English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

"My dear legsandgreen, there comes a time that the crude oil of a field, nation or the planet reaches its maximum rate of extraction. It follows a predictable, rough curve, although according to my analysis we may see instead a sudden drop off in the case of the world’s oil “production.” This would be if the market’s reaction and resultant hoarding, followed by economic collapse, bring on a swift and messy end to the oil age. The market in terms of soaring demand has helped bring the time of peak forward, but we can also note some serious developments indicating peak has arrived or will hit very soon.

About twenty oil-exporting nations are reported to be in decline and are past their peak. World discovery peaked four decades ago. The U.S., for decades the top oil exporter, peaked in extraction in 1970 about four decades after its peak of discoveries. Globally, reserves are not being replaced to keep pace with consumption. The world uses about four barrels of oil for every one barrel discovered. The lower and lower energy production ratios of new wells, and more dry holes, indicate the world has been thoroughly exploited for oil. Less and less net energy yield from oil can be an accelerating factor in permanent shortage, and serves to raise costs hidden in countless goods and services. Although oil companies’ data are misleading, these entities’ preference to buy other oil companies rather than explore for more oil is an indication of the long-term global supply picture.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had petroleum considerations driving the decisions, and, petroleum helps dictate the military occupation, “privatization,” and policing of the region. There appear to be no huge oil discovery bonanzas possible that could change the basic depletion trend, so the violent, illegal seizing of Middle Eastern oil makes sense – especially since the White House, for example, has been aware of peak oil longer than the general public. Lastly, OPEC cannot seem to open the spigot further, although one may debate what is really the interests of nations and corporations profiting off high oil prices; prices could become still more lucrative yet backfire and be a total damper on global economic growth. As you may know, OPEC nations jacked up their oil reserves on paper massively in the 1980s and ‘90s. Smoke and mirrors will not change peak or prevent the final energy crisis, as Andrew McKillop described the world’s coming situation with the title of his recent book.

This conference is not so much an exercise in proving peak oil has occurred or will occur soon, but rather an attempt to explore our post-peak options and fate as individuals and communities. Clearly, the government is offering no leadership other than war and social control. Even if Bush’s new conservation option sticks after the recent hurricanes, it is too late for the U.S. to recreate its infrastructure to a non-petroleum infrastructure, and it is inconceivable that the government would start facilitating local economics at the expense of the transnational corporations. With the U.S. gobbling up one fourth of the world’s 80-plus million barrels a day of oil demand, and no sensible policy-change in sight, we are all consigned to involuntary and sudden change through nature’s force and/or global financial events reflecting monumental debt and deficit situations.

Even the environmental groups paid to tout the renewable energy technofix have to admit that the substitutes for petroleum are not ready. Such boosters are engaging in the same promotion tactics as the coal and nuclear industries. These technologies, along with heavy oil and tar sands, are not ready to substitute for today’s preferred petroleum sources. If the alternative fuels were ready to go on stream massively today, then and only then might we see the widely assumed gradual, downward curve for post-peak petroleum.

The prestigious insiders in the peak oil “movement,” Matthew Simmons and Robert Hirsch, want to see economic growth continue. I do not. Such members of the establishment as Simmons and Hirsch want the present industrial society to continue. I want to see a transformation, and it so happens that the effects of peak oil promise to provide it.

Several other well-known peak oil authors and activists prioritize “regime change” in the U.S., or at least a host of policy reforms. I do not. Such authors and activists would do better to fully understand the implications of peak oil and what is likely to happen that will sweep away agendas. We don’t know what is ahead, but it might be unrecognizable to the typical oblivious citizen who ought to be learning here today with us.

One reason for my stance is that petrocollapse, like peak oil, is inevitable and is right up ahead. There is little the government can do about it except to try to protect the most powerful elites. This will not work in the long run, and more equitable means of people helping one another will jump in. I’m accused of being too optimistic about a new culture of egalitarianism and mutual aid, when I predict cooperation and solidarity will be the order of the new day. I frankly do not see any alternative if we are to survive as a species, and if peace is the only path we can allow at this juncture.

Fossil-fuel intensive societies may be ten times beyond their ecological carrying capacity, if cheap energy is finite which it is. Such a measurement is made in a crucial book, Overshoot, by William Catton. This realization gives us an idea of the potential for die-off.

A bigger reason for my possibly unique stance on growth and reformism is that I’m promoting fundamental, system-change. The idea of returning to our species' former, complete reliance on nature during our long prehistory, instead of relentlessly exploiting nature – at a time of apparent incipient ecological collapse – and the idea of returning to a real community-based culture (e.g., tribal), are heresy here in the land of techno-worship. The Western Civilized world is still revered by those who approve of destroying nature and driving countless species extinct, or by those who believe Western Civilization is its own cure. I do not. I believe petrocollapse can cure the Earth of this civilization, such as dissolving the U.S. because only local bioregions can correctly and efficiently address their own problems.

Individually, all of us are suffering the same fate as nature. We hope, in our immersion in high-tech plastic convenience and pesticide residues, that the epidemics of, for example, breast cancer and prostate cancer don’t get us. But we, like nature, are being raped constantly in every orifice. We don’t even know all the ways, when a safeguarding government is an anachronism or a myth. Chemicals such as plastics – petroleum – and their additives amount to the unlearned lesson of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

We continue to tolerate the poisonous chemicals spewing into our ecosphere and into our bodies with hardly an objection. These are mostly petrochemicals that were developed from left-over crude oil refining after kerosene and other early products were made. With the scientific revolution and materialism that had taken place previously, we were all set up to buy into endless progress. Progress is a new idea, and a dangerous one as history has shown if we read between the lines. Nature does not need progress. Tribes that survived for millennia did not need progress, although there was some very, very slow “progress.”

Human beings have clearly gotten out of control starting about 10,000 years ago. Not all humans are out of control; the dominant culture of exploiting nature and consuming the Earth is the subset of humanity creating havoc. But even though not all humans and cultures are guilty of civilization, humans as a whole through their sheer numbers are out of control. I believe the Earth will be lucky soon to accommodate one billion people, considering the crash in energy supply and the rapidly declining state of the ecosystem."

2006-08-19 05:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Peak Oil is a highly controversial topic.

Under best case scenarios, we'll see no difference except a gradually declining use of oil, and a gradual rise in demand of alternative energy sources.

Under worst cast scenarios, we'll see nuclear war, famines, and all sorts of apocalyptic type stuff as the world fights for control of the remaining oil deposits.

However, if you read a bit of history, you'll come to understand that reality rarely deals in extremes. Usually, the doomsday vs miracle scenarios play out somewhere in the middle. I have a feeling the cost of living will rise considerably, but after a recession or two, we'll be back on track with alternative energy sources. Peak Oil will not only have effects on the West, but across the world, by the way. Any society which is highly dependent on oil will be effected, like China, India, and Japan, for instance.

2006-08-15 14:10:14 · answer #2 · answered by double_dip_34 3 · 0 0

The cars we drive. The next alternative energy source. Where our money goes (besides the $165B spent on gasoline each year and half of that leaving the country). Cleaner possible air. More hostility with the Middle East as they see their 'oil' economy drying up.

2006-08-15 14:04:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Radical Islam needs to have the completed worldwide the two switched over to and residing by utilising islamic regulation (Sharia regulation) or ineffective. the foremost component of the fact is RADICAL. by utilising the final component of your question, i'm guessing you're meaning the numerous crusades to boot via fact the on-going militia movements interior the middle East now. The Western international locations are no longer attempting to break the Islamic subculture in the present day. different than the subculture of the radicals who're motor vehicle and man or woman carried bombing public places and non secular websites via fact they are of a diferent sect (Shia Vs Suni/ Suni Vs Shia etc)

2016-11-04 21:47:08 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Hoping some Brazilian that eliminates need for gasoline in warm climates states.

2006-08-15 14:09:45 · answer #5 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0 0

those of us that live out side the big city's, i live 50 miles from the grocery store, so in order to get the food i need to survive i have to have the gas to get it. or pay someone else the gas money to get it.

2006-08-16 03:23:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers