MKI and Helix remind us about the quality of evidence and analysis. In my experience both sides in a debate are usually able to adduce fine-looking data and interpretation to support their position.
For example, on the Automatic Earth website there’s one lone commenter who appears firmly convinced that climate change is not taking place, and from time to time he produces statistics and/or graphs to support his position. Some of these appear quite authoritative and I need to verify them, set them in context, etc. For lack of time the best I can do is to file them away “for future analysis,” a future which never arrives.
The situation degenerates into a game of whack-a-mole, with each side seeking to knock down the other’s claims. My personal policy is not to make claims in the comments stream without being able to show some form of evidence to back them up. Often a website URL suffices.
This doesn’t mean I can’t make comments. This is a different category completely.
At the moment I trust Chris’ research and analysis. He has the educational background, the aptitude and ability to find, collect, analyse and report on data from a wide variety of sources — his reports never strike me as wild or fanciful — and he does this full-time. I am particularly pleased with his policy that he reserves the right to change his mind, that if he finds better data then he will use that, and so on. He is no politician.
As for me, I have other necessary things to do in my life and I must attend to these. For the most part, all I can do is I cross-check what I read on PP by reading other websites and literature, being careful to avoid the echo chamber syndrome.
I find general agreement among them: the climate is getting hotter, the oil supply is at peak cheapness, the oceans are being stripped of fish and refilled with plastic, and so on.
I am grateful to Chris (and many others) for helping open my eyes.
“crazy Malthusian” was enough for me. I mean, “malthusian” as a pejorative is usually enough as a thought stopper, but that really was some heavy artillery. It’s as crazy as believing this Cabernet in my glass will eventually run out, and that it will then take more energy to go and get the bottle rather than reach for the glass. And then, when the bottle runs out, I’ll have to go to the merchant in my car, 3 bloody miles! And get dressed, find the keys, spend some money… Well, i could swing free I suppose, nah, too cold
-
“Recently?” Who does your data gathering, a five year old? Oil prices actually never quite hit $150, and they fell to close to $25 a barrel about eight years ago before recovering. Here’s a chart to show you. Look…data! Sourced, too! You should try it sometime. You sound like a corporate shiv, an idiot with an axe to grind, or both. There, now we’ve both name-called. Feel better? I don’t, because that’s not how things are done here. Argue with intellect and logic, not emotion and supposition.
-
Damned good thing all our cars, planes, and transport vehicles run off of NG. Oh. Wait. You really think that conversion happens overnight? You are an engineer?
Now, I challenge you to offer a point-to-point, data-driven, and well argued counter-argument to Chris’s most recent article, found here. I’ll even send you a copy of the second-half of the article (behind the pay wall) so you can chew on that a while too, because it’s chocked full of data, charts, sourced links, etc. Then, if you can, you are free to pick apart his data point by point using your own well-researched and sourced data.
No one said we are running short on energy. What people on this site and others have been saying is we are running short on the cheap, easy, high EROEI (that’s energy return on energy invested, by the way) energy. Namely, the cost of exploration and exploitation is rising to the point where there is less and less net excess energy left over for society to use. Declining EROEI is the potential incoming hazard, not running completely out of energy. There have even been papers published on this very topic. The difference between running out of energy versus running out of cheap energy is a subtle distinction I’d expect a petroleum engineer to understand. Where do you work again?
So, back it up with data and evidence, if you are capable thereof. You may disagree with Chris all you want - in fact it is encouraged here - but the rules of the road demand you do so respectfully and with actual data and facts.
I think the turn from positive to negative on the population front maybe a little slower than you suggest but otherwise I agree with you. Too many people and not enough recourses is the problem but it looks like an economic problem on it’s face. How do you feed anyone when there is no economic system?
I live on a small farm where we can grow lots of food, our house produces all it’s own energy and we have no debt. But if the economy took a really bad nose dive we would be in trouble. It would seem we would be somewhat better off than those with less preparation but what would I have to do to keep what I have?
I repeat;
As Gail said there really isn’t a happy ending to this story as much as we all want there to be.
There will be a lot less people on earth in a hundred years.
double posting seems to be associated with a refusal by captcha to accept a first posting, prompting a retry
- thank you very much for bringing up these discussion worthy points. Except for Africa the world population is definitely leveling off in a nice manner as you point out.
This is perfect timing for advanced technology to make most undesirable jobs obsolete. This is great for everyone except the banksters who are placing many “news” reports in their broadcast control media about the dire consequences to others when the banksters lose their free money stream from exponential growth fiat schemes. .
Countries like Japan are greatly improving since they had too many people already, despite what the bankers tell you via the NYT and other banking run rags. Contrary to the banker’s published rantings and lament that THEIR ponzi scheme is blowing up in Japan, Japan does not need more people, and old people in Japan WANT to work and are resigned to the need for a currency collapse (something the country has experienced at least 5-10 times already and can deal with very well). Moreover, the banker-media-lamented population decrease provides abundant, very beautiful, productive, and inexpensive land to for anyone who can escape cell-phone virtual reality and leave the city for a better life based on physical reality.
This is NOT a long descent. It just feels that way to a N American who is finally coming down to reality and no longer steals resources from the rest of the world and lives profligately based on old oil burning dreams.
Kunstler and other doomers in N America do not represent or speak for humanity.
The normal (average, bulk of) people on this planet are enjoying a better existence just NOW and look forward to an even better future. Forget the spoiled overindulged, narccisstic, underskilled under performing N American’s view of their crumbling world. The people who create wealth (and support the spoiled Americans by sending that wealth to them) greatly outnumber the Americans (and W Europeans) and are creating a sustainable world now. Moreover, they are very optimistic and look forward to the future. Their opinions count because they do most of the real work on the planet and they are the big majority. The US mass media and doomer media represent the views of a spoiled minority who are looking at the past.
The energy discussion in this thread suffers from this bias and has severe assumption flaws, which require a weekend seminar or the like, to sort out.
As mentioned previously I was in a major Chinese city last Fall wherein more than half of street traffic was on electric vehicles that consume 10-50x less energy compared to that found in America (and were fun). The discussions in America are based on facts and comparisons drawn from the golden age of 3000 pound vehicles running around on giant highways as a focus (as one example). Another example is that American “experts” with PhDs in “environment” are squirting out resume stuffing articles on things like how phosphate mines will run out and we have to recycle poop and even that is not good enough for long term agriculture, and topsoil is disappearing etc.(lamenting an imagined long descent) Meanwhile the Asians who support these dilettantes by working hard and sending wealth to them have been recyling THEIR waste for more than a thousand years and have steadily built up their soil for increasingly excellent agriculture, and are now reducing their populations. I asked a few Japanese if they were worried about food sufficiency and they just laughed and reminded me that the population is decreasing. Also I note that much land has gone fallow (including productive orchards) due to low prices. If you want to see the future go to Asia and try to move past the rotting American empire and its antiquated suburban lifestyle.
The amount of energy consumed in basic industrial processes and in living (including heat pumps, transportation, communication, etc) is drastically decreasing for those societies that are not mired in their past petroleum laced golden years such that the amount of renewables needed for a luxurious life is rapidly approaching the break even point.
How many people are using petroleum consumption American profligancy as a measuring stick for how much energy is required to avoid “the long descent!!!”.
How many people are familiar with the Edo period wherein 20-30 million people lived in an area the size of California for more than 200 years completely sustainable (no net energy use) and developed a polite and civilized culture and WITHOUT any off the technology we have now? Maybe the real issue is the lack of spirit in a small minority of the world’s population that is too self absorbed to see what the leading countries are up to.
Mememonkey
called it, long descent, the “remedievalization” of western culture.
hope your mare is settled
Ecosystems are Collapsing, Food Bowls Are Next Jan 8, 2018 The world we grew up in is disappearing. From the tropics to the poles, the effects of climate change are transforming environments that humans have known since prehistory. Chances of saving the world's coral reefs are disappearing because of mass bleaching, according to a paper by scientists on four continents published in the journal Science last week. Such events, caused by warmer-than-usual waters, had never been observed until the 1980s, but are now occurring once every six years. Many marine biologists now believe they'll see the demise of coral reefs worldwide within their lifetimes. Similar trends are afoot in colder climes. The Arctic shows no signs of returning to the conditions of reliable ice cover that have persisted at least since data was first collected in the late 19th century, scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration wrote in an annual review last month. Permafrost temperatures hit record-high levels in 2016, and the region as a whole is warming at twice the global rate, they wrote. If you think that's the worst thing the coming century of climate change has in store, check what's happening to agricultural land. Production from the world's farms needs to grow at a headlong pace over the coming decades. Rising populations and growing incomes that are already driving up consumption of land-intensive produce such as meat mean demand for farm products will rise between 70 percent and 110 percent between 2005 and 2050, according to the UN's Food & Agriculture Organization. Usable land, though, is expected to barely increase. Despite warmer climates opening up frigid stretches of Canada, Russia and China to agriculture, desertification and degradation elsewhere means the area of land considered moderately or highly suitable for agriculture will only rise from 33.2 million square kilometers to 34.1 million square kilometers toward the end of this century, according to one 2014 study. For decades now, humanity has mostly kept its edge in the race between farm productivity and starvation. In the future, we'll be running faster just to keep up.And all of that is based on a “business as usual” assumption set. There’s no latitude in there for massive climate disruption, or for a loss of fertilizer production, or for an outbreak of new pest or plant disease that might mirror the fungal parasites that are now eliminating both amphibians and reptiles across the globe. But perhaps some hormone mimetic will come along and utterly disrupt things before then. You know, something so startlingly effective that it might cause human sperm counts to decline by 50% in just 40 years, or contribute to something even more alarming such as cause an oceanic turtle population to swing to a 99% female ratio. Changes such as these are so alarming individually, that it’s difficult to combine them and make any sense of them. The only possible response seems impossible which is to immediately stop doing…what exactly? Well, all of the things that are new in the past 40 years, I suppose. As I said, that seems unthinkable. But we have to keep trying to raise awareness, as cranky as that makes some people.
To cherish what remains of the Earth and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope of survival. Wendell Berry
“Until we understand what the land is, we are at odds with everything we touch. And to come to that understanding it is necessary, even now, to leave the regions of our conquest – the cleared fields, the towns and cities, the highways – and re-enter the woods. For only there can a man encounter the silence and the darkness of his own absence. Only in this silence and darkness can he recover the sense of the world’s longevity, of its ability to thrive without him, of his inferiority to it and his dependence on it. Perhaps then, having heard that silence and seen that darkness, he will grow humble before the place and begin to take it in – to learn from it what it is. As its sounds come into his hearing, and its lights and colors come into his vision, and its odors come into his nostrils, then he may come into its presence as he never has before, and he will arrive in his place and will want to remain. His life will grow out of the ground like the other lives of the place, and take its place among them. He will be with them – neither ignorant of them, nor indifferent to them, nor against them – and so at last he will grow to be native-born. That is, he must reenter the silence and the darkness, and be born again." Wendell Berry
Chris wrote:
I’m trying to find a different conclusion than yours, but I am unable to. I could find one if we humans immediately began doing things differently, but our belief systems are so entrenched, and people fight change so ferociously, that we’re going to “progress” ourselves right into a big disaster. And because everything is interconnected, we have to look at it all in proper context. For example, the economy where debts are accumulating exponentially and at twice the underlying rate of economic growth and at 4x the rate of energy expansion. That’s unsustainable. What happens when a global pile of debt so enormous collapses? It’s hard to posit how that happens without war, or the loss of a vast swath of unnecessary financial institutions, weaker member states, and a huge class of left-behinds. We also have to look to the ecosystems where, frankly, the data is thoroughly depressing and alarming, or both. Nothing can be examined in a vacuum anymore. We are out of the prior times where abundant absorption buffers existed to hide our external effects from us. The externalities are now here.
“A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from those who believe it’s just a joke.” Søren Kierkegaard
MKI, you seem to be missing a critical point when you say that the US is awash in energy, which is absolutely correct. It’s the “petrodollar” and “trade deficit”. The US has to import from 1/3 to 2/3 of the oil it consumes, not sure what the figure is today. Why has the US done this if it has huge reserves of easy oil?
The concern is what will happen when the petrodollar status is lost? This could occur over a span of weeks.
I would tend tend to agree that there may be some good remaining oil left in currently protected areas that could be opened up when needed. The point there is, all it will do is buy the US a few more years. It will also take time to get these new reserves opened up.
You say that Art Berman doesn’t share these concerns about oil? Really? Just the other week I was reading an article of his which was very concerning about peak oil. I can provide you the link in a couple days since I’m currently on the road using my crappy iPhone 4.
Helix, your comment is very much on target. Well written.
I don’t think we will need to so so. We merely use this much fuel because we can. Remember, 70% of the oil barrel is in transportation, and basically very little of it is needed at all. We just use it because we are rich. It would be easy to replace it with public transport or just living closer.
Same thing with population. We have a burginging population because we can. If you don’t breed, somebody else will fill the space and utilize the resources. This is simple natural selection. You either play the game or get replaced until we fill our natural environment and fully utilized our environment. As of now, due to technology, we haven’t even got close to filling our environment. QED.
I appreciate the lively conversation on this topic and I refer you to a series of posts on The Oil Drum, where I first became acquainted with Gail’s awesome analysis.
Why EROI Matters
Energy Returned On Energy Invested
It’s pretty simple.
I am grateful the Oil Drum archives remain available to us…
First, I never claimed to know what Art thinks, I merely said I’ve never heard Art say anything I disagree with. And who said I was “unconcerned about oil”? I’m quite concerned. It’s my livelihood. I just bought a lot of EXX stock, so I’m concerned :-). But am I concerned about “running out” anytime soon? No. I wish! But if the price ever gets to say $200 for a long period of time, we should be getting near peak production worldwide. It will be a good time to be working in oil. I just don’t expect it very soon. Can only hope…
Second, of course oil will peak sometime. I just am not foolish enough to claim to know when. Way too multilateral.
Third, peak oil, or peak liquid fuel, is not an issue with “energy”. We only use (and waste) lots of oil because, well…we can! We’re rich and awash in nearly all types of energy (coal, oil, NG, nuclear, you name it) so and live like we are rich. Now if we were in Japan and had to import everything I might be more concerned. But just look at our massive housing SF footprint and how far we travel by car or plane just because we can. What a waste. It’s nice being rich, I guess. Just please don’t claim we are “energy poor”. We’re not.
Fourth, I would love high oil prices for personal reasons. Would be much better for our culture in many ways IMO too. But unfortunately we are nowhere close right now. We are not even at $100/bbl yet.
Just please don’t claim we are “energy poor”. We’re not
Sorry I can’t resist offering a different perspective. I have a friend driving the Alaska highway right now and she said they are taking “extra” fuel because they might not be able to get fuel thus time of year. I imagine if they ran out of gas they would feel “energy poor”! Just because people say we are awash with energy does not equate with heat in our homes or fuel in our vehicles or cheap anything. One of my kids made the mistake of buying a home with electric heat and their bill was $700 last month. They sure wouldn’t think we are an energy rich nation as a matter of fact they would adamantly say they are energy “poor”!
When one steps down from the 500’ level and talks about PEOPLE the energy story isn’t rosy.
AKGrannyWGrit
Hi Chris, and thanks for your response.
I’m not willing to hang my hat on the number 22. This number falls in the category of “past performance”, and as we all should know by now, “past performance is no guarantee of future returns.”
The logic is simple, and to my way of thinking, compelling. As supplies tighten, prices rise relative to what people can afford. This will cause demand to decline, which will tend to restrain the price rise. So in my view, the long-term trend will be rising prices relative to incomes, but the rate of advance will be tempered. As more and more people use oil more and more efficiently, or stop using it altogether for certain purposes, demand will continue to ramp downward. As the process continues, the economics of production will be altered and oil usage will become focused on essential activities. The bulk of society will redeploy around the new reality of oil (and energy generally) scarcity. It is exactly the transition from abundant, cheap energy to scarce, expensive energy, and the altered supply vs demand paradigm that that implies, that will cause to downhill slide to extend for many decades. So I’m thinking that the ramp down in usage will, in rough outline, mirror the ramp up.
There’s no question that it will be a bumpy ride downhill. Ideally the bumps will be manageable.
I am aware that my analysis does not reach the same conclusion as that reached in the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth”. I tread lightly when disagreeing with this study. But the differences are more a matter of timing than of trend. Perhaps someday I will find the time to develop my own model and put my basic logic to the test.