects to this system.”
“The only costs would be the recycling,
and since the IFR fuel that would power the recycling process is
essentially free, that processing charge would be minimal.”
If there is a sound case for “boron replacing oil”, I don’t see it made clear there.