ralfy

Some points to consider include attraction towards images rather than words, etc., among children.

The topic reminds me of Burroughs: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs

One can also consider the ff: "The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism" http://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the-agrarian-origins-of-capitalism That is, we start with land commonly used by inhabitants to produce food for themselves until more of it is enclosed by armed people and declared as private property (hence, enclosures). Inhabitants who are allowed to produce food by the new land owners must give up all of their produce, and are instead paid in the form of scrip, which inhabitants may use to buy food sold by the same land owners in markets. From there, we add the use of technology to increase production (with workers always receiving less than the value of what they produce so that capitalists, those who own the means of production, will profit), over-production (where more goods are produced than necessary as capitalists compete with each other and expand the market), and credit and financial speculation (scrip replaced by legal tender, lenders charging interest or requiring a return on investment), over-consumption (the rise and growth of a middle class from which capitalists will profit), etc. The result is what we saw along the span of the last six decades or so: incredible concentrations of wealth in the form of credit concentrated among a very small group of people, a population boom followed by a growing global middle class, and significant levels of environmental damage coupled with global warming due to heavy reliance on fossil fuels for manufacturing and food production. From there, one may include the threat of a resource crunch (including peak oil) and chronic economic crises due to increasing amounts of credit that can only be propped up through increasing use of resources.

The world is overpopulated and engaged in overconsumption: "List of countries by ecological footprint" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint Ave. ecological footprint is above bio-capacity.

Three reasons why the global capitalist system will not last: debt, peak oil, and global warming. We are seeing the effects right now. What was discussed in this thread is related to the first predicament. Money supply increases given profit and return on investment, and as more engage in financial speculation, debt levels go up further. The latter is not difficult to achieve as the global economy is essentially controlled by a financial elite: "Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html which explains why much of the wealth of the world consists of debt, in the form of numbers in hard drives: "Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy" http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html Only a fraction of that quadrillion-dollar market, in the form of a trillion dollars in subprime lending in one country, brought the global economy to its knees, with over $30 trillion vaporized worldwide as governments scrambled to bail out the investors, in turn leading to increased debt passed on to the public. The implication is that there's more where that 2008 crisis came from. This brings us to the next predicament: peak oil. Increased production and consumption of resources are needed to keep that credit afloat, and there is no such thing as falling demand due to a growing global middle class: "The rise of the global middle class" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470 How much oil will be needed to meet that demand? According to the IEA, demand increased by 2 pct a year the last three decades, which means production has to increase significantly to meet that. And the present middle class can't argue otherwise because their own income, profits, and investments are dependent on growing sales to the same emerging market of consumers. Is there enough oil production to meet that? According to the IEA, the best-case scenario is that oil producers will have to reach maximum depletion rates to achieve at most a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced during the next two decades: "World Energy Outlook 2010 Edition" http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/ Meanwhile, various banks and businesses warn of various oil supply problems to come. For example, "If You Think This Oil Spike Is Temporary, Check Out This Chart" http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spare-capacity-2013-2011-2 The IEA includes this predicament with the third, global warming, as seen in this article: "World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change In short, by resorting to unconventional oil and continuing with fossil fuel consumption levels, we will be affected by both peak oil and global warming in the long term. The IEA recommends that we cut down fossil fuel consumption increase by 70 pct, and then replace it with renewable energy. These plus maximum production of oil and gas resources will require "strong" government policies, something which can't happen given the first predicament (see above). In short, governments in general won't engage in such policies because that will mean lower sales of goods and services given a global manufacturing and food production system that are heavily dependent on oil: "It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We've Only Got 10" http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 which is why they are not talking about peak oil or agreeing on what to do regarding global warming. Businesses obviously won't cut down on oil use for the same reasons, not to mention large amounts of credit that need to be propped up, and a growing global middle class won't agree as well. That means the global economy will maintain continuous economic growth until it hammers at the oil resource ceiling and with that gets hammered in return with one oil spike after another: "Our Oil-Constrained Future" http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future while the effects of global warming take their toll on food production, various ecosystems, etc. For example, "Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: ‘The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun’" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/03/2725431/unprecedented-ocean-acidification/

To add to what was shared earlier: From http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 For the long term, try the NAS final report discussion of Vostok data: http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/ For skeptics, one can consider an independent study that they funded: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings A news article regarding that: "Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer" http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer/ Also, re: the accuracy of the model: "Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy" http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

It's the other way round: you addressed none of my counterpoints. Apparently, the "miscommunication" involved you reading my first post incorrectly.

Ever since the Green Revolution was promoted after '45, life expectancy rates worldwide have soared and infant mortality rates dropped. With manufacturing thanks to cheap, abundant oil, better sanitation systems, etc., we have seen living conditions improve to the point that population doubled during the same period. Coupled with that was the emergence of a middle class with incredible levels of consumption (e.g., the U.S., with less than 5 pct of the world's population requiring up to a quarter of world oil production) followed by the rise of a global middle class. Thus, what you call a "fairy tale" has been going on for the past seven decades. The irony is that the same "fairy tale" is leading to current predicaments. Finally, FWIW, the government simply follows what Big Business wants, especially banks. And for these institutions to thrive, more production and consumption of resources is needed. With that, I cannot imagine any energy source effectively replacing petroleum, at least for the next two decades. Unfortunately, we need those replacements in place during the same period. The IEA and others are even less confident, as they argue that preparations should have been made more than a decade ago.

That "fairy tale" has been going on for around seven decades. Why do you think population increased dramatically during the same period?

That was included in my argument. That's why I mentioned that resource consumption per capita has been rising. This was also included in my argument. That's why resource consumption per capita has been rising. Obviously not, as bio-capacity is finite and driven by physical limitations. That's why you have peak oil. Biocapacity cannot be increased infinitely. That is painfully obvious. Given that, I have no idea where you got the absurd idea that capacity is a non-issue. We have to find out the basis of the lower growth rate. If it is due to prosperity, then that negates any savings in resource consumption due to lower growth rate. Also, pollution coupled with global warming threatens bio-capacity.

Now, you're more confused than ever. YOU also saw ecological footprint in light of per capita usage, remember? I quote: But I did argue that "per capita usage is not static." I wrote: Not only does this show that "per capita usage is not static" but that "efficiences or alternatives" will also be used by the same. And then there's increasing population, environmental damage, global warming:

But global demand isn't dropping. You need money to buy gasoline, and the former comes from income, etc. That's why you need to look at two factors involved in this, as well as demand destruction in EU and Japan. Also, don't forget to look at unemployment for those ages 18-30, broad unemployment, the percentage of the economy that is connected to consumer spending, connections between consumer spending and employment, etc. Finally, there's an increase in global consumption. Thus, we see a combination of demand destruction due to fallout from casino capitalism in rich countries coupled with the effects of peak oil due to increasing demand for the rest of the world. But global demand isn't dropping. You need money to buy gasoline, and the former comes from income, etc. That's why you need to look at two factors involved in this, as well as demand destruction in EU and Japan. Also, don't forget to look at unemployment for those ages 18-30, broad unemployment, the percentage of the economy that is connected to consumer spending, connections between consumer spending and employment, etc. Finally, there's an increase in global consumption. Thus, we see a combination of demand destruction due to fallout from casino capitalism in rich countries coupled with the effects of peak oil due to increasing demand for the rest of the world. Not just CEOs. See the last two sentences of your second paragraph. I agree, but we need to be realistic about this. We can't assume that what we think should happen will happen. Rather, what has been taking place will continue. That's why oil consumption is rising globally. Actually, the global ecological footprint is already a fourth of that of the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint and even that is overshoot, as biocapacity is much lower. And most worldwide lack one or more basic needs. What economists and the IEA are saying isn't based on what they think should happen. Rather, it's based on what has been happening. The reason is seen in the last two sentences of your last paragraph. Your first sentence is contradicted by the next two. Apparently, my arguments are very clear as they are based on your assessment of "people." What is lacking is your argument that this resistance to change will suddenly be reversed voluntarily. I cannot agree given what I've seen the past seven decades.

In an earlier message, you referred to efficiency. Low employment, GDP growth, and median household income: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/08/the-collapsing-us-economy-end-world/ Higher gas prices, weak economy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/americans-driving-less-gas-prices-weak-economy_n_3274911.html In short, it's a combination of the two: a car culture "dying" and economic stress. The bad news is that demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan are being offset by increasing consumption for the rest of the world: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ And as the FT articles show, the same countries are trying to increase oil demand as that is ultimately the basis for economic growth. Unless, of course, the US goes back to "recovery" through more credit creation, but that's no longer possible. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/treasury-us-hit-debt-limit-mid-oct-20073772

You're contradicting yourself. The fact that "ecological footprint has to rise further" shows that "per capita usage" is not static.

Keep in mind that driving less is not the same as efficiency, which refers to driving the same distance or more but consuming less oil. If people in the U.S. and elsewhere are consuming less because they are driving less, then the only logical reason for that is because they cannot afford to drive the same distance or more as they did before. And the only logical reason for not being able to afford to drive the same distance or more is because of economic stress. That explains the points raised in this article: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ Why is it that economic crisis persists even with a "decline"? It's because the "decline" is driven by increasing money supply to bail out banks, provide jobs, etc. But the U.S. is running out of funds for more quantitative easing: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/26/lew-debt-limit-boehner-fiscal-october/2702937/ which means one should expect the pain to return, with even developing countries to be affected: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-g20-imf-idUSBRE9830AN20130904 The irony, then, is that the "solution" to an energy trap, lower EROEI, and peak oil is the result of the same. In the end, we have to realize that our middle class lifestyles, industrialization, consumer spending, etc., can only be sustained with more oil consumed to produce more goods and services to ensure more profits from which we get our income, bonuses, returns on investment, etc. Hence, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future We can transition to other sources of energy, but the process is lengthy, difficult, and will require extensive cooperation and coordination: http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 which, unfortunately, is not something that we are ready to do, given what has happened the last few decades. We "do not need another Saudi Arabia every seven years to make enough renewable energy." According to the IEA, we need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years (given a 2-pct increase in oil demand each year for the past three decades) to maintain economic growth of around 4 pct per annum. To transition to other sources of energy, we will need that extra energy for economic growth plus more for the transition. Keep in mind that our problems deal not only with energy but with petrochemicals, bunker oil needed for cargo ships, etc. In short, we are looking at a manufacturing system, food production, and delivery systems dependent heavily on oil not just for energy but for petrochemicals. Theoretically, it is possible to transition to other sources of energy, but it will take decades, and we don't have that time: http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 That is why the IEA argues that we will need extensive cooperation and coordination between governments to cut down oil demand increase by more than half, make sure that oil companies employ maximum production for oil and gas, and move quickly to renewable energy in order to deal with lack of energy plus global warming: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html The bad news is that we have not seen such massive cooperation in decades, and given complacency concerning peak oil (and the point that economies should have prepared for this at least a decade ago) and a lack of cooperation regarding dealing with climate change, it is unlikely that we will not meet these requirements. That is why even the chief economist of the IEA is very concerned: Finally, FWIW, these are not merely "opinions" but arguments raised by what is probably the top authority on global energy concerns.

Exactly! The trap is "the energy cost of making the panels." It won't matter if demand is higher or lower. The only way to argue that there is no trap is to show that there is NO energy cost for making the panels. The reference to a demand is a response to that energy trap. When demand goes to zero, that doesn't mean that the "the energy cost of making the panels" goes to zero. The fact that you need to use energy, whether or not "it is not earmarked for another use," proves the existence of that trap. Do you understand this point? The fact that you need to use energy to make the panels, whether or not you had planned to use it for something else, the existence of that energy trap. It doesn't matter whether or not you wanted to use that energy for something else: the trap is the "energy cost of making the panels." That's why various mainstream news is so keen on talking about peak demand. Since oil production cannot be increased significantly because of lower EROEI, demand has to go down. But more people worldwide need more goods and services, which explains why global demand is going up. It can be both. In this case, we used oil in place of coal, etc., but we are unable to find other energy replacements easily. The IEA argues that we can minimize the effects of peak oil and global warming through significant levels of cooperation and coordination between countries, but what has been happening during the past few decades, especially the last decade, reveals the opposite.

But I never argued that per capita usage is static. In fact, I was arguing the opposite. I also never argued "that we will never find efficiencies or alternatives." In fact, I assumed the opposite.

Exactly! Unless you can create solar panels using zero energy and resources, then you can't escape an energy trap.

You will find more details in the main article connected to the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

The trap doesn't have to do with the price, supply, or demand. It has to do with energy and resources needed to produce energy. For example, you need certain amounts of resources and energy to produce solar panels. You need the equivalent of a certain number of barrels of oil to extract oil from the ground. It doesn't matter if supply is greater than demand, less than demand, or equal to demand: these physical realities remain. Again, it won't happen that because you have no demand then you can suddenly manufacture solar panels without using energy and resources. Whether demand is 90 or 100 the trap remains: you still need various resources and energy to manufacture solar panels. And if demand is 0, it will not be the case that you can make solar panels with 0 energy and resources. That is scientifically impossible. The reason why we actually "increased our energy capabilities in the past" is because we had lots of oil available. In fact, the U.S. was the primary exporter, with oil literally gushing from Texas and elsewhere, with an estimated EROEI of 1:100. After that, EROEI started dropping for obvious reasons: as more oil is extracted, what remains is either too deep or requires more processing. After U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, Saudi Arabia and other countries took over. Currently, two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or have past peak, and again for the same reasons. As for Saudi Arabia, it boasted in 2009 that it would easily breach 15 Mb/d by 2011. To this day, they have barely gone past 10 Mb/d. Because they refuse external audits, we do not know what will happen next, but reports indicate that they will have to move from Ghawar to Manifa, which has mostly heavy-sour oil and requires a special processing plant, which means a lower EROEI. Thus, what you claim has not taken place has been taking place: in 2010, the IEA, BP, and the EIA confirmed that crude oil production peaked in 2005. Oil production for the six major players are starting to decline. That's why we are now resorting to unconventional oil, but the EROEIs for these are not very high, and in several cases, their decline rates are steep: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html I understand what you are saying, but you need to say it clearly: it's not that an energy trap disappears if demand is zero. It's that our worries over an energy trap disappears. That's why even if demand drops, the EROEI will still be low. That's why if you look at various mainstream articles that argue that peak oil is "dead" because of peak demand, you will see that they are giving the wrong conclusions. Peak oil is not "dead." Rather, our worries concerning peak oil is "dead" because demand is falling. The problem is that demand is falling for the wrong reasons. The belief is that the U.S., EU, and Japan have become more efficient. But if you look at their economies, you will see that they remain anemic. Keep in mind that in capitalist systems, efficiency means using fewer resources but maintaining or increasing economic growth. This is not the same as demand destruction. That's why some of them are struggling to increase consumption, as that's the only way for their economies to grow. The U.S.: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9549700a-00d0-11e3-a90a-00144feab7de.html Europe: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/e2d0f410-f621-11e2-a55d-00144feabdc0.html Of course, for the rest of the world, demand is growing, and that's because they want a middle class lifestyle, too. And it doesn't help when banks, the major driver of the global capitalist system, can only earn more money by lending more money, and can only receive returns on their investments or loans if the money is used to manufacture more goods and services, which means higher oil demand.

Yes, but what you are giving are responses to an energy trap, not points that will make it cease to exist. That is what I mean when you say you are wrong. Again, an energy trap is something that takes place even if you have zero demand. The same goes for EROEI for unconventional oil. You can have lots of demand or less demand, but the amount of energy needed to extract and process oil is driven by physical limitations. No, that's not right. There is an energy trap no matter what the demand is. Read the article carefully and see for yourself. Put simply, you need a certain amount of energy and various resources to produce solar panels. You can have zero demand the phenomenon takes place. You can use technology or use other resources to decrease energy and resources needed, but the phenomenon remain. The only way for you to say that there is no trap is to argue that you can create solar panels without using any energy or resources at all! I can't believe that you cannot grasp a physical reality that is painfully basic. That's because you keep making the same mistakes. In order to have no energy trap, you have to produce components for renewable energy without using any energy or resources. How does that work? Taxes stem from profits and employment, but both are dependent on production of goods and services. The level of production is dependent on energy returns. If, for example, you have no energy returns, then you won't be able to produce anything. Your last point is precisely the reason why most cannot understand why economies essentially run on energy returns. Economies are measured using money, and money is basically credit: it's not backed by physical assets and can be created readily. How readily? Try a quadrillion-dollar unregulated derivatives market: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html How much oil and resources do you think will be needed to back that? I think my argument is good enough at it reveals the basic points about energy and economy that you cannot grasp. The pressure is now on you to show that things can be produced without energy and resources (hence, no energy trap) and that we can lower demand because it is taking place (again, not true). Produce evidence and I will consider it. First, you argue that you are not discounting facts that I've been presenting to you. Now, you're arguing that I'm not giving any facts but opinions. That makes no sense at all. What are you now saying? That one can produce things without using energy and resources because one can increase demand? That it is not true that oil consumption is not growing worldwide? There is no peak demand. Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan dropped by 5 Mb/d because of economic crisis. Remember, outside casino capitalism, the only way that economic growth can take place is through increased oil consumption: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-to-support-world-gdp-growth/ which explains why oil consumption for the rest of the world outstripped demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan: 10 Mb/d - 5 Mb/d = 5 Mb/d increase. Again, there's no peak demand. How much higher will demand get? According to the IEA, oil demand has been rising by 2 pct a year worldwide the past three decades: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html which means we should expect increasing consumption for several decades, especially as a growing global middle class demands more resources and energy. What makes matters worse is that the only way to back all that money and to ensure returns on investment for rich countries, the developing world has to consume more. And they are consuming more. That's why peak demand is a fantasy. The problem is that there isn't enough oil and gas available to meet growing demand: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/our-oil-constrained-future That's why the IEA argues that the next two decades will be critical: we have to lower oil demand considerably and replace energy lacking with renewables. That will take coordination and cooperation between governments that has never taken place in modern history: In fact, if any, governments have done the complete opposite: using military forces and covert activities to control resources in other countries and to destabilize regions. Combine that with environmental damage coupled with global warming, and what do you get? High food and oil prices, chronic unemployment and austerity measures, economic crisis for the U.S., Japan, and EU, saber-rattling in the Pacific and social unrest in Europe and the Middle East, events like the Arab Spring, economic fallout and collapse for countries like Iceland, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria, etc. My understanding is that even a lifestyle equivalent to that of Costa Rica will not be able to operate with zero energy returns. Charles Hall also gives details on p. 2 of the SciAm interview. For info on wind turbines, etc., various journal articles on EROEI might help: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/New_Studies_EROI This might also help: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25 Finally, the same Do the Math site which discusses energy traps also has other articles. For example, wind and solar: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/ Related articles include discussions on economic growth: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/ Limits to growth: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-growth/ and an alternative energy matrix: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/ Finally, ecological footprint might be more encompassing, as it looks at resources in general. This was mentioned earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint The argument is that we are now at overshoot: an ave. ecological footprint of 2.7 global hectares per capita (equivalent to that of Costa Rica) versus a biocapacity of only 1.8 (equivalent to that of Cuba). That ave. ecological footprint will rise because of a growing global middle class. The biocapacity per capita will drop because of population increase and environmental damage (coupled with global warming).

In terms of ecological footprint and biocapacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint we are already at overshoot given the current population level. That is, the ave. ecological footprint is equivalent to that of Turkey, but biocapacity allows only for a footprint equivalent to that of Cuba. And that population will still rise, which means biocapacity per capita will decrease further. Add to that the effects of environmental damage and global warming. To make matters worse, if lower birth rates will require more prosperity, then that means the ave. ecological footprint has to rise further, even as biocapacity drops.

No, it doesn't. It simply refers to investing energy to obtain energy. Examples including using energy to drive oil drills to extract oil from which you extract energy, and using oil to manufacture solar panels which can be used for solar energy. That's it. What you want to avoid is zero-sum. For more details, read p. 2 of this interview: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth Demand affects your reaction to an energy trap. If you have a lot of demand, then you need to deal with the issue. If not, then you can happily ignore it. But that assumes that you can have a situation where a lot of demand will not take place. That's a fantasy. You're missing the point. There will always be an energy trap no matter what you do. You can have zero demand but you will still need energy to manufacture solar panels. Demand determines the importance of that energy trap, not whether or not it will take place. With zero demand and lots of energy available, you can happily manufacture solar panels for no reason at all. I didn't argue that oil is "the only source of tax revenue." I argued that oil is a significant resource needed for manufacturing and food production, and that's where you derive tax revenues. Obviously, "[g]oods and services don't necessarily require oil" because one can use "alternative resources." The catch is http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 If you want more details, read the IEA 2010 report, which was linked earlier. Finally, "exploiting those alternative sources" is not "a larger source of tax revenue" because their energy returns are lower. See the Charles Hall article for details. It's not that I am trying to make things "more profound" or that I am giving excuses. It's that you have almost no knowledge of this issue, which is why I am repeating points that you either cannot or will not understand. Your objections are wrong. I showed that above and in my previous posts. And oil consumption for the rest of the world is rising and outstripping demand destruction for the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the link containing the EIA chart shared earlier. There's your "huge impact." Oil consumption for the rest of the world is outstripping those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. Here's the link to the EIA chart again: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ Oil consumption for the U.S., EU, and Japan dropped by 5 Mb/d during the last decade, but consumption for the rest of the world rose by 10 Mb/d. In fact, oil consumption for the rest of the world rose by 100 pct during the last three decades! What is the trend line for this? The IEA explains in its 2010 report that oil demand has been rising globally by 2 pct a year for the past three decades. That's because even as rich countries mature, developing countries are gearing up for more spending. That's why car, appliance, and other sales are growing in Asia and in other parts of the world. That's why resource demand is on an upward trend not only for oil but for many other resources. Remember, most human beings are only about to join the middle class. The BBC report shared earlier that the middle class will balloon to 40 pct of the world's population in two decades. How much resources do we need to fulfill demand from such? The IEA reports that to meet a 2-pct increase in oil demand a year, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. To meet a growing middle class, we will need even more oil and resources. To meet a growing middle class plus use extra resources and energy to transition to renewable, more still. That's why the IEA 2010 report states that the next two decades will be critical: governments will have to intervene, coordinate, and work together to deal with both peak oil and global warming. And when we look at recent history (two world wars, one Cold War, hundreds of millions dead, military forces used to control resources) we have not seen that.

I already shared another article from Business Insider about the same. That is, an energy trap plus oil (fuel and petrochemicals) needed for a transition to non-fossil fuel sources: http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 A more detailed implementation of this can be seen in the IEA 2010 report, but extensive coordination and cooperation between governments will be needed. Such has never taken place in recent history. Anyone who equates what ideally should happen with what will happen is hopelessly mistaken. An energy trap does not have to do with demand. As you pointed out above, it has to do with "EROEI, plain and simple." However, don't forget to add oil needed for the manufacturing and delivery processes. You can obviously have "excess capacity" (which is not part of an energy trap) by lowering demand. Not surprisingly, the IEA argues the same, and it will involve extensive government intervention. What is the problem with that? You're looking at governments that earn tax revenues through greater sales of goods and services, and that means more oil demand. That's why governments aren't preparing for peak oil. That's why, not surprisingly, they're not cooperating in terms of lowering CO2 emissions to deal with global warming, either. Instead, not surprisingly (again), they've been bailing out the financial elite and spending more on war costs to control various resources. Guess who's paying for those? Finally, don't confuse what you hope will happen with what is likely to happen. If any, the "scenario's assumption" is false (i.e., we are guaranteed that resource demand will drop) because of a growing global middle class, a financial elite and governments that want more profits from production and consumption of goods, and more oil needed to ensure the latter. That's it. Keep in mind that the rest of the world has not reached the same standards as those of the U.S., EU, and Japan. See the first chart of this article for details: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ See also, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/uk-eia-energy-outlook-idUKBRE96O0LD20130725 That means to reach something even close to such standards (e.g., Costa Rica) will require an additional earth. The EIA shows that oil demand is growing worldwide. Very likely, resource demand in general is growing worldwide. It has to do with a growing middle class: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470 Remember, we are looking at a larger human population plus a growing middle class, and the resource demands of a middle class lifestyle is much higher. What has kept scarcity at bay is the extensive use of oil for manufacturing and food production, and that's oil production that had high energy returns, with the latter critical for that same lifestyle: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth But that EROEI has gone down, and the alternatives cannot ensure high returns because of an energy trap, oil still needed for manufacturing and delivery of components needed for renewable energy, etc. That's why the IEA argues that given replacements like unconventional oil, we will see only a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced worldwide, and that in an economy that needs a 2-pct increase in oil demand to ensure economic growth and sustain that same growing middle class. That's the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years: This explains why the IEA now believes that governments must cooperate with each other and intervene in the global economy, to force oil companies to maximize production and move economies to renewable energy (to deal with peak oil and global warming). But what has been taking place the past few decades is the complete opposite: governments undecided on peak oil and global warming, businesses using more oil to produce more goods and services to meet demand from a growing middle class, the same middle class resistant to less resource use as that means lower income or profits for them, and continued effects of environmental damage and global warming. Excellent point! Guy McPherson says something related here: In short, we're looking at three predicaments: a global financial crisis, peak oil, and global warming. All three amplify each other and make our situation more difficult.

It is implied in the article that you need oil for manufacturing, especially petrochemicals. In addition, because energy returns are lower for other energy sources, then you need to invest additional energy to transition to them. Thus, the energy trap has nothing to do with demand, as you pointed out earlier. Except that that hasn't happened, likely because governments rely on more production and consumption of goods to earn more tax revenues. Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between what you think will happen and what you wish will happen. Feel free to challenge the EIA oil consumption chart and come up with what you think is the right one. My point isn't that other energy sources will replace fossil fuels, as that's inevitable given peak oil. It's that they won't be enough to do so. For more details, read the IEA 2010 report. Indeed, but I don't think most members of the middle class, the financial elite that runs the global economy, or governments (not to mention energy-hungry military forces that want more and better armaments) will accept a decrease of resource use, as that threatens their income, profits, or sources of revenues. The same goes for much of the global population that wants a middle class lifestyle. The latter point is important. For everyone to reach the average ecological footprint of Costa Rica, the example that you gave earlier, we will need the equivalent of one more earth. Cuba comes closest to bio-capacity, but I don't think most people will accept authoritarian rule as well. And as bio-capacity is affected by environmental damage and global warming, and as population continues to grow, ecological footprint will have to shrink further.