Electric cars are a pipe dream

Then you admit that a high debt/GDP ratio doesn't have to result in ruin. Arthur
Yes, and I told the reason for those two exceptions to the rule - In both cases when countries survived they were essentially the ONLY countries in the entire world with factory based manufacturing capacity, which in the US has been in steady decline for a couple of decades.

It is only a little bit of an exaggeration to say US is becoming the hedonistic land where the economy runs on, sex*, compute games, rock concerts, football games, etc. and the audience has borrowed the money for the tickets.

*And the pursuit thereof with new clothes, hair styles, flowers, restaurant dinners, candy boxes, alcoholic drinks, and theater tickets, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The economy is barely growing as it is, can you imagine what would happen if there were any perturbation in our supply of light, sweet, crude? We know there are other sources of energy out there, we even have a lot of coal, which we will inevitably use, but, all indications are that no combination of things will allow our pattern of growth that has occurred for the last 100 years or so of dirt cheap, easily transportable, easily transformable, energy. Capitalism is based on growth, if we aren't growing, we are stagnating, and it's a recession. I have no doubt it's physically possible to run form of society on the energy sources available, but it won't be like anything we know now. So, we are in for the long emergency, a scenario predicted by James Howard Kunstler. He predicts the end of suburbia, a contraction of society towards urban areas and small towns with local economies based mostly on agriculture, and efficient public transportation in the form of trains. But the path from here to there seems to get more difficult every day.

And again, just pessimistic.
Kuntsler has made good money selling fear for over a decade.

Here he is on the Y2K issue:

Writing this in April of ‘99, I believe that we are in for a serious event. Systems will fail, crash, seize up, cease to function. Not all systems, maybe only a fraction, but enough, and enough interdependent systems to affect many other systems. Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world.
People will consequently suffer. I don’t know how much. Some people may lose their lives - but more likely at the hands of a disabled medical establishment than because of civil disorder, loss of power, starvation, bad water, or other projected horrors (though these, too, are possible). Some will suffer the loss of fortunes, some of any income whatsoever, and many of something in between. Quite a few will find themselves suddenly without an occupation, and few ideas about how to make themselves useful to other people (without occupations themselves). Many will suffer a loss of comfort and modern convenience, and if that goes on any longer than a week, it may escalate into serious problems of public sanitation and infectious disease.

As I tried to point out to you, we have ample energy sources.
Yes we will be in a transition for many decades.
Yes oil will eventually play a diminishing role, but realistically we have a huge amount of oil still left, as the price goes up, we have even more oil left.
Not to mention natural gas and coal.
Yes there will be some disruption.
Yes there will be some losers.

BUT

There will be plenty of winners as well.
For the next several decades the growth of Wind, Solar, Bio, Nuclear and Geo fuel supplies will continue to grow.
For the rest of this century the movement of much of our transportation system to a combination of bio and electrical sources will continue
The suburbs aren't going away.
There aren't going to be armed maurauders going through the streets.


By the way, you never answered, but I presume by your pessimism on the availability of oil that you aren't worried about Global Warming, right?

Arthur
 
And yet we remain the worlds largest manufacturer by a wide margin.

Arthur

The US has been losing manufacturing jobs every year for some time.On top of that jobs have also been replaced by automation with ever more efficiency.We will never get these jobs back as near as I can tell.

Are you saying the US has a wide margin over China also? If so you couldn't be more wrong.China has surpassed the US in every field except Military and computer tech.I fully expect China will also take #1 in the computer tech field within 5 years.

China is DEADLY SERIOUS about all this.This is a huge problem for the US since they have not taken it seriously,thus there down fall.It didn't have to be this way,it was chosen.

Lastly our history on Earth shows us no Country remains number 1.They all have failed mostly due to their own actions or like in the US's case,inaction.
 
Last edited:
And yet we remain the worlds largest manufacturer by a wide margin. Arthur
Yes,but with an ever decreasing share as Asia's increases. Worse there are many commercial technology products, like flat screen display the US can't even make the first generation of with acceptable yields, yet Asian suppliers are now turning out generation 5!
 
And again, just pessimistic.
That's not an argument, and in fact Kunstler is not a pessimist. The emerging situation is full of opportunity. The modern lifestyle isn't exactly healthy.
Kuntsler has made good money selling fear for over a decade.
Not that good.

Here he is on the Y2K issue:
He wasn't necessarily wrong about Y2K, we were able to fix the systems involved.

As I tried to point out to you, we have ample energy sources.
Did the US run out of money during the Great Depression? No, economic collapse would follow any interruption in our supply of oil. Enjoy the Carter years? We didn't run out of "energy sources" then either. Our economic system is more fragile than you realize, and it's based on a flawed model of endless growth, which is rapidly coming to an end.

Yes we will be in a transition for many decades.
That's my point. We will go through a long difficult transition to a lower energy future, one that cannot support the interstate highway system, the food distribution system based on diesel trucks, the 3,000 mile long Walmart supply chain, suburbia, and all the service based jobs that are parasitic on cheap energy.


The suburbs aren't going away.
They are already being abandoned, filling up with squatters or meth labs, being left to rot. The suburbs are already becoming an obsolete way of life.
There aren't going to be armed maurauders going through the streets.
If we are lucky. I think the transition could be peaceful, but it's a radical cultural shift to go from a cubicle worker to an agricultural laborer. Americans like you feel entitled to a way of life that is actually an anomaly of history, they feel like being able to drive a car is a freedom integral to their self-image. We would not be the first society to collapse for ecological reasons, for lack of resources we thought would last forever. Of course that doesn't mean humans won't be living here, after all, there were still Italians after Rome fell.

By the way, you never answered, but I presume by your pessimism on the availability of oil that you aren't worried about Global Warming, right?
Oil isn't the only cause of global warming. As we burn the last of our coal in power plants, we will continue to add to the carbon content of the atmosphere. But you are partly correct. The global warming problem is inherently self-limiting to some extent, since the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and we will never use all of it. The economics of using oil will start to fail when dwindling production fails to meet increasing demand.
 
Our system is no more based on endless growth than the ones in the UK and Europe which are handling low growth just fine.

We aren't going to transition to a lower energy future, we will continue to use plenty of energy per person, we will just do more with every BTU (as is the trend) and we will get less energy from oil, but energy itself is not in short supply.

Wake up and smell the roses, the suburbs are NOT being abandoned.
Please show where you are getting this absurd notion.
Don't show me a few places hit hard by the housing BUBBLE, show me actual trends that show suburbia is on the decline nationwide.

We aren't going to become agricultural workers. That's just silly, nor is our life an 'anomaly of history'. What will happen is we will continue to use less energy per $ of GDP, we will use telecommunications more than actual travel, we will drive smaller more efficient cars, we will use electricity for ever more of our energy, we will live in ever more efficient houses, we will eat less meat, we will switch to more efficient appliances, we will start generating energy on a distributed basis, but because of all this, our basic way of life isn't going to change.

As for oil and Global Warming, Oil represents a bit more than 40% of our global CO2 emissions. If you are projecting a significant reduction in oil, then you are projeceting a significant reduction in our CO2 emissions.

Arthur
 
Europe is handling the recession better because they are better prepared for the future. They didn't waste their money on suburban infrastructure that has no future, they generally developed dense urban communities connected by excellent public transportation systems.

our basic way of life isn't going to change​

"The American Way of Life is Not Negotiable"
Dick Cheney
This kind of thought is not going to lead us into the future, it's regressive, and basically anti-science. It's a delusion generated by energy industry propaganda, religious nutbaggery, and the last 50 years of the golden age of energy. That's all over now.

STUDY CONCLUDES: NO COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS CAN REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS

An alarming new study jointly released by two prominent California-based environmental/economic think tanks, concludes that unrelenting energy limits, even among alternative energy systems, will make it impossible for the industrial system to continue operating at its present scale, beyond the next few decades. The report finds that the current race by industries and governments to develop new sustainable energy technologies that can replace ecologically harmful and rapidly depleting fossil fuel and nuclear technologies, will not prove sufficient, and that this will require substantial adjustments in many operating assumptions of modern society.

✦ As the world’s higher-quality fossil fuel reserves rapidly deplete, no combination of alternative energy sources is likely to be sufficient to sustain industrial society at its present scale. Energy supply problems, perhaps severe, are likely during the coming decade, worsening as primary fuels become scarce and costly. Major adjustments will be required in industrial production and personal consumption; attention will need to be paid to stabilizing and reducing population levels over the long term.

✦ Fossil fuels and high-quality uranium ores are depleting rapidly; world oil production may already have peaked. Present expectations for new technological replacements are probably overly optimistic with regard to ecological sustainability, potential scale of development, and levels of “net energy” gain—i.e., the amount of energy actually yielded once energy inputs for the production process have been subtracted. Technologies such as “carbon capture and sequestration” and “4th generation” nuclear power remain largely hypothetical and may never be deployed on a large scale, while the prospects for oil shale, tar sands, and shale gas have been overstated to varying degrees.

✦ Certain energy production systems suffer from low or negative net energy gain; these include most biofuels, hydrogen systems, oil shale, tar sands, and biomass, some of which also present unacceptable environmental problems (as is also true of conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power). So far, the best prospects for large-scale production and net-energy performance remain wind energy and certain forms of solar, but these still face important limitations due to intermittency of supply, remoteness of the best resources, materials needed for large-scale deployment, and scale potential. Tidal and geothermal power—which can have high net-energy yield but suffer from a low potential energy production capacity—will prove marginally useful in a diverse future energy supply mix.

✦ Limits to future energy supply are more dramatic if environmental impacts are considered— including accelerating climate change, fresh water scarcity, destruction of food-growing lands, shortages of minerals, and threats to wildlife habitat.

✦ Given the above, it is necessary to prepare societies for dramatic shifts in consumption and lifestyle expectations. It will also be necessary to promote a new ethic of conservation throughout the industrial world. A sharp reversal of today’s globalization of commercial activity—inherently wasteful for its transport energy needs—must be anticipated and facilitated, and government leaders must encourage a rapid evolution toward economies based on localism especially for essential needs such as food and
energy. The study remarks that this is not necessarily a negative prospect, as some research shows that, once basic human needs are met, high material consumption levels do not correlate with high quality of life.

✦ The emphasis by policy makers on growth as the central goal and measure of modern economies is no longer practical or viable, as growth will be limited by both energy shortages and by society’s inability to continue venting energy production and consumption wastes (principally, carbon dioxide) into the environment without catastrophic consequences. Standards for economic success must shift from
gross metrics of economic activity, to more direct assessments of human well-being, equity, and the health of the natural world.

✦ With energy supplies diminishing, raw material resources similarly depleting, and crises such as climate change rapidly advancing, the long-term goal of satisfying the needs of the world’s poorest peoples—in their attempts to recover from centuries of colonialism, resource exploitation, and removal from traditional lands and economies—becomes ever more daunting. Efforts at relieving poverty, both domestically and internationally, will require more equitable reallocation of existing real wealth.

✦ These factors must all be taken very seriously by policy makers in all countries, and by global institutions that have thus far failed to be realistic about what will be required to avoid future social and economic breakdowns and geopolitical crises, as countries and peoples compete for dwindling energy resources, raw materials, and agricultural space. While it is not yet too late to change course, the opportunities to avoid catastrophic economic, environmental, social, and political impacts are few and quickly dwindling.

http://www.postcarbon.org/press-release/44666-new-pci-study-concludes-no-combination
 
Last edited:
Note the POST CARBON group already has a slanted view on the future:

Still they do say:
will make it impossible for the industrial system to continue operating at its present scale, beyond the next few decades

So they are also saying we CAN use energy at our current levels for twenty or more years. Indeed, if you read the IPCC reports on climate projections there isn't one that predicts declining fossil fuel use anytime soon.

So which is it?

The fact is this group also falls into the trap of saying fossil fuel energy is going down but at the same time saying climate change is being driven by increasing fossil fuel use.

ipcc_scenario_prediction_rt.gif


Can't have it both ways.

So, is the IPCC wrong, but this environmental group right?

If the environmental group is right I guess we can also dismiss the IPCC projections based on these emission scenarios?

Woopee!

Arthur
 
We will still have global warming even if our fossil fuel consumption went down.

As far as how long present energy use levels will continue, no one knows for sure, but this doesn't take into account the political climate or other human factors. We will use fossil fuels until we can't any more, my main argument is that we aren't prepared for the post oil world, and by the time it comes it will be too late.
 
We will still have global warming even if our fossil fuel consumption went down.

Not according to the IPCC, if we cut our CO2 to 10% or so below 1990 levels the amount of warming will not be an issue.
That's the whole point of their strategy of taxing carbon is to lower it's consumption by making renewables and efficiency more attractive.


As far as how long present energy use levels will continue, no one knows for sure, but this doesn't take into account the political climate or other human factors. We will use fossil fuels until we can't any more, my main argument is that we aren't prepared for the post oil world, and by the time it comes it will be too late.

Well we are preparing for a world where oil will be more expensive, but a "post oil" world is not going to happen for a LONG time.

But once again you miss the point.

Look again at the graph.

Is the IPCC wrong with their predictions of GROWING fossil fuel use through the rest of the century wrong and this environmental group labeled "Post Carbon" correct?

And NO, if you don't have those growing amounts of CO2 emissions the heating predicted by the climate models will not occur.

Which is why the IPCC is saying we MUST TAX CARBON to make it's use go down, and that means Oil, since it represents over 40% of our CO2 use (and 10% is Cement production and no one wants to stop making cement).

What you are saying is forget the taxes, it's going to go down on its own because it will cost so much.

Again, you really can't be on both sides of this issue, either increased use of fossil fuels is an issue and we must take steps to curtail it (what they've been discussing since Kyoto), or we are going into a low energy period and taxing carbon is clearly not an issue.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
Yes, carbon emissions will become reduced naturally, but that doesn't mean we are off the hook for global warming. We could end all carbon emissions immediately and it would still continue. Sure, projections based on current emissions continuing for the next 50 years are wrong. We would have to begin an aggressive carbon sequestering campaign in order to change this- grow crops and then bury them as charcoal for years and years.
 
The use of oil will drop, due to increasing costs, after peak oil.

However, that does not mean a reduction in carbon emissions. There is ample coal in the world to keep CO2 emissions increasing. Sure, high grade coal is limited. However, if you include low grade sources, right down to peat, there is enough to keep the fires burning for hundreds of years.

We have here in New Zealand, a proposal to make diesel out of low grade coal, and there is enough to keep those coal to liquid fuel factories going for a long, long time.

Burning coal must be restricted by law. Burning oil will drop for economic reasons, but not coal.
 
Yes, carbon emissions will become reduced naturally, but that doesn't mean we are off the hook for global warming. We could end all carbon emissions immediately and it would still continue.

No it wouldn't.
About half the CO2 we put in the air each year is absorbed by the Biosphere, if we stopped adding CO2 the level of CO2 would begin dropping immediately and since we have yet to see the dreaded H20 feedback the climate would start trending back downward.

Which is why the IPCC says we only need to stop CO 2 growth by 2015 and then slowly cut back to ~50% below 1990 levels by 2050 to hold the warming to below the 2 C that is considered to be harmful.

You are saying if we cut it back to ZERO we would still have problems and that's simply not the case.

Sure, projections based on current emissions continuing for the next 50 years are wrong. We would have to begin an aggressive carbon sequestering campaign in order to change this- grow crops and then bury them as charcoal for years and years.

They aren't saying that current emissions are continuing for the next 50 years, those scenarios say the emissions are INCREASING.

Look at that graph again, they show constant CO2, but none of the scenarios use that, the low, medium and high growth scenarios ALL project more CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use each year for the rest of the century.

Arthur
 
The use of oil will drop, due to increasing costs, after peak oil.

I agree, but in volume, it won't drop that quickly.

However, that does not mean a reduction in carbon emissions. There is ample coal in the world to keep CO2 emissions increasing. Sure, high grade coal is limited. However, if you include low grade sources, right down to peat, there is enough to keep the fires burning for hundreds of years.

We have here in New Zealand, a proposal to make diesel out of low grade coal, and there is enough to keep those coal to liquid fuel factories going for a long, long time.

Burning coal must be restricted by law. Burning oil will drop for economic reasons, but not coal.

Yes, and you can make plenty of diesel out of high grade coal as well, and you can use coal to heat steam to get gas/oil out of shale, tar and sands etc etc.

We're a clever bunch and we won't run out of oil for a long time.
Where we get it from and how much we pay for it are different issues.

Arthur
 
That's exactly what I'm saying. Our troubles with oil will begin long before it "runs out", (which it never will). The trouble with be economic in nature as supply fails to meet demand.

Being able to convert coal to oil won't help, since all that is hugely expensive in terms of energy gained vs. energy spent in production. Tar sands in particular require large quantities of hot water. We will do it, but it will be expensive, and it will affect every aspect of modern life.
 
And yet in the most pessimistic low growth scenario the emissions of CO2 go up steadlily.

Which means the IPCC does NOT agree that we will become agricultural workers instead of cubicle workers.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Global Warming can't be a big issue to you if you think the amount of energy we use per capita is going to go down over the rest of this century.

Take your pick, but you can't really pick both.

You can of course say that global warming will be a problem because we meet our oil needs via coal conversion, but even on that you have to join in with at least the low growth scenario and think emissions are going to go up each year, which can only happen if the global economy is doing ok.

Arthur
 
Europe is handling the recession better because they are better prepared for the future. They didn't waste their money on suburban infrastructure that has no future, they generally developed dense urban communities connected by excellent public transportation systems. ...
That was said already:
February 2006: ...High cost oil will hurt US economy greatly compared to EU because:

The US economy will still depend on suburbanites driving to Wal-Mart etc., but fortunately a third of the cars on US roads will be hybrids (usually imported ones) so the economy will only have collapsed some (assuming dollar has not totally lost its value as foreigner are still willing to buy treasury IOUs that offer much higher than current rates to get them to do so.)

Many who refinanced their home, using up the equity they had for current consumption, will be hard pressed to avoid losing their homes with higher interest rates and good paying jobs still leaving the country (GM bankrupt, Ford on the brink etc.) and even fast food places not expnding with the reduced use of cars due to high gas prices etc.

The recent four years of average wage decline will likely be fourteen years** then and it will be the first generation in US history to have a lower standard of living than their parents. etc. Why do you think US's car centered suburban society, badly structured for high cost energy, with lower educational levels than EU will pass the EU?
from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=988913&postcount=4

PS (10Jan 2011 added):
China already trades more with EU than with the US, so is buying more Euro bonds and reducing it holdings of US bonds. I think Germany alone still exports more than the US does. Also, the whole idea of using GDP to measure who is in front of whom is silly, when GDP in the US case is mainly a measure of how much paper is shuffled around then filed or key strokes made on umpteen computers or football games, rock concerts, tickets are sold etc. Did you, or anybody you know, or even anybody your friends know, do in the last week anything that will be of value a decade from now? No? then it is no wonder so many Americans are feeling depressed and useless.

I plan by pre arrangement with my neighbor to sell him my dog for 8 trillion dollars and am under contract to him when that is done to buy his two cats for 4 trillion dollars each. This deal alone will add 16 trillion to US's GDP. - My point clear now? One should be measurings thing that last for a decade - like new high speed rail system, 20 or more new nuclear power plant built each year, etc. world's leading market for wind machines etc. Not ticket sales at the rosebowl, etc.

**Clearly the Feb06 post is speaking of conditions in 2016, but I was too optimistic - 1/3 of cars on US roads will not be hybrids by then but rest of my predictions here are right on track or have happened (i.e. losing their homes especially.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Global Warming can't be a big issue to you if you think the amount of energy we use per capita is going to go down over the rest of this century.

Why not? We are still a relatively high energy species. We started changing the climate 10,000 years ago.
 
Back
Top