|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 4, 2005, 3:49 AM
Post #1 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
My Friends, it seems time to discuss an issue that's likely to come to bear upon us during the next 10 years or so.
The past few years have motivated me to do a lot of research into politics and current events. I don't have kids or a relentless job so I've had time to dig deep. I tried to keep an open mind and consider all the possibilities.
I'm sorry to say that, even as a positive person who is optimistic about almost everything, my investigations have led me to nearly conclude that civilization is at the brink of SERIOUS change due to oil depletion. The real question is the timing. Will it become critical in your lifetime or will it be the central issue in your kids lives when they are your age?
I say "nearly" conclude since we never have all the data and can never anticipate every turn of events. Jesus could save us, Aliens could land, Science might invent something new and save the day. Any of those three things might be equally likely or unlikely. Yabo fell free-soloing, he should have died, a tree caught him.
The fact that a miracle might occur is no reason to count on one, or justification to endulge in denial, but I've found that is exactly what folks are dying to do.
I've tried to have dialogs with many of my friends and partners about the ramifications of oil depletion. It has struck me how anxious folks are to skirt the issue, shoot the messenger, change the subject, anything but do their own research and become more educated about what will be a gigantic issue for humans sooner, or not much later.
It's natural. We have a lot to lose, and we don't want our kids to sacrifice either. We don't want to face that our dreams might not come true the way we've planned. There is a lot of anger, resentment and denial on the subject of what we do about oil depletion.
As long as this is the case, humans will refuse to face the problem and the problem will be very much worse when it comes home to roost because of that denial. You might call me a doomsayer or conspiracy theorist, but until you've run the numbers and analysed the situation, you're just trying to make yourself feel better without knowing corresponding evidence to the contrary. I'd love to hear it. I have no investment in things going poorly. I love my life more than anyone I know and I'll hate to see things change.
The problem is, there are no good forseeable solutions to this problem that allow civilization to grow and consume as it has. Society will run short on energy and the consequences will become extreme over an unknown period of time. Solutions come in bits and pieces. A little biodiesel, a little solar, a little wind, a lot of powerdown, and unfortunately, a probably resurgence of drilling everywhere (offshore, in Yellowstone and the Artic, no holds barred) and nuclear.
There will be positive aspects as we forget petty concerns like Brittany Spears and fashion, quit seeking senseless luxuries and fads, and come together as community members and families. Compassion and spirituality may be easier to come by as the veneer of our vanity is stripped away. I've hung out with people living in mud huts eating rice that are as happy as millionaires or maybe more happy than most. Maybe some of that wisdom will come with hard times. Some folks will be angry and go wild.
Nothing can change until we acknowledge the problem. Unfortunately, acknowledging the problem on a large enough scale would crash financial markets and create a serious immediate economic problem that might make solutions even more difficult to finance. I suggest that you find out for yourself if this oil depletion issue is real, and if you find it to be true, try to inform your immediate community so they can make choices that make life more sustainable when energy gets pinched, rather than harder. Don't replace your fireplace with a gas insert.
If we don't gradually (although quickly would be better) develop grassroots awareness of the problem, and begin stitching together piecemeal local solutions, it won't matter if you made your own personal preparations for adversity. Would you really sit there and get fat while the neighbors went hungry? Don't lose your soul trying to save your life.
Anyway, there's no magic wand to make our problem go away. You can add oil depIetion to death and taxes as unavoidable and unwelcome events.
So try to fight the urge to write off the warning about this danger with some kind of anger or denial. I know you're all busy, but take a look at this issue and decide if it's going to touch you or not. Then at least, we can search for solutions together and try to help each other if times get hard.
I thought it would be best to start with a simple introduction from this website:
http://members.home.nl/peakoil/index.html
Other intoductions to peak oil can be found at
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
A Rolling Stone Article on Peak OIl
http://tinyurl.com/bf99c
A pessimistic view but well documented with numerous links and references is at:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
This might help folks get up to speed with the basic concepts and info so we have a place to start our discussion. It might take you a little time to get up to speed on this issue, but hopefully you will take seriously my warning that this is a critically serious issue that might profoundly affect your life and certainly the life of your kids. How you choose to respond to, or ignore, this problem might be one of the biggest gambles you ever take. It's bound to be a gamble since so many factors bear on the situation, it's timing and consquences are very unpredictable.
So for starters let's check out one of the shorter and more neutral introductions that I've seen. I don't endorse everything he says, but it's such a big issue that it's impossible to find a source that I buy 100 percent.
If you read this on the site you'll get all the text and there are links to some key facts. I've cut the fluff to a large degree so everybody is more likely to get through the basics. The full intro is at
http://members.home.nl/...il/introduction.html
"(cut first paragraph about the amazing comfort and luxury of modern society, second paragraph about how it doesn't necessarily make us happy, third paragraph about how it's all been made possible by cheap energy, and fourth paragraph about how oil fuels all aspects of our modern life, diet, and economy.)
OIL
The world had a total reserve of 2 or 3 trillion barrels of conventional oil in the ground when we started drilling the first well. We have used about half of it at a current rate of 28 billion a year. No need to worry right? The glass is still half full!
Before oil can be produced it has to be found. There won't be many people who will disagree here. Most of the biggest oil fields were discovered more then 40 years ago. Over the last decades there were less finds year after year. It is now widely acknowledged that about 95% of world's oil reserves have been found.
Since Oil-discovery reached a peak, it is inevitable that Oil-production will reach a peak too. This peak is expected when about half of the reserves are used up, which is about right now. The irreversible decline in production is expected in the next 5 - 10 years. Natural gas will follow soon after that. These resources combined, account for about 75% of our cheap energy. Cheap energy is essential for our western economy.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SOCIETY?
Good question. It's very difficult to predict a future scenario. The first signs are already there though. Oil has been making the headlines quite a bit in the last few months. Oil-supply has gotten extremely tight. Production has a hard time keeping up with demand. This results in higher oil prices. OPEC has promised to increase production somewhat, but this will only ease things short term..
Basically, once oil peaks, production will decline 2% or 3% on a yearly basis. On the other hand, demand for oil is expected to rise with 2% or 3% per year. This will result in a 4% short-come just a year after the peak and will rise to a 15% - 20% gap in 5 years.
This means there will be less energy available for everything we do. Less energy for the industry, less energy to heat our houses, less gas for our cars, and last but not least, less energy to produce food. 17% of our energy is used for producing food. We use oil for fertilizers, pesticides, packaging and distribution of the food.. As a result of rising demand and declining production, the price of crude oil will rise significantly. This is basic economics. It's not unreasonable to imagine a barrel of oil trading for $100 or higher by 2010. This translates to paying $5 - $10 dollars for a gallon of gas at your local pump.
Not only the cost of oil will rise though. Food-prices will double, as oil is used for fertilizers and because there's energy involved in the process of growing food. Industrial goods will become more expensive, because oil is the primary material for plastics and such. Costs for Medical care will rise.. basically everything will cost you more.
As a result of this, inflation will skyrocket. We already see this happening. The fed is creating more and more money (M3) to power the war in Iraq and to push economical growth. This results in inflation, because money loses value when there's more of it. A market-crash might follow. (cut investment advice)
Question remains: Will people accept these higher prices and the fact that they will have to downgrade their lifestyle and use less energy? I sure hope so. If not, we can expect a much worse scenario. Think strikes, think riots and think empty grocery stores.
IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS PROBLEM?
Well.., we might, but it may be too late already... Society and politicians should have started dealing with this 10 or 20 years ago. If we want to solve this problem, it will require major investments in alternatives for oil and natural gas RIGHT NOW. I'm talking trillions of dollars. It would be a start if US government puts just as much money in developing alternative energy's as it does in maintaining the war in Iraq.
There ARE some other sources of energy currently available. You've probably heard about the magical 'hydrogen' which is to solve all of our energy problems. Let me educate you on this alternative. Hydrogen is an energy-carrier. It's NOT an energy-source. This means it takes energy to produce Hydrogen. Most of the hydrogen created these days comes from oil. It is possible to create hydrogen from water, but it requires electricity, which will split the water into oxygen and hydrogen. It will never replace oil as an energy-source. There are some good aspects of it though. It's a cleaner energy than oil. Burning hydrogen produces a lot less CO2 output, so it won't contribute to global warming as much as fossil fuels do.
WHAT ABOUT SOLAR AND WINDPOWER?
Both of these are very clean sources of energy, but they are (currently) pretty pricey. This makes them not competitive for oil at this moment, but they will be better choices when oil prices start to rise. However, in 2004, solar-cells and wind power produce just 0.2% of total energy supply. This number is expected to rise to only 1% in 2020.
That's pretty disturbing.
OK, WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER?
Nuclear power might be an option, but there are some serious issues. First of all, many of you will remember the Chernobyl tragedy in Russia in 1986. The amount of radiation that was distributed because of this accident killed a lot of people. The recent threat of terrorism is the next concern. Nuclear plants are extremely good targets for terrorists, just like oil-pipelines and refineries. Even if the government chooses nuclear as a valid alternative they better start building now. We will need to build hundreds of new nuclear plants over the next decade, if we want nuclear power to become a serious backup for the upcoming oil-production decline. Lets assume for a moment that we succeed in doing that. It will only generate a different and perhaps even bigger problem: What to do with all the nuclear waste??
(Note, you can't fly planes with nuclear energy)
I HEARD THE MIDDLE EAST STILL HAS LOTS OF OIL LEFT
You are painfully right. 65% of the world oil-reserves are located in the Middle East. This means they will become a major player in the next decade. It also means that when oil will become scarce, western country's will go over there to make sure they get there oil. In a worse case scenario this could result in an international war for oil. In fact, it may have begun already. The war in Iraq is not only about WMD's and bringing democracy. It's mostly about oil. Expect the middle east to become one big battlefield in the next 10 or 20 years. This includes Saudi Arabia. In fact, there are some bills floating around in the senate to reinstate the draft. This is a pretty disturbing fact.
ALL OF THIS SOUNDS LIKE A HOAX
In fact, it does. Lots of people deny or dismiss peak oil as being another one of those doom predictions like asteroid impacts, alien invasions and so forth. The big difference is that everything that is written here is backed up by cold numbers and facts. The people behind 'peak oil theory' are among the most respected scientists and geologists in the world. Even some politicians support the theory. Michael Moore and Matt Simmons (Bush energy advisor) are some of the major names on the list. Dick Cheney said in a speech in 1999 that around 2010 the world would have to produce an additional 50 million barrels a day to meet oil-demand.
CONCLUSION
We are living in interesting times. The world and our society are about to change in a big way. Whether it will be for the better or for the worse is still a difficult question to answer. My view is that the coming years will be a time of increasing international tension, inflation and flattening economic growth. When things go bad, all of this could result in a global war for energy (or clean water). The outcome of this war would be too harsh to imagine if we take into account the amount of nuclear weapons that the US , Russia and Asia have in their basements.
So there you have it. A pretty unbiased introduction on the coming energy crisis. I'm not expecting you to just believe everything that has been said in this article. However, I do encourage you to do some research on this subject yourself. The facts are all out there on the internet. Some of it comes straight from BP and Exxon and there is a lot of data out there from ASPO. ASPO is a highly respected organization that does research on this very same subject. Do whatever you want with the info. Dismiss it, criticize it or take action. There IS something we can do to protect ourselves financially and socially. Our future and the one of our children is about to be determined by the actions we take now.
Best regards,
Al"
ASPO Website at
http://www.peakoil.net/
More news at
http://www.peakoil.net/
One of the wild complications of the oil issue is it's relationship with the US economy. It's central to our economy that world oil sales are denominated in US dollars and other country's central banks have to get US dollars from America to buy oil. That's how we get away with our extreme deficit spending. An introduction to this is here
http://www.museletter.com/archive/149.html
Peace Friends. Hope this info helps you make informed choice. Don't take my word for anything.
PEace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 4, 2005, 7:28 AM
Post #2 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
Well said!
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 4, 2005, 8:34 AM
Post #3 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Ah, taking the old hobby horse for a trot around the yard are you Karl?
You missed out a few of the key predictions of peak oil supporters though. In particular you missed out the predictions that there will be billions of deaths due to starvation and disease, every government will cease to exist and climate change will bring about either a new ice age or a new desert age, wiping out most of the remainder of humanity.
Meanwhile, for those who are not frightened by the comical exaggerations and invisible bogeymen conjured up by Karl and his friends, here are a few fun facts:
1. Did you know that agriculture has been dependent on petrol and diesel engines for less than 70 years?
2. Did you know that before then, there were methods of growing food that had existed and fed all of humanity for over 4,000 years?
3. Did you know that before petrol engines there were other types of engines which were sucessfully used for transport, industry and agriculture for almost 150 years?
4. Did you know that since the industrialisation of agriculture, the number of different crops we produce has increased by 0% and that every crop we now grow was successfully grown before petrol engines?
5. Did you know that humans have been practicing agriculture for over 10,000 years?
6. Did you know that in those ten thousand years, the number of times that humanity has died out due to the failure of agriculture is 0?
Here's the irony: Karl wants you to believe that you and your family are in imminent danger because you think that oil is the only way to get things done - but you know as well as I do that there are other ways, right? That ways existed before oil which will exist after it too.
In fact, the only person here who believes that oil is the only way, refusing to accept others, is Karl himself.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Jul 4, 2005, 9:34 AM
Post #4 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2028
|
The reason that there haven't been famines is that agriculture has managed to grow exponentially along with human population. How, you ask? Technology. Much of that being technology that allows people grow and harvest more crops and requires oil products. There are more issues that agriculture also. Great post Karl. I agree that most people don't want to hear it or talk about it. In the mean time, I support energy efficiency (usually to the benefit of my wallet I might add) and try to spread the word on occasion.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 4, 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #5 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
What is this "technology" that you believe our predecessors lacked?
Is it plows? Fertilisers? Threshers? Tractors? Harrows? Spreaders? Silos? Balers? All these existed for decades before diesel and petrol engines.
What is this oil-based technology which, once removed, will ensure the doom of farming and humanity? You must be knowledgable about farming or surely you wouldn't make such a bold claim. Be specific please.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 4, 2005, 1:18 PM
Post #6 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: 1. Did you know that agriculture has been dependent on petrol and diesel engines for less than 70 years? 2. Did you know that before then, there were methods of growing food that had existed and fed all of humanity for over 4,000 years? 3. Did you know that before petrol engines there were other types of engines which were sucessfully used for transport, industry and agriculture for almost 150 years? 4. Did you know that since the industrialisation of agriculture, the number of different crops we produce has increased by 0% and that every crop we now grow was successfully grown before petrol engines? 5. Did you know that humans have been practicing agriculture for over 10,000 years? 6. Did you know that in those ten thousand years, the number of times that humanity has died out due to the failure of agriculture is 0?
So, are you implying that, were we to suddenly run out of oil, agriculture would continue to chug along merrily with only a few minor edits?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 4, 2005, 1:39 PM
Post #7 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: So, are you implying that, were we to suddenly run out of oil, agriculture would continue to chug along merrily?
With a few small changes, absolutely.
Society is very flexible, and capable of adjusting to very large changes very quickly. In the 1940s, some countries had as much as 40% of their male workforce out of the country fighting, yet agriculture continued. In the 1600s, plague killed 175 million people in europe alone and society continued.
The required changes to accommodate a complete and literal overnight adjustment to a total lack of petrol are obvious and rudimentary to anyone with a basic knowledge of farming. A simple look backwards to before petrol engines would show you some of what needs to be done to work a modern farm without tractors:
- subdivide the land. Most modern farms are made up of several former smaller farms combined. Divide up fields too, into manageable sizes. Anything left that you can't work will make up the extra fallow you'll need due to lack of chemical fertilisers.
- use plenty of manpower. In the month or so until you train your horses and cows to the yoke, weeding and planting will have to be done by hand. With some people losing their jobs in the oil industry, there'll be plenty of hands available.
- downsize your machinery. Much existing farm machinery is too heavy to be pulled by teams of 2 animals, but they are easy to downsize because they're designed to fit a range of tractors too.
- sort out a breeding program for horses, cows, pigs and sheep. Animals have just become very valuable, so you'd better take care of them.
- share. Horses and cows in particular breed quite slowly, so share them with your neighbours in return for produce and help.
Almost everything else - irrigation, pest control, seed stock, planting rotations, seasonals and so on can pretty much stay as they are or will adapt.
These might seem like big changes, especially if you live in a city or don't know much about farming, but they're really not. I'd bet my house that with a competent farmer and plenty of hands, I could convert an entire farm to run with no petrol at all within 2 months.
To suggest that agriculture will fall apart in event of a major change implies a startling ignorance of farming techniques, and a smug and sneering lack of respect for the farmers who grow your food. Believe me, these guys really know the land and how to work it, petrol or no petrol.
As the old saying goes, to criticise them with your mouth full is hypocrisy at its worst.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 4, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #8 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Hi Dave
Yup, I'm out for a spin on my hobby horse (good mileage) It's unfortunate that you choose to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
Of course agriculture will continue! I have read that the carrying capacity of the earth with no oil at all, using traditional Agriculture, is about 2.2 billion. Let's assume it's really double that or even triple that. We still have a problem don't we? But that's not the issue I raised. Some peak oil folks are pessimistic die-off, believers, many aren't. I personally don't know and can't predict what will happen 10 years after peaking, much less when the vast majority of the oil runs out completely 40-100+ years from now.
and if even everybody in the world was well fed, oil peaking will still bring many problems that we have to deal with.
So I think it's a valid subject and we should all be informed about it.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 4, 2005, 3:48 PM
Post #9 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Of course agriculture will continue! I have read that the carrying capacity of the earth with no oil at all, using traditional Agriculture, is about 2.2 billion.
Hmm, not sure where you got that figure, but it must be completely wrong for the pure and simple reason that the earth was already supporting more than that by the 1930s when the first mass-market petrol and diesel tractors made agriculture oil-based.
Now we have genetically engineered high-yield crops of all kinds and know far more about agriculture in general. Many if not most of the advances in production have not been due to petrol, they've been due to developments in crops, land management and stock control.
Removing oil would not remove those benefits, nor would it remove that knowledge. Therefore your figure is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 4, 2005, 3:56 PM
Post #10 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Read the "Future of Life" by E.O. Wilson.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Jul 4, 2005, 6:47 PM
Post #11 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: 1. Did you know that agriculture has been dependent on petrol and diesel engines for less than 70 years? 2. Did you know that before then, there were methods of growing food that had existed and fed all of humanity for over 4,000 years?
ok, if only we can decrease the population down to what it was 100 years ago.... oh wait...
writing this message from a town with absolutely no public transportation or sidewalks along the roads, and where 3 out of 4 cars is a frickin truck.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 4, 2005, 6:58 PM
Post #12 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Melekzek, we don't have to reduce the population.
The land can obviously produce enough food to feed us and enough to export - it's doing it already after all.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 4, 2005, 9:16 PM
Post #13 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: Melekzek, we don't have to reduce the population. The land can obviously produce enough food to feed us and enough to export - it's doing it already after all.
Here in Australia our population carrying capacity from our own agricultural production is close to the limit (around 25-30 million). We already have 20 million. Half our country is pure sand and half of the other half is very marginal land only suitable for some grazing.
If we could no longer use oil to transport large amounts of trade continuously we'd be forced to slow to a subsistence form of living and slow population growth to almost zero.
There are some countries which would die out almost altogether anyway, or at least be reduced somewhat in population due to the carrying capacity of the land itself. Imports are crucial for some countries to live as they do now at the current population.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 5, 2005, 12:07 AM
Post #14 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
There were 1.6 billion folks in the world in 1900 and 2.4 billion in 1950. There was also plenty of starvation in China, India, Africa and elsewhere. Whatever the population is when oil really begins to run out, I'm afraid it will exacerabate the problem and feeding everybody will be more difficult that you are projecting.
On one hand, yes, we have more knowledge and can farm better because of it.
On the other hand, we're likely to make climate change worse by burning coal as oil gets scarce. Better hope the ocean dynamics don't shift or shut down the gulf stream cause Scotland will have trouble farming if it's covered with ice. Only the Gulf Stream keeps ya'll from being Siberia
Here's a reference for the 2 billion capacity.Even three times that number will create a pinch by 2025
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/limit.htm
or
http://dieoff.org/page57.htm
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 5, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #15 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: There were 1.6 billion folks in the world in 1900 and 2.4 billion in 1950. There was also plenty of starvation in China, India, Africa and elsewhere. Whatever the population is when oil really begins to run out, I'm afraid it will exacerabate the problem and feeding everybody will be more difficult that you are projecting.
I would wager that international trade in food will stop, or at least slow up a bunch. Currently, three or four countries lead provide the majority of the world's food. If, as Karl predicts, the oil issue becomes so widespread that it ends international commerce, then it'll be "Everyone for themselves" when it comes to food. No more shipping of Kansas wheat to Russia. No more shipping of Korean rice to the USA. No more shipping of Mexican beans to Arizona... Well, maybe not that last one.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 5, 2005, 12:56 AM
Post #16 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
In reply to: 1. Did you know that agriculture has been dependent on petrol and diesel engines for less than 70 years?
Did you know that in that 70 years the world's population has almost tripled, from 2 billion to over 6 billion?
In reply to: 2. Did you know that before then, there were methods of growing food that had existed and fed all of humanity for over 4,000 years?
Did you know that, for 3800 of those years, the world's population was well under 1 billion (i.e. less than 15% of what it is now)?
In reply to: 3. Did you know that before petrol engines there were other types of engines which were sucessfully used for transport, industry and agriculture for almost 150 years?
What, coal-fired steam engines? :lol: I'd hate to see the world in 50 years if we replaced every petrol engine with them!
In reply to: 4. Did you know that since the industrialisation of agriculture, the number of different crops we produce has increased by 0% and that every crop we now grow was successfully grown before petrol engines?
Did you know that since 1961 the volume of production of wheat, rice and maize has tripled?
In reply to: 5. Did you know that humans have been practicing agriculture for over 10,000 years?
Did you know that God created the earth only 4000 years ago?
...whoops, wrong argument.
Did you know that for most of that 10,000 years the agriculture was on a "subsistence-only" basis, and at a rate that the land was able to handle without the addition of chemical fertilizers?
In reply to: 6. Did you know that in those ten thousand years, the number of times that humanity has died out due to the failure of agriculture is 0?
Did you know that in the great Irish potato famine, 1846-1850, 1 million people (12.5% of the population at the time) died of starvation due to the failure of their crops? That in the drought-driven Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 another 1 million people died? That the northern China famine of 1959-61 killed an estimated 30 million people?
In reply to: Here's the irony: Karl wants you to believe that you and your family are in imminent danger because you think that oil is the only way to get things done - but you know as well as I do that there are other ways, right? That ways existed before oil which will exist after it too. In fact, the only person here who believes that oil is the only way, refusing to accept others, is Karl himself.
It may indeed be theoretically possible to grow enough food without the use of oil (although I find this somewhat doubtful), but transport of this food from growing areas to major population centres is another question entirely.
No doubt society will adapt, but without significant technological breakthroughs (finally getting that danged ITER working, for example) there will most likely be a very large amount of loss and hardship along the way.
Edit: tpyo
|
|
|
|
|
newbierockstar
Jul 5, 2005, 1:11 AM
Post #17 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2004
Posts: 1010
|
Good post, gecko.... :righton:
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 5, 2005, 8:31 AM
Post #18 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
So gecko, let me clarify: you believe that agriculture will be unable to function because there are more people now than before, right?
Well, at the risk of repeating myself, agriculture is already providing enough food for us to eat and export. It's where your food comes from. Nobody needs to question whether it can be done because it's already happening.
As I've already shown, existing farms can be run successfully without petrol engines. You say you doubt that but don't seem to have any reason for doubting it.
Similarly, you seem to have no actual reason for believing that steam engines can't do the work of petrol engines in agriculture. Again, anyone can see that it's not an issue: 70 years ago, they were being used to do all those tasks. If we now have a larger scale then all that is required is more engines.
Do we need more rail carrying capacity than before oil? No problem, we've already built extra railways since then. Do we need more road carrying capacity? No problem, our road network's been expanded.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would question the workability of a system that's already working. Everything required for agriculture without petrol is either already in place and working or has worked in the past before petrol and only needs recreated.
If your plate is not empty this morning, why do you believe that our current system of agriculture is not workable? Please be specific.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 5, 2005, 11:12 AM
Post #19 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
I'd say the world would be hard-pressed providing for all the people that are alive today with steam powered machinery that was developed in the mid 1800's to cut and thrash wheat and other crops, like cotton.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/...mages/bxtai0059b.jpg
A good reason why we can all be fed and go to a supermarket to buy anything we want from all parts of the world is highly dependent on modern, fuel burning engines. Demand is extremely high for products such as wheat, cotton, sorghum and barley where large volumes can only be harvested, processed and transported by fuel-driven machines.
http://www.parker.com/...%20harvesters(1).jpg
Can agricultural demand for our modern day population be provided by technology from 1850? Even if it is re-created using modern technology and knowledge, is it possible to utilise this knowledge to create a super-steam-powered combine harvester as large and as efficient as those that exist today?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 5, 2005, 11:28 AM
Post #20 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
A combine harvester is just that - a combination of several harvesting machines in one package. All those machines existed before petrol engines, and were run successfully. They cover smaller acerages, which is why the first step I stipulated would be to sub-divide the farms into their pre-petrol boundaries, but they work all right as proven by decades of successful agriculture.
All that's different now is scale. We have more mouths to feed, but we correspondingly have bigger farms that are already feeding them. Those farms can be run without petrol engines, by dividing them up and sharing equipment and labour.
So if we can run the farms that are feeding us now without oil, then why would we have trouble feeding all the people when oil runs out?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 5, 2005, 11:37 AM
Post #21 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: All that's different now is scale. We have more mouths to feed, but we correspondingly have bigger farms that are already feeding them. Those farms can be run without petrol engines, by dividing them up and sharing equipment and labour.
In reply to: So if we can run the farms that are feeding us now without oil, then why would we have trouble feeding all the people when oil runs out?
....people can live without many thing that exist today, as they have in the past, but would they be able to adjust quick enough if all the oil ran out?
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 5, 2005, 1:48 PM
Post #22 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
When oil "really" starts to run out there should be no problem with man-power. Hopefully your steam engines will be built before the power to build them runs low.
The major limiting factors will be the smaller yield and less reliable yield that comes from not using oil and gas based fertiilizers and pestacides. Time will tell how significant the vast use of those inputs are. Certainly we'll be going back to manure for fertilizer.
Good article on oil and gas in ag here. Maybe an exaggeration but many links to reference provided.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/...0303_eating_oil.html
From that article
"In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
· 19% for the operation of field machinery
· 16% for transportation
· 13% for irrigation
· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
· 05% for crop drying
· 05% for pesticide production
· 08% miscellaneous8
Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures."
peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 5, 2005, 2:10 PM
Post #23 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Hey Karl,
How many miles do you travel each year?
Actions speak louder....
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 5, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #24 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Our ancestors were not wholly dependent on steam power. As I said before, horse and cows can power a lot of machinery, and work they can't do can be done by people in the meantime. I'd like to remind you that there are plenty of places in the world where agriculture is successfully conducted without either steam or petrol.
As for your other comments, Karl:
Fertilizer: as previously discussed, holding more fields fallow because of a lack of heavy machinery will overcome this problem, with manure making up the remainder. If you don't know what fallow means, you shouldn't even be discussing this topic.
Pesticides: more pests means more predators. This part of the ecosystem has been self-regulating for millions of years. Allowing hedgerows to grow back will provide you with all the little farmhands you need for pest control. You can expect a higher proportion of wastage to pests and disease, but any competent farmer will know how to keep these well below any level that's damaging.
I've briefly touched on this before Karl, but I really think you should step out of your oil-dependent mindset. Petrol engines, oil-based fertilisers and pesticides are not the only way to get agriculture done, they are only prevalent becasue they are the most convenient for now. If they disappear we'll simply use other methods which are well-established and readily available.
I'm beginning to see just how difficult this is for many of you to accept, but I'm prepared to persevere in good faith if you are.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jul 5, 2005, 2:36 PM
Post #25 of 55
(1994 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In reply to: Hey Karl, How many miles do you travel each year? Actions speak louder....
While I'm not having kids, buying new cars,or eating land animals, I'm also not saying that refraining from driving is much, if any, of the answer. Perversely, individual conservation can actually make the problem worse long-term.
When you dig down a bit, you'll discover that, unless we develop an
awareness of the problem worldwide, conservation doesn't mean squat. As long as China, India and the developing world continue to grow, and
everybody else is burning oil like there is no tomorrow, your
refraining from taking a road trip adds up to nothing but making
yourself feel morally superior.
In fact, conservation can do a certain amount of harm by keeping prices
low enough that we don't develop alternatives. After the 1970s oil
crunch, we because more efficient, prices went way back down, and then
we failed to prepare for the inevitable.
See explanation of Jevon's paradox at the end of this post
But know this. I can't claim not to be a hypocritical dirtbag scum. Most of us are. That doesn't change the world situation. I've posted this information not to preach or tell you what to do, just to inform you. Do whatever you think is wise and based on your own followup investigation. There was a certain amount of evidence that Y2K was going to create a problem. I didn't buy the info and didn't prepare. Nothing much happened. Doesn't mean that every scare is the same.
Next Tradman,
The subject of agriculture is related but tangental to the subject. We have plenty to deal with even if agriculture flourishes under minimum oil. Funny you should assume I don't know your agricultural terms and attempt to disqualify me from "the subject." Naturally, having fallow fields significantly reduces overall yields. How could it be otherwise?
Second, nobody is denying that agriculture will continue and feed the planet. The question is how the transition will happen and if yields will be able to be sustained a the level where 8 billion people or more can be fed. It's not self evident from your claims that yields won't suffer. I've posted links and references for my concerns.
Peace
Karl
You need to understand Jevon's paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
"The US economy is a good example of Jevon's Paradox in action. Since
1973, we have managed to cut in half the amount of oil necessary to
generate a dollar of GDP. At the same time, however, we have doubled
our level of consumption. Thus, despite massive increases in the energy
efficiency over the last 30 years, we are more dependent on oil than
ever. This trend is unlikely to be abated in a market economy."
....
"Typically, Jevon's Paradox is one of the aspects of our situation that
people find difficult to get their minds around. Perhaps one additional
example will help clarify it:
Think of our economy as a giant petroleum powered machine that turns
raw materials into consumer goods which are later turned into garbage:
If you remove the machine's internal inefficiencies, the extra energy
is simply reinvested into the petroleum supply side of the machine. By
removing its internal inefficiencies, you have enabled the machine to
consume petroleum and produce garbage at an even faster rate.
The only way to get the machine to consume less petroleum is for
whoever owns/operates the machine to press the button that says
"slow-down." However, since we are all dependent on the machine for
jobs, food, affordable health care, subsidies for alternative forms of
energy, etc., nobody is going to lobby the owners/operators of the
machine to press the "slow-down" button until it's too late.
Eventually (sooner than later) the petroleum plug will get pulled and
the machine's production will sputter before grinding to a halt. At
that point, those of us dependent on the machine (which means all of
us) will have to fight for whatever scraps it manages to spit out.
To be clear: conservation will benefit you as an individual. If, for
instance, you save $100/month on your energy bills, you can roll that
money into acquiring skills or resources that will benefit you as we
slide down the petroleum-production downslope. But since your $100
savings will result in a net increase in the energy consumed by society
as a whole, it will actually cause us to slide down the downslope
faster."
from
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
