ralfy

The IEA 2010 report gives scenarios for dealing with peak oil and global warming. It argues that with maximum production of all oil and gas resources worldwide we will increase production by only 9 pct during the next two decades. This will not meet an increase in demand, which has gone up around 2 pct a year the past three decades. Thus, in order to deal with peak oil and global warming, governments and businesses worldwide will have to cooperate and coordinate heavily, with government intervention making sure that oil companies maximize production even at lower profits and, business replace more than half of energy increase with renewable energy in order to limit CO2 emissions as well. Why will this be a difficult task? Because for the past six decades governments and businesses have hardly cooperated in such matters. Instead, they sought to maximize economic power or profits and even used military forces to control resources, etc., leading to hundreds of millions dead. During the past decade, governments that should have prepared for peak oil did nothing, and even today countries have hardly agreed on cutting down on CO2 emissions and focusing heavily on renewable energy. Meanwhile, the global middle class has grown significantly, with more demand for oil and various resources worldwide.

The Saudi Arabias needed were given by the IEA and refer to oil demand increase trend: 2 pct increase per annum for the past three decades. Given current levels, that's more than 1 Mb/d a year, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Your second sentence does not prove your first sentence. Put simply, without additional Saudi Arabias, countries like the U.S. will have to cut down resource use by three-quarters. Next, Costa Rica is not a good example given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint because It requires an ecological footprint higher than bio-capacity. If you want a good example, then try Cuba, which has an ecological footprint that comes closer to the latter. Finally, you have to figure out how 15 pct of the world's population plus a growing global middle class will be willing to give up much of a middle class lifestyle, which includes computers, Internet access, etc. Don't forget the financial elite which controls much of the global economy and is dependent on the populace to borrow, spend, and consume more so that the value of money, the main component of its wealth, will maintain its value. It's easy to imagine that governments and businesses worldwide will cooperate and coordinate with each other, giving up tax revenues and profits, as it guides the world population to living standards equivalent to that of Cuba, with military forces cut back drastically, and the financial elite accepting major losses. An energy trap doesn't apply to increased demand but to oil needed for components used in renewable energy. For more details, read http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ A "push for efficiency" leads to conservation if we didn't have a global free market capitalist economy. Unfortunately, that's not the case, which means whatever resources are not used by some will be sold to others. And there's a huge potential demand for resources worldwide as most people don't have access to one or more basic needs. That's why we have the first chart in this article: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ where we have lower oil consumption in the U.S., EU, and Japan due not only to efficiency but to economic crisis has been overtaken by increasing oil consumption for the rest of the world, and that taking place even with a tripling of prices. How much resources will the rest of the world need to copy the U.S., EU, and Japan? Definitely more than what's available. Even following the ecological footprint of a country like Costa Rica will require more than one earth. And that's given the current population, which will still grow, and not counting the effects of environmental damage and global warming on bio-capacity.

Don't forget fossil fuels needed for JIT systems, petrochemicals, lag time, an energy trap (energy to be invested for any transition), energy returns, increasing demand. and significant levels of cooperation and coordination between economies. In this case, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth (based on a 2-pct increase in oil demand per year for the past three decades). To move to other sources of energy while maintaining growth, we will need even more. This will be a problem because crude oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and unconventional oil has lower energy returns and steeper decline curves. What type of energy returns are needed? To support a middle class lifestyle, very high. For more details, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth Finally, what are the chances that governments and businesses will cooperate with each other in a global free market capitalist system that is significantly based on competition and profit-making? To answer that question, one needs to look at whether or not the same have cooperated with each other not only in light of peak oil but even in terms of global warming the past two decades.

Don't forget the need for petrochemicals, lag time, etc. Hence, "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

By middle class lifestyle I am referring to consumption of material resources, which is connected to the topic of energy. For example, take oil consumption, etc. (charts 4 and others) here: http://www.countercurrents.org/tverberg210412.htm U.S. auto sales: http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2011/01/31/the-daily-graphic-u-s-auto-sales-1967-2010/ U.S. consumption for expensive food: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/1344/factors-affecting-us-pork-consumption Sugar and sweetener food consumption and obesity rates: http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/Fructose.html Home ownership (see chart): http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/02/07/republicans-propose-nationalization-of-us-mortgage-market/ Purchasing power parity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita and more, driven by significant levels of borrowing and spending the past few decades (see chart): http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/ My point is that resource and energy consumption in the U.S. is incredibly high. The country has less than 5 pct of the world's population and yet needs to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain a lifestyle which includes something like 250 million passenger vehicles (roughly one per adult). Even if social decay were avoided, including drug wars, etc., and so forth, the U.S. will still end up with the same problems, simply because such a middle class lifestyle which requires resource and energy needs equivalent to having three other earths, is not sustainable. Unfortunately, as the country is falling apart due to fallout from financial risks, other countries are pursing the "American dream" (see the first chart here): http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ and there aren't enough resources and energy to maintain such rates of consumption.

I think it's because you are only looking at the people you have known. You need to look at the global population. Hence, as oil consumption (for example) dropped for the U.S., EU, and Japan, it rose for the rest of the world, and overtook the decrease: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/ (See first chart.) It's given in Charles Hall's interview: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth&page=2 Thus, an EROI barely above one will only allow you to pump oil out of the ground. To use it, you will need a lot more. The same applies for resource use. Try this ecological footprint calculator for an example: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/calculators/ To see ave. footprints of various countries, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint In general, for the rest of the world to follow the lifestyle of countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia, we will need the equivalent of several earths. Finally, you can also look at this in terms of energy and resources needed to maintain what is taken for granted. Consider, for example, the number of miles that food has to travel in countries like the U.S. to reach dinner tables, the amount of fresh water needed to produce a ton of grains, the number of products that are not only made using oil but even made from oil, i.e., petrochemicals, the amount of fresh water needed to produce one T-shirt, passenger vehicle, or computer chip, and so on.

Exactly, which is why the issue is on-going.

The problem is that you need a certain EROI to maintain a particular lifestyle. For some details, try this interview: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth There's also an EROI needed to deal with both declining conventional production and rising demand, but that will be difficult given conditions for non-conventional sources: 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 And to deal with a lag time: http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11 and an energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ According to the IEA, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU we'll need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth, especially given a growing global middle class. But that assumes that conventional production will simply flat line. If it doesn't, then we will need more. And even more if we need surplus oil for the transition to other sources of energy.

FWIW, the issue is on-going: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/

Right, U.S. armed civilians are as resilient as their counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, wait, that's not exactly true. And don't forget the significant numbers of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq because of bombs, artillery, etc. Warfare? Very likely, the military and police will secure supplies for their use. Civilians, most of whom have been used to middle class amenities for the past four decades, will have to deal with only a few weeks' worth of food, ammo, medicine, and fuel. And when those run out... http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/5-reasons-why-american-riots-will-be-the-worst-in-the-world_08102011 BTW, I don't agree with the title of the article, but I think the five reasons are worth noting. In which case, civilians will probably worry less over what the military or police will do to them and more on what they are capable of doing to each other.

Actually, that's not my point. Rather, we will be forced to replace petroleum given peak oil. But replacements will not provide the same energy returns needed to maintain middle class lifestyles. There are related points here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=eroi-charles-hall-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

You can probably look at the reports released by the NAS at "America's Climate Choices".

Anything can be used to replace petroleum. The catch is the EROI that is ensured by that source, the EOI need by the global population, the fact that much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture worldwide is heavily geared towards the use of oil, the need for petrochemicals, and an energy trap involved when moving to other sources of energy. According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain global economic growth, and that probably includes more petrochemicals and minerals extracted to ensure increasing production of not only of luxury goods such as passenger vehicles but even food. The IEA also argues that economies should have started the transition process at least a decade ago, and one study shows that the transition will require several decades. Meanwhile, the IEA forecasts at best a 9-pct increase in energy produced from all oil and gas sources for the next two decades, and that assumes that conventional production won't drop. Unfortunately, we will need to increase energy consumption by around 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth. With that, the use of other energy sources to replace oil is inevitable, but they will not ensure "business as usual" given increasing resource and energy demand worldwide.

It was probably not preventable but inevitable. That is, given the idea of "realpolitik," the need to keep the petro-dollar propped up, etc.

It will probably not matter as the world will continue existing with or without human beings.

This is how money is created: "The Myth of the Money Multiplier" http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/money-supply-economics-economy-bank-reserves-infla-pd20121022-ZAS44

It does not affect all humanists, especially those who acknowledge that the human condition is complex.

Some self-teaching books are mentioned here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97158

Might this also be helpful? "Top 5 Resources for Algebra" http://math.about.com/od/booksresourcesdvds/tp/algebra1.htm esp. the first one.

Dog and pony show indeed, as the same administration kept avoiding gun control and even worked towards deregulating arms exports.

In my opinion, the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were achieved not to make citizens safe but part of attempts by the government to stop countries from not using the petro-dollar (which was the case in Iraq) and to combine claims that the Al Qaeda was involved in 9/11 with the need to control resources in the Afghanistan-Kazakhstan region. In short, these realpolitik activities were no different from what military powers engaged in during the past sixty years, leading to millions of civilians dead worldwide. If any, the results of those two invasions have made the world even more dangerous.

That source misses a lot, from Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution to Shays' Rebellion and the Western Confederacy in light of the first two Militia Acts, the content of the first two Militia Acts, the employment of such via the Whiskey Rebellion, and the three other Militia Acts.

Forget Malthus and others. We now have warnings from various scientists, the IEA, Lloyd's of London, Morgan Stanley, the U.S. and German military, the Pentagon, the IMF, and many others of various crisis during the next few years due to peak oil, global warming, and economic crisis. You can find some sources mentioned in the "Fossil Fuel" lecture I shared in another thread.

The arms industry lobbies government to avoid gun control, as that leads to more sales. The rest of my argument is given in my post and very much describes the military-industrial complex. If any, that complex also explains why there are no "disinterested parties," only government working for Big Business, again explained in my message. The rest of your message doesn't make sense. Lobbying by the arms industry doesn't "stand between" an "authoritarian government" and the citizenry because the same "authoritarian government" is also supplied with better armaments by the same arms industry (with costs passed on to citizens), and gets to use arms exports as part of military aid. And the point that it's a "bad strategy" is absurd because it implies that the arms industry is lobbying against gun control for the sake of citizens. What is likely is that it does so simply for profits. The government works with the arms industry in exchange for better armaments (again, with costs passed on to citizens). Meanwhile, citizens believe that their firearms will protect them against an "authoritarian government" with better armaments, including armored vehicles, ground-attack fighters, bombs, and artillery, not to mention formidable surveillance and prison systems.

Never mind space travel. According to the IEA, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain global economic growth. Oil discoveries peaked in 1964. Oil production per capita peaked in 1979. The IEA argued that conventional oil production peaked in 2005, which is why we are now resorting to non-conventional sources. How much do we have of that? According to the IEA, at best we will increase energy production from all oil and gas sources worldwide by 9 pct during the next two decades. The bad news is that energy demand has to go up by 1.4 to 2.0 pct each year to maintain economic growth. Finally, theoretically we can use other energy sources to make up for lack of oil, but the retooling process will take decades, and the IEA states that we should have started the transition a decade ago. With that, it's always nice to imagine that we will engage in space travel, etc., but we have to be realistic. The two are actually connected to biocapacity. For example, the U.S. used the military to prop up the petro-dollar after U.S. oil production started going into decline after 1970, and the economy is "hindering humanity" because as BP has revealed conventional oil production has not been able to catch up with demand since 2005.