The two big stories of our day are
(1) Our economic problems: The inability of economies to grow as rapidly as they would like, add as many jobs as they would like, and raise the standards of living of citizens as much as they would like. Associated with this slow economic growth is a continued need for ultra-low interest rates to keep economies of the developed world from slipping back into recession.
(2) Our oil related-problems: One part of the story relates to too little, so-called “peak oil,” and the need for substitutes for oil. Another part of the story relates to too much carbon released by burning fossil fuels, including oil, leading to climate change.
While the press treats these issues as separate stories, they are in fact very closely connected, related to the fact that we are reaching limits in many different directions simultaneously. The economy is the coordinating system that ties together all available resources, as well as the users of these resources. It does this almost magically, by figuring out what prices are needed to keep the system in balance—how much materials of which types are needed, given what consumers can afford to pay.
The catch is that the economic system is not infinitely flexible. It needs to grow, to have enough funds to (sort of) pay back debt with interest and to make good on all the promises that have been made, such as Social Security.
Energy use is very closely tied to economic growth. When energy consumption becomes slow-growing (or high-priced—which is closely tied to slow-growing), it pulls back on economic growth. Job growth becomes more difficult, and governments find it difficult to get enough funding through tax revenue. This is the situation we have been experiencing for the last several years.
We might think that governments would be aware of these issues and would alert their populations to them. But governments either don’t understand these issues, or only partially understand them and are frightened by the prospect of what is happening. The purpose of my writing is to try to explain what is happening in terms that people who are used to reading the Wall Street Journal or Financial Times can understand.
I am not an economist, so I can’t speak to the question of what economists are saying. I do know that what economists say tends to change from time to time and from researcher to researcher. For example, in 2004, the International Energy Agency prepared an analysis with the collaboration of the OECD Economics Department and with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund Research Department (Full Report, Summary only). That report said, “. . . a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second year of higher prices. Inflation would rise by half a percentage point and unemployment would also increase.” This finding is consistent with the issues I am concerned about, but I expect that not all economists would agree with it. Oil prices are now around $100 per barrel, not $35 per barrel.
The Tie of Oil and Other Forms of Energy to the Economy
Oil and other forms of energy are used to power the economy. Historically, rises and falls in the use of oil and other types of energy have tended to parallel GDP growth (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Growth in world GDP, compared to growth in world of oil consumption and energy consumption, based on 3 year averages. Data from BP 2013 Statistical Review of World Energy and USDA compilation of World Real GDP.
There is disagreement as to which is cause and which is effect—does GDP growth lead to more oil and energy demand, or does the availability of cheap oil and other types of energy power the economy? In my view, the causality goes both ways. Oil and other types of energy are needed for economic growth. But if people cannot afford oil or other types of energy products, typically because they don’t have jobs, then energy use will drop. And if oil prices drop too low, we will be in real trouble because oil production will stop.
How Oil Limits Work
People tend to think of limits as working in the same manner as having a box with a dozen eggs. Once the last egg is gone, we are out of luck. Or a creek dries up from lack of rainfall. The water is no longer available, so we have lost our water source.
With the benefit of the economy, though, limits are more complicated than this. If we live in today’s economy, we can purchase another box of eggs if we run short of eggs, assuming markets provide eggs at a price we can afford. If the creek runs dry, we can figure out a different approach to getting water, such as buying bottled water or hiring a tanker to get water from a source at a distance and bringing it to where it is needed.
Oil limits are a kind of limit we often hear concerns about. Being able to drill oil wells at all and refine the oil into products of many kinds requires a complex economy, one that can educate engineers working in oil extraction and can build paved roads, pipelines, and refineries. The economy needs to be able to produce high tech equipment using raw materials from around the world. Thus, there must be an operating financial system that allows buyers at one end of the globe to purchase materials from the other end of the globe, and sellers to have the confidence that they will be paid for contracted products.
If a company wants to extract oil, it can almost always figure out places where this theoretically can be done. If a company can gather together all of the things it needs—trained workers; enough high tech extraction equipment of the right type; enough pollution-fighting equipment, to prevent oil spills and spills of radioactive water; and leases on land where drilling is to done, then, in theory, oil can be extracted.
In fact, the big issue is whether the extraction can be done in a sufficiently cost-effective manner that the whole economic system can be supported. Even if the cost of extraction “looks” fairly cheap, such as in Iraq, or in some of the older installations elsewhere in the Middle East, the vast majority of the revenue that is generated from oil extraction (often as much as 90%) goes to support the government of the country where the oil is extracted (Rogers, 2014). This revenue is needed for many purposes: desalination plants to provide water for the people; food subsidies, especially when oil prices are high because food prices will tend to be high as well; new ports and other infrastructure; and revenue to provide jobs and programs to pacify the people so that the government will not be overtaken by revolt.
A major issue at this point is the fact that most of the easy-to-extract oil is already under development, so companies that want to develop new projects need to move on to locations that are more difficult and expensive to extract (Bloomberg, 2007). According to oil industry consultant Steven Kopits, the cost of one major category of oil production expenses increased by an average of 10.9% per year between 1999 and 2013. In the period between 1985 and 1999, these same expenses increased by 0.9% per year (Kopits, 2014) (Tverberg, 2014).
When production costs are higher, someone loses out. It is as if the economy is becoming less and less efficient. It takes more people, more energy products, and more equipment to produce the same amount of oil. This leaves fewer people and less energy products to produce the goods and services that people really want, putting a squeeze on the economy. The economy tends to grow less quickly because part of the goods and services available are being channeled into less productive operations.
The situation of the economy becoming less and less efficient at producing oil is called diminishing returns. A similar problem exists with fresh water in many parts of the world. We can extract more fresh water, but it takes deeper wells. Or we have to ship in water from a distance, using a pipeline or trucks. Or we need to use desalination. Water is still available but at a higher per-gallon price.
Diminishing Returns is Like a Treadmill that Runs Faster and Faster
There are many ways we can reach diminishing returns. One easy-to-illustrate example relates to mining metals. We usually extract the cheapest-to-extract ores first. An important cost consideration is how much waste material is mixed in with the metal we really want–this determines the ore “grade.” As we are gradually forced to move from high-grade ores to lower-grade ores, the amount of waste material grows slowly at first, then dramatically increases (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Waste product to produce 100 units of metal
We know that this kind of effect is happening right now. For example, the SRSrocco Report indicates that between 2005 and 2012, diesel consumption per ounce of refined gold has doubled from 12.7 gallons per ounce to 25.8 gallons per ounce, based on the indications of the top five companies. Such a pattern suggests that if we want to extract more gold, the price of gold will need to rise.
The economy is affected by all of the types of diminishing returns that are taking place (oil, fresh water, several kinds of metals, and others). Even attempting to substitute “renewables” for nuclear and fossil fuels electricity production acts as a type of diminishing returns, if such substitution raises the cost of electricity production, as it seems to in Germany and Spain.
If the total extent of diminishing returns is not very great, increased efficiency and substitution can act as workarounds. But if the combined effect becomes too great, diminishing returns acts as a drag on the economy.
Oil Increases are Already Higher than the Economy Can Comfortably Absorb
For oil, we can estimate the historical impact of increased efficiency and substitution by looking at the historical relationship between growth in GDP and growth in oil consumption. Based on the worldwide data underlying Figure 1, this has averaged 2.0% to 2.4% per year since 1970, depending on the period studied. Occasional years have exceeded 3%.
The problem in recent years is that increases in the cost of oil production have been much higher than 2% to 3%. As mentioned previously, a major portion of oil extraction costs seem to be increasing at 10.9% per year. To make this comparable to inflation adjusted GDP increases, the 10.9% increase needs to be adjusted (1) to take out the portion related to “overall inflation” and (2) to adjust for likely lower inflation on the portion of oil production costs not included in Kopits’ calculation. Even if this is done, total oil extraction costs are probably still increasing by about 5% or 6% per year—higher than we have historically been able to make up.
According to Kopits, we are already reaching a point where oil limits are constraining OECD GDP growth by 1% to 2% per year (Kopits, 2014) (Tverberg, 2014). Efficiency gains aren’t happening fast enough to allow GDP to grow at the desired rate.
A major concern is that the treadmill of rising costs will speed up further in the future. If it is hard to keep up now, it will be even harder in the future. Also, the economy “adds together” the adverse effects of diminishing returns from many different sources—-higher electricity cost of production, higher metal cost of production, and the higher cost of oil production. The economy has to increasingly struggle because wages don’t rise to handle all of these increased costs.
As one might guess, when economies hit diminishing returns on resources that are important to the economy, the results aren’t very good. According to Joseph Tainter (1990), many of these economies have collapsed.
Why Haven’t Governments Told Us About these Difficulties?
The story outlined above is not an easy story to understand. It is possible that governments don’t fully understand today’s problems. It is easy to focus on one part of the story such as, “Shale oil extraction is rising in response to higher oil prices,” and miss the important rest of the story—the economy cannot really withstand high oil (and water and electricity and metals) prices. The economy tends to contract in response to a need to use so many resources in increasingly unproductive ways. We associate this contraction with recession.
We have many researchers looking at these issues. Unfortunately, most of these researchers are focused on one small portion of the story. Without understanding the full picture, it is easy to draw invalid conclusions. For example, it is easy to get the idea that we have more time for substitution than we really have. Financial systems are fragile. The world financial system almost failed in 2008, after oil prices spiked. We are still in very worrisome territory, with many countries continuing a policy of Quantitative Easing and ultra low interest rates. We may have only a few months or a year or two left for substitution, not 40 or 50 years, as some seem to assume.
Of course, if governments do understand the worrisome nature of our current situation, they may not want to say anything. It could make the situation worse, if citizens start a “run on the banks.”
The other side of the issue is that if governments and citizens don’t understand the full story, they may inadvertently do things that will make the situation worse. They certainly won’t be looking long and hard at what collapse might look like in the current context and what can be done to mitigate its impacts.
Interesting graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ultimatereserveoilprojections.gif
It shows (assuming a 2% growth rate in oil consumption) that even if one assumes there is twice as much oil as Colin Campbell estimated (with a peak having occurred in 2010) that only pushes the peak 14 years out. Harper (Harper who? I’m not sure graph doesn’t say) assumed 50% more economically recoverable reserves than Campbell which only pushes peak out 5 years (2015).
I would argue that in nothing says the shape of the curve will be as shown, though. A whole host of bad effects give rise to the peak. The actual shape will be much more downward that the graph claims.
I absolutely agree. I was thinking about this the other night, it will look more like your “shark fin” collapse. The way I envision it, society will desperately “pull forward” production so the graph will have an undulating plateau, the peak decline will begin later than expected, and then the amount of economically feasible reserves will suddenly drop as the civilization around it collapses. In other words I think the amount of economically recoverable reserves is grossly overestimated.
I meant “shark fin” graph.
Oil markets certainly have a large correlation with economic growth and performance, and analysis of the correlation between the past 11 recessions and oil prices supports that claim. I think the idea that we are running out of oil is exaggerated, but I do think we have peaked in cheap oil. As we continue to develop more expensive ways of extraction, oil prices will increase. Oil price increases will increase the incentives of oil producers to continue to find new ways to get oil and we get a continuous cycle. The instability of oil markets is dangerous to any economy, especially economies that are on the edge of growth/recession. Developing more secure supplies is crucial, whether it be from more reliable producers of oil or domestic production. Decreasing our risk by reducing our dependence on volatile markets while developing alternate strategies to replace is oil is a good place to start.
Actually that is not the case – Exxon and Chevron last month announced capex reductions because they cannot make money even with oil at $100 or so.
And the consumer is unable to deal with $100 — so the economy cannot tolerate even higher prices.
4 articles for reference:
Why peak oil signals the world’s end, or at least the one we know – Author Steen Jakobsen, Chief Economist & CIO, Saxo Bank
This is old story and, as the world still goes around, one could dismiss all this analysis. However, what is new is that business conditions are becoming more challenging for the oil majors as figure 7 suggests.
Indeed since 2009, the capital expenditures of ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron have increased by 39-89 percent while their production has stalled. This is the balance-sheet-based proof that the peak-oil is happening now.
Indeed, according to Kopits, total upstream industry spendind since 2005 has been USD 4 trillion (about USD 2.5 trillion spent on legacy crude oil production), and legacy oil production has declined by 1 mmb/d since 2005. By comparison, between 1998 and 2005 the industry spent USD 1.5 trillion on upstream development and added 8.6 mmb/d to total crude production.
This declining energy return in energy production, which is nothing but the by-product of declining/exhausting oil reserves and the very fact we are experiencing the peak-oil, drives the whole economy down.
So how all this relates to the “secular stagnation” scenario and all the fall in total factor productivity. Well, this is where things get a little bit technical and where our tale comes (finally!) to an end:
http://www.zawya.com/story/Why_peak_oil_signals_the_worlds_end_or_at_least_the_one_we_know-SX2403201447159/
ExxonMobil, like Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell, will cut spending in 2014 after spending heavily over the past few years. That will make it tough to reverse last year’s decline in production.
Oil and gas behemoth ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) upset the market on March 5 when it told analysts it would cut spending this year. The news was not well-received, and the company’s shares fell hard on the day of the announcement. ExxonMobil is tightening its belt this year, and there are clear worries that there’s a lack of suitable investment opportunities out there for the taking.
Reduced capital expenditures is a recurring theme going on right now across the oil and gas industry. Other global super-majors including Chevron (NYSE: CVX) and Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-B) are adopting similar strategies this year, so it’s not as if this is an ExxonMobil-specific issue.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/07/are-exxonmobils-reduced-capital-expenditures-cause.aspx
THE DECLINE OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR OIL FIELDS: Aging giant fields produce more than half of global oil supply and are already declining as group, Cobb writes. Research suggests that their annual production decline rates are likely to accelerate. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0412/The-decline-of-the-world-s-major-oil-fields
THE TRUTH BEHIND SAUDI ARABIA’S SPARE CAPACITY
The Saudis have also made public plans to start injecting carbon dioxide into the world’s largest oil field, Ghawar, no later than 2013. CO2 injection is what you do when an oil field starts yielding progressively less oil. It gooses the output…for a little while) http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/03/04/the-truth-behind-saudi-arabias-spare-capacity/
The issue is that wages do not rise, even as the cost of oil extraction rises. If oil prices rise too much, we end up in recession. If oil prices don’t rise enough, drillers quite and go home. We are very close to this problem. We need cheap energy sources that can use the same devices we have today, so we don’t have the cost of building new cars/trucks/airplanes/farm equipment/building equipment. We really don’t have many alternate strategies to choose from. They are all more expensive than we can afford.
Could it be that predictions of future shale gas and tight oil production by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) may diverge significantly from actual production?
I wrote a paper awhile back illustrating their poor prediction for North Sea oil production from the late 1990s (see http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-04-19/look-back-north-sea-oil-production-projections). I’ve also shown that their predictions for the Gulf of Mexico and Mexican oil production were also not very good (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-02-17/how-reliable-are-us-department-energy-oil-production-forecasts and http://peak-oil.org/2010/01/mexican-oil-production-continues-to-dive/). Unfortunately, nobody in the media looks back at EIA oil production predictions.
In terms of tight oil production in the U.S., it appears to me that the EIA prediction may diverge significantly from actual production rates in the future. Most of the oil production increase in the U.S. since 2010 has come from Bakken and Eagle Ford shale formations. In 2011 I predicted that Bakken would peak in 2014 +/- 1 year. Recently international petroleum geologist Jean Laherrere predicted Bakken would peak in the fall of 2014. Also, David Hughes, who has done an extensive analysis of Bakken, has revised his predicted peak to 2015.
There is increasing evidence that a Bakken peak will be coming soon. It’s important to note that about 90% of Bakken oil production in North Dakota comes from 4 counties: Mountrail, McKenzie, Williams and Dunn. The reason for that is because that is where the oil is. Initial production rates in Bakken counties outside of the top four counties drops off significantly which I recently showed (see http://peak-oil.org/2013/11/analysis-of-well-completion-data-for-north-dakotas-bakken-formation/).
The general assumption concerning Bakken and Eagle Ford is that if the number of new wells continues to increase, production will increase until the play is totally saturated with wells. My argument is that as the fruitful area gets saturated with wells, I expect production to decline because wells outside of the core area will not be as productive. Based upon my calculations and assuming 500 acres/well, the core area will be pretty well saturated with wells by the end of this year.
Compounding the problem of less productive wells in the future is the fact that tight oil wells decline rapidly (see http://peak-oil.org/2013/11/analysis-of-well-completion-data-for-north-dakotas-bakken-formation/). There are more and more wells that are in decline so an increasing number of new productive wells have to be added to negate the declining wells. If the new wells decline in initial production, that just means more wells have to be brought on-line more rapidly. At some point, the new wells can’t keep up.
Based upon data in the Bakken Weekly, 964 wells were completed from the week of Jan. 1 through the week of March 17 of this year and the sum of the initial productions was 588,539 b/d. That compares to 586 wells and 465,877 b/d for the same period in 2013. The ratio of 2014/2013 wells is 1.65 and the ratio of 2014/2013 initial production is 1.26. That indicates that initial production/well is declining. For the month of March, the ratio of 2014/2013 wells was 1.69 and the ratio of initial production was 0.86.
There have been several media articles recently stating that oil companies are losing money on tight oil projects and that oil companies are starting to cut back. If that indeed happens, that would make it even more likely that tight oil production will decline in the near future.
Recently I read an article which stated that wildcatters were leaving the Bakken region and going to east Texas to look for oil. If there were a lot of fruitful areas to drill in the Bakken region, why would wildcatters want to leave North Dakota?
What I’ve stated about Bakken applies to Eagle Ford as well. Production ramped up a little later in Eagle Ford but the intensity of the drilling activity has been higher than in the Bakken region so I expect a peak there in 2014/2015. It won’t be long before we find out if that is correct.
The oil industry has drilled wells in the best shale plays as fast as humanly possible and production ramped up rapidly. The down side of that is that production can also decline rapidly after the peak. Jean Laherrere projects that Bakken production will decline ~80% by 2020 from its peak. David Hughes projects that Bakken production will be essentially zero by 2035, 21 years from now.
You are quite right–EIA estimates are likely high. They have a definite high bias. We are likely not far away from peak in the Bakken and Eagle Ford, for several different reasons–poorer well productivity, financial difficulties, can’t keep borrowing because banks won’t lend more.
The impacts of global warming are likely to be “severe, pervasive and irreversible”, a major report by the UN has warned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26817593
Perhaps the frog is already boiled – but he doesn’t know it. i.e. we are already dead.
Pingback: The People I Turn To Re: Energy Issues by Richard Ha | Ahualoa Community Association
Dear Gail and All
Yesterday I noted the publication of the book The Soil Will Save Us. It may be useful to put some of the numbers into perspective. I have previously noted that photosynthesis provides roughly 10 times the energy supplied by fossil fuels (from Lenton and Watson). The following numbers are from Tyler Volk’s books Gaia’s Body and CO2 Rising..
Pg 109 Gaia’s Body “This mutual influence between soil and life has prompted the Dutch soil scientist N. van Breemen to call soil a ‘biotic construct favoring net primary productivity’ ”
Pg 79 CO2 Rising:
Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, per year, circa 2008 is 8 billion metric tons per year.
Photosynthesis uptake of carbon is 60 billion tons per year
Land use changes are estimated to release 1.5 billion tons per year (with considerable uncertainty) e.g., plowing and deforestation
Pools of carbon in billions of metric tons:
Atmosphere 800
Land Plants 600
Ocean Life 2
Ocean Surface 800
Deep Ocean 25,000
Soil 2,000
Pg 122 and preceding, Gaia’s body
‘Computing over a depth of just ten centimeters (where most of the action of life occurs) and for a moment neglecting the clay, I derive a surface area index equiavlent to 2000 Earth areas. Adding the bacteria-sized clay particles boosts this number to 11,000 Earth areas. To calculate a full meter of depth, multiply these numbers by 10.’
My note: the significance of surface area traces back to the fact that surfaces are where exchanges and thus life happen. For example, a leaf exchanges carbon dioxide and oxygen. Root hairs are where the action is in the soil. The point is that Life creates enormous surface areas which have profound influences on the cycles of Nature. For all of you cursing the clay in your lawn, keep in mind that clay particles are also biologically active in ways that sand grains are not.
Those who look at biological farming and gardening as our potential saviors look at the enormous fluxes and the size of the reservoirs and the enormous power of the biologically active surface areas and ruminate about the ways we might nudge Nature in ways that benefit humans.
Don Stewart
Don
Alas, the power in Nature is not that which gives our ‘leaders’ and masters their kicks in life.
Dear Xabier
Many years ago I heard the novelist Larry McMurtry talk. McMurtry was born in Texas, and wrote a lot of stories about the frontier. Texas was an independent country from 1835 to 1845. It needed a capitol building, but had no money. So it got some Scottish investors to agree to build a capitol building, and in return gave them millions of acres of land which was overrun with Comanches, at the time. After the Civil War, the US Cavalry either killed the Comanches or drove them to Oklahoma. So western Texas became the land of gigantic ranches on vast grasslands. For about 10 years, there were no fences. It was called ‘open range’ and cows were branded with the insignia of a specific ranch. Then, the ranchers figured out that perhaps they could make more money with fences.
McMurtry said that the ranchers realized pretty quickly that they had destroyed ‘Eden’, but they could not figure out a way to go back, once they had done the dirty deed. I believe that greed is still classified as a deadly sin, but few people want to think about that anymore.
When I contemplate the enormous fluxes of energy and materials that Nature provided for the early humans, and see how humans managed to turn that into slave labor in coal mines and textile mills and now into fraudulent banking maneuvers, it always reminds me of McMurtry’s comments. Even a little bit of reflection would lead one to the conclusion that we went very wrong. But we can’t figure out how to get back to Eden.
On a more optimistic note, I think it is interesting to see how small changes in the fluxes could help us immensely with some of our problems.
Don Stewart
I am not an economist, but peering through the jargon, I think this says that a sudden reduction in oil supply, while interest rates are near zero, will lead to a contraction of the economy. Can someone tell me if my translation of Are negative supply shocks expansionary at the zero lower bound is correct?
The IPCC 2 volume report is being released tomorrow and even if we stop all emissions now sea level rise will be a major problem for us to adapt to:
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc300314A.htm
Dear Gail and All
Here is an interesting book review:
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-kristen-ohlson-20140316,0,2360541.story#axzz2xVCU509Z
The thesis of the book, written by a well known science writer, is that we can sequester enough carbon in the soil to reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and ‘solve’ the climate change problem. The methods which would be used would also greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels in agriculture.
I haven’t read this book as yet, but I recognize a lot of the proposed solutions. I have written about them here. Albert Bates has said similar things, particularly with regard to biochar.
My two cents worth of opinion is that we have to stop cultivating. Cultivating just stirs up the microbes, who eat whatever carbon is in the soil (except maybe for the biochar). Many ‘organic’ farmers around here have cover cropped and then plowed for 20 years, and have zero carbon in the soil to show for their efforts. But the agricultural colleges still say that one has to ‘turn under’ the cover crop. I think that Ohlson is talking to the very best farmers and showing us what ‘best practices’ can do.
Don Stewart
LOL
Riot police called in as violent clashes break out across France after far-right National Front win dramatic gains in local elections
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592921/Riot-police-called-violent-clashes-break-France-far-right-National-Front-win-dramatic-gains-local-elections.html
Interesting development – we have seen over the past few years many protests against austerity yet they all seem to die out eventually. The authorities look to be willing to use the heavy hand if necessary – see Egypt where the government has no problem to kill hundreds if not thousands of people if necessary to put down any opposition.
I am left wondering – do we eventually get a ‘French revolution’ on one of these countries (which inspires others) – or do the people react like beaten dogs and just accept that this is the way things are now and cower under the boot?
I have a friend who worked as a senior UN observer in Gaza for a number of years some years ago and from what he has observed, oppressed populations when faced with overwhelming force essentially do lie down like beaten dogs.
The Palestinians are virtually powerless against their Israelis who illegally occupy their lands – and for the most part do nothing of significance to oppose Israel. They live in appalling conditions with no jobs or prospects – they are a beaten people.
When I was in Egypt about 6 months ago I had a chance to speak to some of the student leaders – they agreed their revolution had failed – they were actually hoping for a ‘hunger revolution’ now – a situation where the people rise enmasse against the dictatorship and destroy the entire system (a French revolution type situation) taking back the country from the cronies and the military.
So far we have seen nothing of the sort – it is one thing to take down the front man (Mubarak) but another to take down the system – Mubarak was not the system – the system is backed by the military with US support. That is a whole different ballgame and taking that down would involve a massive uncontrolled uprising and likely a failed state situation. The Egyptian people appear not willing to go that far – yet….
Is that what will happen to as this situation progresses in western nations – will the people just accept their lot or will they react with extreme violence and attempt to destroy their governments and economies?
We should all be very wary of violent revolutions as we know how they tend to turn out: just a new rider in the saddle with even sharper spurs, or the old one back for revenge after a while. The Egyptian farce underlines this, and as for the Ukraine…!
Spain is very interesting at the moment. It is well on the way to being an autocratic police state.
The government are not happy with protests that ‘damage the image of Spain’, (even though much of the violence certainly originates with police and security agents provocateurs) and are severely restricting the rights of protestors, with some even proposing setting aside a special zone far from Madrid’s centre in which to protest to their hearts’ content without causing ‘economic disruption’…! ie You can have your right to protest, but just do it where no-one can see….
Under new laws. participants in protests run the risk of incurring fines of many thousands of euros if there is violence at the event (this is where the provocateurs come in….) Private security guards are being invested with the rights and powers of police officers in certain situations: in other words, law and order maintained by night club doormen….. (from security companies owned by politicians and their business backers).
Everyone knows that in a Spanish police station -as in Egypt – you are in for a good kicking if they feel like it, and the judiciary is complicit in this, – there is no point in protesting ill-treatment when you come to court – so this does help to keep people under.
A low point in protests last year was the film of police hitting a 14 year-old boy lying on the ground, with a woman trying to protect him -they reached down to use their batons and kick him. And hitting the backs of protestors as they peacefully obeyed police orders to clear an area.
It is becoming a commonplace to say that this is ‘worse than Francoism.’ And yet ordinary people on the Right often say that ‘what we need is another Franco’.
And because the videos showing how badly the police behaved to peaceful protestors were so embarrassing to the government, the filming of police action will also be punished by heavy fines – fines that would bankrupt an ordinary citizen – if the police say it has ‘hindered their operations’.
Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers
Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet tells EU’s Cathy Ashton about claim that provocateurs were behind Maidan killings
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet
Dear Gail and Others
Here is a very good essay by David Holmgren, the Australian Permaculturist, on Food Security…Don Stewart
http://holmgren.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/food-for-thought.pdf
One essay can’t cover everything, so the following comment is not a criticism. David’s discussion of urban and suburban gardening, which is intensive as compared to the less intensive growing of staple crops, also affects our ability to achieve higher recycling rates for material resources. For example, in Nature, a phosphorus atom is recycled 46 times before it is lost to ocean sediments. But in industrial agriculture, much of the phosphorus is never even used once to produce food…it simply washes into the sea and produces pollution. Similarly, nitrogen can be produced by certain bacteria using special enzymes…or it can be produced by using enormous amounts of fossil fuels. For both phosphorus and nitrogen, skillful gardening is a way to move the dial closer to what Nature achieves. Meanwhile, better large scale farming methods are also being used by innovative farmers.
Indeed, I am half way through reading “Farmer’s of 40 Centuries” written back in the 1910 or so timeframe. He tours Japan, China, Korea and details their farming practices. Much of what is described there is exactly what Permaculture is now advocating. I find the pictures fascinating and the baskets in the pictures beautiful. Not everything he writes would agree with our current science and research based understanding of soil, nutrients, etc. But it is surprisingly close and how he observes the conservation of nutrients, fuel, etc. is, maybe, where some of us will end up practicing on a day to day basis. I would recommend it as part entertainment and part a fascinating window into farming before modern oil, coal, gas were adopted.
Dear Calista and Others
In the article, David Holmgren speaks favorably of Dumpster Diving.
After I posted this, I was talking to my daughter. A small farmer friend of hers who raises a couple of hogs was getting mash from a microbrewery to feed his hogs. The microbrewery gets rid of waste and the small farmer gets cheap, nutritious feed. I imagine David would approve.
But now the Food and Drug Administration is either going to require, or already has issued rules, requiring the microbrewery to dry the mash before they give it to the farmer. The microbrewery isn’t willing to go to the extra expense, so the mash ends up as just plain waste.
Only in Washington, DC can a win/win be turned into a lose/lose. There are several achilles heels in terms of plans to relocalize food. One of the biggest is the utter malevolence directed at the idea from the United States Government.
Next, we will have a ‘padlock requirement’ of food waste bins to make sure that no poor people take the free food, and instead line up for food stamps like good citizens should.
Don Stewart
There is the reason behind it.
It is a trade-off. I do not know the details of the hazard. I do know that the FDA does have a backlog and chooses which problems to attack.
The deadline for comments is tomorrow, March 31.
Dear interguru
Here is my point. In a world of relocalized food, the seller and the buyer likely know each other. If a hog farmer wants to buy wet mash and feed it to his hogs, because he trusts the brewery in terms of its handling of the mash, a world without a lot of fossil fuels simply cannot afford to get in the middle and start to tell both parties what to do.
The FDA assumes that everything is simply a part of an anonymous ‘supply chain’ where the buyers and sellers do not know each other, have no reason to trust each other, may only be doing business through intermediaries, will never see each other, may be on the other side of the world from each other, etc. I really don’t care very much what the FDA tells such people to do.
I do want the FDA to stop micromanaging the relationship between a small brewer and a small farmer.
And lots of other relationships. For example, requiring a woman I know to cook things she sells at the farmers market in a commercial kitchen which she has to pay high rents to get access to. I have eaten in her dining room, and I have a pretty good idea that she isn’t going to poison me. Making her pay for a commercial kitchen is just more expensive red tape.
If we take the collapse scenarios seriously, these kinds of overbearing regulation simply have to stop. Unfortunately, I see no indication that the government ‘get’s it’. John Kerry recently complained that the US was acting like a ‘poor country’. Yet most of the people who comment here would use the words ‘bankrupt country’.
Don Stewart
The proposed rule exempts “A facility that has animal food sales averaging less than $500,000 per year during the last three years.”
An interesting article on how the Russian far right is driving foreign policy in Ukraine and elsewhere. It is beyond funny that the pro-Russian propaganda media hides that while calling the entire interim government of Ukraine “fascist”. For instance, the far right LDP has 15% of Duma seats and Zhirinovsky is the deputy speaker of the Duma. The deputy PM Rogozin is also far right.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22760-brown-is-the-new-black
The success of the far right, however, has not been simply to elevate Zhirinovsky in the Duma or to swell the crowds of neo-Nazis who march in Moscow and other major cities. Rather, the far right has been able to shape the very mainstream of Russian policy.
Two excellent articles on the Crimea/Ukraine by former Wall St Journal editor Paul Roberts who has completely broken from the MSM in recent years and is exposing the hypocrisy of the US:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/28/pushing-toward-final-war-paul-craig-roberts/
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/29/western-looting-ukraine-begun-paul-craig-roberts/
Pingback: Ex govt adviser: “global market shock” from “oil crash” could hit in 2015 | Southern Energy and Resilience
More and more alarm bells are ringing the warnings of the shock crash that is upon us all:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/28/global-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak
Gail, as per human caused global warming, you should read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/
I just finished David Archibald’s The Twilight of Abundance. Anyone interested in what the future could be because of peak oil should read this book. We can save ourselves if we build Thorium reactors.
If there was something that could save us – Thorium reactors or otherwise – don’t you think that venture capital funds would be pouring in billions? Why wouldn’t the Fed take a few hundred billion from the trillions it is printing and fund such technology?
After all, when the SHTF civilization collapses – cash becomes worthless – why not go for the hail mary pass – just dump a fortune into anything that might save the day?
Of course governments know there is no replacement for oil (try making pesticides and fertilizers without oil and gas for instance)…. that is why they don’t bother with pie in the sky ideas — their only response is to print money and keep interest rates at zero – because this delays what is absolutely inevitable – total global economy collapse.
Not if – but when.
Dear Gail and All (especially engineers)
I am interested in electricity in off-grid systems (but my house is currently a conventional grid connected system).
One issue is cooking. While a wood fired stove makes sense for a lot of people in the US, there might also be a role for solar powered rice cookers. A rice cooker usually draws about 600 watts, considerably less than a kitchen stove or oven. Rice cookers are very versatile, and many people cook with little else. 600 watts is well within range of a modest solar PV system.
So I searched on ‘rice cookers direct current’ and turned up a couple of interesting items. First, the Asians make small direct current rice cookers, which can be plugged into the cigarette lighter in a car. You’ll see them if you do the search.
Second, I turned up this interesting research on ‘the DC house’:
http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/152472.pdf
I can’t follow all the calculations, but it seems to me that it turns out that a DC house might be more economical than an AC house with grid connections. If the grid becomes unstable and unreliable, then might it make very good sense for householders to be thinking seriously about off grid houses with the appliances arrayed as in the article?
Don Stewart
I have maintained a rudimentary $300US shake n bake dc 2x 6v golf cart battery system for about 20 years. The golf cart batteries last about 6 years, with two battery changouts I have about $700 US spent for this simplest of systems over the past two decades I have PV panels and a charging interface that I have tested and stored for it but as I am on the grid I maintain the batteries with a smart charger and the PV panels are stored. The archilles heal of every non grid PV system is the batteries. Their lifespan is largely determined by appropriate charging and this can be problematic when the charging is supplied by PV and use of power exceeds charging capability. If you screw up on your use/ charging battery life can be shortened dramatically. It is pretty much a straight DC system as you advocate. Don, you are correct, there are many advantages to not using an inverter to convert DC to AC, power loss among them. I consider my system more of a science project than a replacement for fossil fuels, its primary function to provide LED lighting during an outage.
Would not a solar cooker cook rice also? My experience has led me to believe that in most cases, most people are far better off investing in insulating a single room of their house very well and providing that room with passive solar heating than investing in a DC PV system. This decision of course depends on the climate where you live. In most cases shutters of some sort must be incorporated in the summer to prevent heating via passive solar. I have seen a lot of people sink a lot of $ into PV systems in an attempt to maintain standard of living post collapse. IMHO they will not succeed. Flip the main breaker on your panel and turn your furnace off for 24hrs. That will show you what you need. Until you have done that you know nothing. Do it again after you have made some changes. repeat as neccesary. Dont freeze your pipes and dont kill yourself with CO from a propane heater or gasoline generator.
Just to clarify, the last paragraph of my post was not directed at anyone in particular. Don I enjoy your posts keep em coming.
Dear ordinaryjoe
My thinking is that a passive solar cooker, combined with an insulated pot, is the basic way to cook in a crowded world without grid electricity or natural gas.
I have used small solar PV systems to pump water, and I agree that the batteries are a headache.
I have a couple of reasons to be interested in an ‘intermediate technology’ such as ‘the DC house’ or a movable PV panel connected to a rice cooker. First is the terrible deforestation in some countries as people scavenge for firewood. Second is the observation that people can learn to live without a lot of things….given some time. So if there is some off-grid solution which can ease us into the system we are going to have to live with for a long time, then it may be worth exploring.
For example, I think the people in the far north ate mostly raw food, before about 1960. But that would be a wrenching change for a crowded city, today.
I settled on rice cookers because, for a period time, I lived on what I could cook in a rice cooker. You can do a lot of different things besides cook rice in them. And their power requirements are pretty modest.
Don Stewart
A movable PV panel connected straight to a cooker is a good idea! If you do it please post the specifics. Anything thats sans batteries Anything thats a straight resistance load eliminates the need to regulate the voltage coming off the PVs. Whats the voltage- dont care. Does the load rating exceed the power supplied in watts? Yup- good to go. A 600 watt cooker cooks rice in fifteen minutes- attached to a single 50 watt PV will it cook rice in 6 hours? I would still shunt power to different resistance load tho when the cooker is empty. In cold climates a wind turbine attached to the shaft of a suitable electric motor as a generator is feasable also for resistance heating. Simple idea not sure anyone has pulled it off. Whats the voltage- Dont care- Does resistance load exceed max rating of generator in watts?- Yup -Good to go. No shunt required- If it gets too hot open a window.
One of the holy grails of appropriate technology for poor villages is a kitchen stove that is less polluting and more efficient, including solar stoves.
from Killer cookstoves: Indoor smoke deadly in poor countries; cleaner stoves elusive.
The ultimate resource is oxygen, running a close second…
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2012/finalwebsite/problem/groundwater.shtml
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvoFJsqF1wQ
Not sure how the vide got linked up higher, so am posting it again at the bottom of this thread.
Watched the youtube video link above last evening. It’s titled ‘peak oil and climate change’, but is mostly about peak oil by Nicole Foss, whom many of us already know. She is very good at articulating peak oil in a bottom line way very fast. Also has suggestions for what to do to prepare.
Glencore Xstrata, the world’s fourth biggest miner, weighed heavily on its peers after the natural resources titan said that it would shut one of its Australian coal mines.
The Switzerland-based company blamed the falling coal price, which is a its lowest level since 2007, higher costs and a strong Australian dollar for suspending production.
Those factors have meant the Ravensworth mine, which last year produced 2.1m tonnes of coal, is no longer financially viable, the company said. The decision comes despite steps to try and improve profitabilty at the mine.
Since 2011 declining coal prices have forced miners including Glencore’s rivals BHP Biliton and Anglo American to review their operations, shelve expansion plans and make staff cuts staff cuts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/10728118/Market-report-Glencore-coal-mine-closure-weighs-on-peers.html
It isn’t just oil prices that are low. Coal is low too, especially in Australia. This makes it sound like China’s demand level is way down.
Low coal prices are as much production killers as low oil prices!
Good point, Gail, and speaking of price of oil, here’s a link to an upbeat peak oil .com article
http://peakoil.com/business/here-comes-75-oil
about how oil price is going to drop to 75 dollars a barrel. I posted a response below on that website that it would be a disastrous scenario because if capex is already dropping at today’s oil price, then at 75 it drops precipitously and we get such a huge drop in future oil supply there would be a permanent drop from peak oil. But of course those writing the article think it would be great.
If oil goes below 75 for anything more than a very short period — fracking is over.
And when that is over the retirement party is over. That article I was linking above from peak oil dot com is a complete fantasy about how it will be a positive thing to in essence descend from peak oil as we transition to NG & renewables. It’s really getting thick out there with in-denial based articles claiming all sorts of wild ideas about how we are just going to leave oil in the dust. I suppose people tend to cling to any ideas that give them hope in the face of mounting evidence of an impending departure from BAU. Just chalk it up to human nature in which some get it but even more try to dodge difficult truths.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-31/yellen-says-extraordinary-support-needed-for-some-time-.html
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, easing investor concern that interest rates may rise earlier than previously forecast, said the world’s biggest economy will need Fed stimulus for “some time.”
Yellen said today the Fed hasn’t done enough to combat unemployment even after holding interest rates near zero for more than five years and pumping up its balance sheet to $4.23 trillion with bond purchases.
“This extraordinary commitment is still needed and will be for some time, and I believe that view is widely shared by my fellow policy makers,” Yellen said at a community development conference in Chicago. “The scars from the Great Recession remain, and reaching our goals will take time.”
Could Yellen’s comments be code for a plan to halt taper?
‘For some time’ = FOREVER.
I do not believe the Fed has tapered — I am certain that they are juicing the economy in other ways – if they say they have reduced by 10B at a Fed meeting I suspect they have somehow infused 10B or even more in some other manner that they do not disclose
Recently it was revealed on Zero Hedge (later confirmed by the MSM) that China has printed 15 trillion dollars since 2009. No surprise to some of us – how the hell does China charge ahead with nearly 10% growth when the world around them is cratered? Of course they were playing a magic trick on the world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW3h4wv8_ko
Every time QE was running out since it was launched the markets tanked — but this time they are racing upwards — if something looks to be wrong with a picture – there is something wrong with a picture.
I absolutely believe the Fed has not pulled back at all – and I believe the amount of stimulus per month is far far beyond the 85B peak we were told about – subprime auto loans, disability for anyone who applies, student loans used for shopping — all that and more needs to be added to the 85B.
What cannot go on forever will not go on forever – but they will try
I work for one of the other big four and we produce high quality met coal only this week a total of 80 people were retrenched across 3 mine sites and head office and the company spin doctor said this is only phase 1 with another review in June.Over capacity in the Chinese steel market and high Aussie dollar not helping.
Layoffs in commodities can start a downward cycle, it seems to me.
Japan to Speed Up Spending as Consumers Flash Warning: Economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-27/japan-inflation-unchanged-in-february-before-sales-tax-increase.html
What is most interesting about this is that spending was expected to spike as people pushed forward purchases of big ticket items to avoid the imminent sales tax hike.
It’s not happening – and this will only get worse once that tax is rolled out.
Will Japan be the first domino to fall? A weakened currency — already very high oil prices — nuclear power shut down — looks like a perfect storm.
Of course the answer is always more stimulus. Always more….
The assumption of the economists – and hope of the politicians – is that we will always respond to ‘stimulus’, like Pavlov’s dogs. That’s when we don’t give way to ‘animal spirits’.
A consumer saying: ‘I’m possibly going to be very, very broke tomorrow so there’s no way I’m buying anything today if what I have isn’t broken!’ is their worst nightmare.
The cynicism of it is disgusting: recently a politician in Britain said that tax cuts should benefit ‘poor people’ because ‘low-income people always spend ALL their income.’ ! That’s not choice for those people, it’s a necessity.
There’s something very disgusting morally about the well-paid and pensioned discussing the manipulation of the poor.
Unfortunately for these ghastly economists and politcians, we are approaching the stage when poor people actually don’t have enough to spend even on basic necessities, and when poor people constitute and ever-larger % of the population. Good-bye consumer economy.
More stimulus in the future seems to be the answer. But how?
Without a doubt they will do as they have done for two decades – announce even more stimulus – we were told the last round was the mother of all rounds – it was ‘courageous’ and Abe was brilliant.
So yes – what is the encore? The mother of the mother of all stimulus packages – why not just really go for it – try 100 trillion – I am sure Paul Krugman would say that’s the answer.
No matter how much stimulus is unleashed fools like Krugman will always say ‘ it’s just not enough -we need more more more’
At some point this is going to explode like 50000 tonnes of dynamite.
Incredible – how long can this go on???
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-27/picturing-our-dystopian-world-where-less-more
As long as interest rates are near zero?
Yeah, and when Yellen stated interest rates may begin rising about 6 months after QE tapers to zero, there was a collective gasp on Wall Street. Evidently the thought of fun money going away was just too much for some. What I’m wondering is what kind of economy we will have with no freebies to stimulate growth? If the freebies and cheap oil are gone what are we left with? Debt?
Pingback: Gail Tverberg’s posts | Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge
Here is a report by the eia that say the primary fuels for the US will be essentially unchanged in 2040. There is an increase of 3% for natural gas, 2% for renewables and 1% for bio-liquids, and a decrease of 5% for oil and liquids.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er%282014%29.pdf
Can someone tell me if this is correct? Does it really mean gasoline consumption is down 60%?
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=A103600001&f=M
Dear edpell
I asked this question a number of months ago. Although I never understood the explanation, the answer was that the statistic is basically meaningless in terms of gasoline usage in the US
Don Stewart
According to this link: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/understanding-gasoline-sales-by.html it has something to do with the divestiture of retail gas outlets by the majors.
Looks like people are broke so are cutting back on driving…. I have seen car sales in the US among under 25’s have plummeted — I guess they are prioritizing food and smartphones and passing on buying cars
They mostly don’t have jobs.
Try this link instead: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=M
I think your link simply says that refiners are no longer the ones selling gasoline. Instead, there are different businesses who own the gasoline stations.
According to a theory developed by University of Utah atmospheric scientist Tim Garrett, there is a direct relation between GDP expressed in dollars and energy consumption expressed in watts. The hypothesis says that this process is related to our rate of energy consumption through a constant value λ (9.7, plus or minus 0.3, milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar]. Video explores the historical evidence supporting this hypothesis:
[wpvideo Ky3EBvKz w=400 h=300]
Get ready to cringe:
Did you get that? A Fed lackey claiming the tightening of monetary policy caused the housing bubble! That is some special kind of stupid. Why didn’t they make this guy chairman?
He is not made chairman because he makes comments like this. He has been a voice of sense for a long time.
How does what he says here make any sense?
Dear timl2k11 and others
The only way I can interpret Bullard with any sense is as follows:
1. Given ZIRP, do current price levels for stocks and bonds make sense? ….and perhaps the answer is ‘yes’, provided you think the Fed can keep interest rates at zero for a very long time.
2. But then, if the Fed decides to push interest rates up by making less credit available to the system, a ‘bubble’ suddenly comes into existence as the current prices are seen to be inflated relative to the newly rational prices in a world with higher interest rates.
3. The ‘bubble’ pops and prices drop.
Don Stewart
We already have bubbles in places like the art market where underemployed dollars are dispatched in search of investment opportunities.
Hence the execrable Jeff Koons’ ‘Balloon Dog’, a 10 ft high shiny metal magician’s balloon trick, getting $53 million or so recently. Originally sold at $3 to 5 million I believe.
The Fed did manage to raise interest rates as home prices were already falling, making the situation worse–but that is not what Bullard is saying here.
Than what is he saying? Fed’s loose policy fueled the housing bubble. The tightening helped pop it. He’s suggesting that the tightening of Fed policy helped fuel the housing bubble, is he not? If so, that’s insane.
Hello once again Gail,
As you probably know Australia is in a deepening crisis over its gas exports to Asia. We are in this mess because of “contracts to supply fuel-starved Asian markets prepared to pay triple the prices Australians do for energy”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-27/gas-boom-threatens-australian-manufacturing-jobs/5349822
There are dire predictions of acute local shortages by 2016, which will lead to power blackouts, no domestic gas for heating and cooking, and massive price spikes to industry which will lead to at least 100,000 more job losses here.
I want to find out from you if the USA is a model of natural gas resource conservation as this article indicates.
“”The manufacturing industry says it wants a system similar to the US where gas is not exported unless it first meets a national interest test” Will adopting a model similar to that used in the US solve all our problems in one go, and result in cheap plentiful energy?
Are these developments likely to see coal making a massive comeback, and become the fuel of choice for industry to once again bring back low cost energy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/gas-prices-force-switch-to-coal-for-power-stations/story-e6frg9df-1226819086580#mm-premium
Your thoughts on the matter of our energy dilemma here in Australia will be appreciated.
kind regards
Hartley
I suppose if Australia were to cut or curb gas exports that would drive the price through the roof — that would destroy economies of countries that are importers — which would tip the global economy over — Australia would have it’s gas reserves but the economy would be in pieces if China were to be staggered by higher gas costs.
No doubt China and other importers would shift to coal if gas prices went to high – that would result in China being the first cockroach free nation in the world – because the air pollution would fumigate the entire country….
In a globalized economy I don’t think that a nation preserving it’s resources for its people will change things much – all parts of this interconnected economy need cheap oil to function – and if any key hub is denied cheap oil – the whole thing unravels.
I am afraid I haven’t been following the US natural gas situation closely enough to know if there is supposed to be a 10% limit. But I do know that the Federal Government seems to be approving a lot of applications for export. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/Summary%20of%20LNG%20Export%20Applications.pdf
Their website doesn’t mention the 10% limit very obviously.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the result is to go back to coal. I know I read that Japan has started using more coal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579464942892719528?mg=reno64-wsj
An eloquent statistic regarding insane debt production and the real state of the economy in Britain:
45% of student loans are non-performing, in that the debtors – new graduates – are not earning over the £21k threshold at which repayments start. It’s a bust system.
And yet, wonder to behold, the British government are boasting about the low rate of unemployment and the rapid world-beating growth of the economy.
I am perplexed: what should I believe…….could they possibly be lying?
Whoa- I dont think its that way in the USA although our student debt is 2+2=5 also. Let me get this straight, if you dont think you will ever make over 21 k sterling a year after graduation- or you work under the table- you sign on for four free years, study permaculture, explore meaningful interaction with the opposite sex, have a few pints,and maybe even put a few ounces of silver away with the extra. WINNING
The irony is that the previous ‘socialist’ administration of Tony Blair wanted to get all young people attending ‘university’ (covers many sins that term, now….) as ‘studies show that graduates earn higher salaries.’
It would be richly comic if it were not so utterly tragic.
Essentially, we now have an inflated higher education ‘industry’ that produces graduates who would be earning more and have more stable employment if they had just gone straight to a building site.
I’m from the UK, and I was just as perplexed by Tony Blair’s wish, wanting 50% of school leavers (if my memory serves) to get degrees. Thus reducing the value of degrees, and in my experience the vast majority have gone to study really soft subjects such as “drama”. It ties people to debt, but doesn’t help employment or workforce skills.
The 50% target:
1/ It sounded ‘aspirational’ and democratic.
2/ It kept the young off the unemployment stats.
3/ It supported the education ‘industry’.
In other words no damn use at all, to the students!
Similarly, a very high % of young people attend university in Spain, and this is seen as a ‘democratic right’. but they find their degrees are more or less useless on graduating, with the extremely high youth unemployment rate.
All good points. By the way, I’m living in Madrid, and I study here too. I wish a degree was a democratic right, here and in the UK, but I don’t think it is anymore. Now it’s the bare minimum you need just to get a minimum wage job. Maybe it’s incompetence or greed on the part of our leaders, but “peak oil” seems to share a lot of responsibility too.
Obama made some changes to student loan repayment plans here (federal only, I believe) that cut back how much low income graduates need to pay. If that change hadn’t been made, I expect we would have had higher default rates than ours are right now.
Here a good video that explain why we might be going into the next mini ice age. I told you that it has been cooler. I remember working on my car by mid march with only a shirt on. We know nothing of the world and science is just another religion. Science is really limited in the comprehension of the world
The Next Ice Age – An Introduction to a Possible Shift Soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuYTcnN7TQk
C(Lie)mate #3 – What Doesn’t Make The News
You know there’s probably a simpler explanation for why world temperatures have not risen as much as CO2 levels, like temps are lagging because the time period in which humankind spewed the stuff is insufficient for temperatures to catch up. Thermal inertia is the 30-40 year lag time between added GHG’s in the atmosphere and the time it takes for the oceans to uptake added heating and then influence weather. The oceans hold a thousand times as much thermal energy as the atmosphere, so lag time is expected particularly in this unprecedented case of humans belching burnt FF at ever faster rates.
Incidentally, and I’ll let you find the links via a Google search, a super El Nino is currently building in the East Pacific, responsible in part for the hurricane that recently decimated part of the Philippine Islands. It appears to hold even more thermal energy than the super El Nino of 1998!
So be patient, temps will catch up to fast rising CO2 levels, guaranteed, it’s physics, chemistry.
I follow both peak oil and climate change, and what is uncanny is how both seem to be timed in concert towards greater tipping points. Just as capex for the majors exploration is dropping; older giant fields are being in-filled to draw the last of the oil out faster; tar sands and other dirtier unconventional sources are being tapped because of high oil price, suggesting oil supply will begin dropping from a peak sometime in the next few years, all the while climate change has the super El Nino coming mentioned above, the record arctic melt of 2012; higher methane releases worldwide, amplifying jet stream causing blocking in which weather gets stuck causing droughts and floods; record high temps in Australia and a record drought in the Amazon. It’s looking like both peak oil and climate change are running neck and neck in a match race towards the edge of a cliff.
Sometimes I think peak oil is ahead, but later think climate change is, then I think they are tied coming into the home stretch, but in any case, I don’t think we’ll be cheering them on when they cross the finish line.
I am afraid I am not a climate expert.
A North Atlantic cold spell could be brought on by global warming.
From Wikipedia
Dear Gail and All
Just a couple of notes on the news today and how that highlights some of the ways things might play out.
First up is Ben Law, the intrepid British woodsman, talking about his spring chores:
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/ben-law-coppicing-curved-stems-and-squirrel-stew?utm_source=GraphicMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NewsletterLink&utm_campaign=newsletter-4598-Mar-2014&utm_content=
Please note a few things:
1. Coppice is the act of cutting immature trees back to the ground every few years. This is the way to maximize wood harvest…as opposed to trying to grow a mature forest. The trees remain teenagers forever, shooting up at unbelievable rates. Some coppice woods are thousands of years old. The wood harvested is good for making many objects from fences to furniture, and the wood can be burned for heat.
2. The act of coppicing pushes seeds into the ground, which encourages the next generation. (This is somewhat similar to the way heavy herbivores punch material into the soil, encouraging biological activity).
3. Squirrels are the biggest threat, and have no natural enemies. The solution is a hunting dog and an air rifle. The harvest is squirrel stew.
4. Coppicing is very much easier with a good crosscut saw. And hunting squirrels depends on having an air rifle. Air rifles are most easily made in simple factories, but can also be made by hand by a skilled craftsman.
Now try to think about how this might play out in a small group of farmers and villagers who know each other. The woodsman is likely to be a skilled craftsman, because he can manage forests, cut the wood efficiently, build rustic furniture, has a dog for spotting the squirrels, has an air rifle, etc. (In short, you want Ben Law on your side.) Perhaps the woodsman lives in the village, or perhaps he also farms part time and also serves as the local skilled woodsman. Probably in some distant larger city lives the guy who made the air rifle, or in some yet more distant place the factory that produces air rifles. In any event, the harvesting of the coppice probably results in some sharing between the woodsman and the landowner, and the squirrel stew is a good excuse for a banquet. Very little money has changed hands and GDP is negligible.
If one makes the assumption that the only tools allowed are stone age tools, then everything gets much harder. In terms of nuts, humans are going to be very far back in the line behind the squirrels, and you will have to snare the squirrels, a very much less productive way to make squirrel stew.. We can see how certain tools make humans much more productive, and therefore support a larger population.
The second exhibit is the cargo bike and motor vehicle proposal in Belgium:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-26/cloud-commuting
I think of this as ‘permaculture thinking applied to city transportation’. The net result is a big reduction in greenhouse gases, air pollution, capital requirements, technical innovations needed, congestion on city streets, and GDP. Please note the shot across the bow of the Tesla. Many of the same ‘highly cooperative, socialized animal’ characteristics that we see in the Ben Law thought experiment are at work in an urban setting.
Before we dismiss out of hand the notion that humans could be so ‘cooperative and socialized’, we should reflect on the fact that 1.2 million years ago our ancestors moved raw materials 100 km, far beyond the range of any individual. (Lenton and Watson, page 365). Are we dumber than our distant ancestors?
Don Stewart
Thanks!
The comments of many blogs start out a bit raucous and then deteriorate into name calling and repeat of team viewpoints disseminated by the media. It becomes hard to see the landscape with all the smoke. Once you witness this you realize that the expectation of civility is a very valuable quality on a blog if an attempt at thinking outside the box and sharing concepts is to be made.
Blog behavior seems indicative of behavior in evaluating new ideas as a whole. Attacking the source of ideas that challenge an individuals paradigm seems to be the norm, why is that? How is it possible that some people would seem to spend their entire life attacking that which makes them feel uncomfortable and “liking” that which they feel comfortable? Often disrespect for an idea is displayed in tone of voice and non verbal communication from the git go. I find is very disconcerting. How are appropriate actions to be evaluated if open minded civil evaluation of ideas is not occurring? In these times is critical thinking not a skill to be nurtured? The people I respect often disagree with me yet we are able to discuss issues without pushing each others buttons (pretty much). Very quickly when somone fights dirty, respect is ended, and along with it the ability to communicate is also ended. Our ability to communicate and evaluate ideas makes us unique as a species yet that skill is not taught or cultivated.
Our Finite World is not attracting nasty comments because it is under the radar. When it starts to be noticed the discussion will go downhill quick. I am happy that Gail has the time and patience to moderate, that may save us.
I think the MSM crowd is quickly overwhelmed by the logic presented on this site — and they close the curtain and head back to watching dancing with stars and tweeting to twats.
My latest Energy Myths Daily Rant on the Doomstead Diner.
Don’t miss this one folks, its a KILLER!
RE
Not so keen on the spam posts.
has anyone watched uk channel 4 prog (9pm 25th March) about the price of food?
is there a link to it online? no TV here in the jungle….
you can google uk tv schedueles and maybe go from there
One more piece that gives some numbers on energy use and industrialization from a microcosm of the system. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/03/how-sustainable-is-digital-fabrication.html I found it a fascinating read, I hope some others here might also find it fascinating.
Thanks! I like the work of Kris DeDecker, the author of the Low Tech Magazine.
Thanks for the link, good stuff
Dear Gail
Very frequently, you cite the human caused extinction of the big herbivores and the need for cooked food to fuel our big brains as evidence that, I suppose, humans are inherently a species which will destabilize Earth and, therefore, a catastrophe is inevitable.
I want to suggest a more nuanced view. In terms of the big herbivores, humans have greatly multiplied other large herbivores, such as domesticated cattle. At least in terms of the oxygen cycle, we have not measurably changed anything…we have simply substituted one large herbivore for another large herbivore. Therefore, we are not going to lose all our oxygen, nor are we going to increase the oxygen to such a level that forests will spontaneously burn. We have also achieved a favorable outcome in some respects (beyond the obvious advantages of domestication)…we have multiplied a species which can be trained to eat noxious weeds:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-24/weeds-and-black-gold
In terms of the big brains and cooking, our big brains eventually figured out how to increase the production of woody fuel by learning to coppice. While coppice won’t support an infinite number of human cooking fires, it will support a lot more than cutting down trees. If you allow some technology, we also invented cooking stoves which greatly increase fuel efficiency. Stove innovations continue.
Here are some statistics which I think give us a big-picture view of our situation. I will frequently refer to Lenton and Watson (L&W), by page number in the paperback edition.
1. Plants did not originally have roots. How did they get nutrients? They got them from fungi, which break down rock material and produce nutrients that are useful to plants. The fungi also transport the nutrients over considerable distances to the plant, and trade them for sugars fixed by the plant in photosynthesis. Among these essential nutrients is phosphorus…which a lot of people think is the ultimate limit on biological productivity. When humans till the soil and apply massive loads of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, we kill the fungi. Therefore, we have to mine phosphorus in the form of phosphate rock and process that rock and ship it to the place we want to grow food. The phosphate rock mines will last decades, not centuries. Therefore, continuing with agriculture the way it is currently practiced is not an option. A healthy ecosystem liberates phosphorus from rock 50 times faster than a biologically sterile weathering cycle (L&W pg 317). So we need to strive for healthy ecosystems producing our food.
2. Humans were not the first to invent agriculture. Ants have been farming at least 50 million years. ‘This means the transition to agriculture cannot of itself be a difficult evolutionary step, though it seems to be one that is only undergone by highly cooperative, socialized animals. However, what the insect examples show is that it is drastic and possibly irreversible change that constrains subsequent evolution. While the transition to agriculture allows the species to rise to ecological prominence, they become so dependent on their cultivars that the farmers and the farmed begin to co-evolve’. (L&W pg 369)
Many of the commenters on this site seem to assume that the transition from agriculture to industrial civilization is also a one way ticket. Perhaps capitalism atrophies our abilities to be ‘highly cooperative and socialized animals’? It seems to me that globalization has given us an unprecedented ability to cooperate and be social…but the cooperation and sociability are entirely dependent on an ever expanding supply of money. In short, what gives us the incentive to cooperate and be social with strangers is the prospect of ever greater material rewards. David Korowicz’ current interview on Richard Heinberg’s website 🙂 casts grave doubts on the continuation of the material rewards mechanism.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-25/anger-complicity-in-a-time-of-limits
Nevertheless, L&W point out that, in the past, group selection has been a powerful influence on human social and economic evolution. (L&W, page 369). It may be that the co-operative and socializing abilities of humans can still be active in small groups of humans united by a common purpose and some agreements on appropriate technologies.
3. I mentioned the phosphorus limitation in item number 1. If we look at energy and food, we find the following (L&W, pages 373-4). To simplify, I will use index numbers:
Early 20th century limits 1 (2 to 3 billion people) (negligible fossil fuels)
Current agriculture 3
Current non-agriculture 100
Photosynthesis 1000
Solar energy 100,000
What we see here is that early 21st century agriculture relies mostly on an early 20th century technology base amplified by fossil fuels to feed 7.2 billion people. But most of the fossil fuel use by humans goes into producing things which are not food. Photosynthesis and total solar energy striking the Earth are very much larger than either the solar energy used by early 20th century technology or by current agricultural practices.
4. Let’s suppose that the decline of fossil fuels begins to imperil food production. Leaving aside arguments about the shape of the decline curve and the potential for societal collapse, a reduction to 97 units in the 100 units currently spent on non-agricultural ventures would keep the flow to agriculture intact. Of course, if transportation collapses, then people will need to move close to the sources of food, or else grow food where they are. Food needs to trump smart phones.
5. If we assume that all fossil fuels and phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers go away, then the question becomes ‘how many people can be fed with current ‘best practices’ in food production? I do not think anyone knows the answer to that question…but you can find a lot of very disparate expert opinions. It is clear that SOME current farmers are vastly more efficient in terms of capturing the yields of photosynthesis without signficiant use of fossil fuels than others. I think all serious people should be carefully looking at biological farming and gardening. A few things seem obvious to me.
a. Recycling phosphorus is urgent. Industrial agriculture must stop. If it doesn’t stop voluntarily, phophate rock depletion will stop it.
b. Transport needs to be minimized. This probably implies redistributing people across the landscape, as opposed to mega-cities. This will be traumatic.
c. Storage needs to be ‘off the grid’. Dried grains and root cellers. One year of failed storage will kill a group. (Study Seven Samurai).
d. ‘Cooperative and socialized’ small societies which trade with each other will tend to survive.
e. We need a stable climate. Absent a stable climate, ‘cooperative and socialized and nomadic’ societies will tend to survive, with lower total population.
f. We need to develop the skills to grow food efficiently. Very few people lacking the skills will survive.
g. Firewood needs to become a carefully managed resource. Societies who exhaust their firewood will tend not to survive.
h. We need to ‘look to the ant, thou sluggard’.
Don Stewart
Thanks, Don. That’s really interesting.
Don
You need to Address the Nation. Every nation!
How I long for a politician even once to come out with such sense.
He would lose the next election.
I’d like to see Don stand on his platform in a self-consciously Green place like, say, Denmark. I’d bet that he’d fail – they like their modern creature comforts far too much.
There is a difference between nature’s balance working in our direction and our having to attempt to recreate nature’s balance. Perhaps it can be done by a smaller population than today, but it will be hard work.
Don that was a great post. We keep on saying Food Security will become our single greatest challenge. Therfore farmers will become the new gods. All else is folly in our view.
Farming is our wisest pursuit.
Part of your post also reminds me of the following:
“Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didin’t have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn’t have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can’t be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn’t afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn’t know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don’t know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.”
John (Fire) Lame Deer
Judging from studies of contemporary stone age cultures ( the few that are not “contaminated” ) this is rose colored glasses. The murder rate in tribes in New Guinea is equivalent to that of our inner cities according to Jared Diamond. The main aim of their justice is not punishment, but keeping peace between clans.
Yes, maybe no prisons, but lots of blood feuds, etc! We are on the Earth, and it’s never been Paradise.
The ‘gods’ of the past were, surely, the kings and emperors, who stood on the backs of the farmers, once societies had become complex enough……
‘You feed me, it’s true,but if you don’t burn this incense to my image, it’s off with you head…if I’m feeling kind.’
Is this the system’s attempt at re-localizing? http://www.acting-man.com/?p=29505 Venice, after Crimea. 89% voted to “re-localize” as it were. Thoughts? Will this only happen in areas that are resource or trading rich and so they think they’re better off without supporting the poor areas of the country?
As long as the spice flows decentralization will be met with strong opposition from the nation states. You can join the bloods or the crips but non affiliation is not a option. Once the flow of spice stops, if the nation states are unable to maintain cohesion, decentralization will occur on the basis of common cultural, linguistic, and ethnic identities. IMHO these will be the determining factors rather than the resources. The way resources are held now is the “law” ie nation state enforcement. Once nation state enforcement is gone cooperation within a community is required to hold resources and the trust and sacrifice required for that traditionally is created by common identity. The premise of any “decentralization” that occurs while depending on the nation state to provide enforcement of resource consumption via “law” is somewhat flawed IMHO. Why would the nation state provide enforcement if the they dont get some of the pie, and if they still have enforcement capability why would they let the pie out of their hands to begin with?
It is by will alone I move commerce, until there is no longer any worm-sign. Then when all else fails including the Benajesuits we call on the Qeezark Sadarack, eyes blue within blue to call on a big one, Shialood.
Plus1 for the ‘dune’ reference.