Peak Oil is axiomatic due to the nature of non-renewable fossil fuel resources. All that is in question is the timing. That is a spectrum from Guy's NTHE on one side to the fuckers that think we're going to download human consciousness into the Matrix and live without bodies (can't remember the name of that movement).
Timing is not relevant because there are 2 variables involved. Presupposing that only supply volumes matter doesn't work without positing a demand to match against it. Only in the combination of the two do either make sense.
When I look at the world at large and try to understand what is true about it, energy is what consolidates the whole place. When I look at the graph that shows fossil fuel production next to population it becomes obvious to me what is going on. 7.2 billion and approximately 5.2 billion of that just since JFk was assassinated (not that his assassination has anything to do with population). The two lines follow one another. It can generally be said that our population is what it is because of the fossil energy that we have brought to market and used. We are in unprecedented territory with respect to human population. The reason why? I think that is obvious.
Not ENERGY use. Power generation. We've had more energy beaming down on our heads causing sunburn day after day, more than we use today in an entire year. Energy doesn't stand alone for population growth, POWER GENERATION does. The ability to do work. And there are many ways to generate power, we've just chosen the cheap and easy, digging stuff up and burning it. The transition is already underway to generate power in other, less cheap and easy ways, because burning stuff is bad.
So, that being the case, what should we make of this? We have agreed that fossil fuels are non-renewable and limited in nature. I think it's also axiomatic that our current civilization requires this limited resource to function. Our population is order of magnitudes beyond anything like a solar based economy could support on this planet. This is a large problem.
Solar is not the only means of generating power either, but if push comes to shove, there are some who think it certainly can power our world, albeit perhaps not the kind of wasteful, consumer driven world we have today.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/life-after-oil/100-renewable-energy-what-we-can-do-in-10-years-20160222?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20160226We have been in the middle east continually since 2001, and we are not doing that to spread democracy. Most of the worlds oil is there. If we were really worried about spreading democracy then it seems our government would not be continually training and funding terrorist groups.
Just as I challenged you on the biggest discovery year of oil in the history of humankind, knowing in advance that your scholarly works on the book shelves had gotten it wrong, I also know that most of the world's oil isn't in the Middle East. Of course, to me oil is a long chain carbon and hydrogen molecule, and I don't get carried away with its color, depth, or density.
There is plenty of CHEAP oil in the Middle East, but by volume, most of it isn't there.
And for my perspective, I don't care about political involvement when it comes to oil. Governments and politics do not modify the existence and location of oil and natural gas resources, they just interfere with their development or raise their costs.
Renewable energy is not going to be able to compete with the energy density of fossil energy.
Competes with it right now. Why? Perhaps because energy density isn't the primary consideration when it comes to its use and cost, with nothing more than a small change in behavior? I drove back and forth today, to and fro in doing some Christmas shopping, visited the wife at work, and didn't burn a single molecule of oil in the process. Crappy energy density in my batteries, but completely capable of generating the kind of power I need to roam around town for 20 miles. And now charging from the garage top solar panels.
Not a Hemi for towing stuff around, but I don't need a Hemi for suburban based errands.
Burning fossil energy puts CO2 into the atmosphere.
Much like the axiomatic definition of peak oil, I don't think anyone disputes this one.
When I put all of these trends together what I see that is the common denominator is energy, and due to current BAU that energy is fossil energy. We are at war over it abroad and here at home (XL, DAPL). It is the reason our population has become unsustainable, and it is the reason why we are destroying our human supporting biome. It will eventually become unrecoverable and our systems will fail. They are already failing.
have been since before you were born. Go read the Population Bomb, if you don't already have it on your shelf. Humans have been failing for so long now, most don't even notice. Of course, we have also been advancing even faster, which is why Ehrlich, saying very similar things as you are, was wrong.
Meanwhile life goes on, as does BAU. Yes, I drive a hemi because I need a powerful engine to pull all of my equipment around. What does that matter really? I also buy groceries at the big box store that is 100% dependent on fossil energy. My home is climate controlled and hooked up to the electrical power grid that is 100% dependent on fossil energy. My clothing, medicine, the internet, transportation, and means of inhabiting our built environment are all 100% dependent on it. The amount of fossil energy that makes all of it possible is by it's nature limited. This is the biggest problem our species has ever, and likely will ever face next to mutual assured destruction (nuclear bombs).
Not to be a constant naysayer, but no, these aren't the real issues. This are all gradual, nasty little hiccups related to how most of the rich folks of the world have chosen to live.
Our biggest problem as a species is the inability to defend against cosmic collisions. Our little problems because we choose to do stupid things is something else altogether, most of them being solvable by just being nice to each other humans rather than prick humans.
I'm an advocate for doing something about this major problem now instead of later. If we haven't peaked yet, good, because that means we have more energy to put towards the solution...whatever that is. I personally think it's permaculture with a heavy influence of bamboo. Peak Oil is axiomatic in permaculture. In fact, it's the main thesis.
Changes in behavior have great power, indeed.
So what exactly, Mking, are you trying to prove? What are you arguing about other than semantics and nomenclature? I'm not using terms correctly? I don't understand what I'm talking about because I'm not in the fossil fuel business like you? I'm not a scientist? I can't understand these problems? I, and Roamer, and people like us have fallen for some grand conspiracy and drunk the kool-aid and you want to know what scientists like you can do to ensure people like us don't fall for these ignoramuses and their idiotic theories?
Prove? On a blog? I'm not trying to prove anything, I am discussing the component parts of what I consider to be rational thought when it comes to this topic. You seem to place great value on scholars who don't even know the basics of the industry, no different from me relying on the local fast food worker for insights into bamboo uses and profitability in the modern world.
Ultimately, I only want people to think for themselves. Which includes, at the most basic level, understanding the difference between scholarly, and horseshit.
Tell me Mking, where have I gone wrong with my view of what is and isn't true of the world. The view that I expressed above.
Your view sounds fine as you express it generally, other than missing 1) what I consider to be far more certain and lethal threats to our existence as a species, and 2) placing a confidence in your conclusions based on sources of information that don't know any more about resource issues than I do bamboo, and 3) the history of the centuries these claims have been around, and haven't worked out as expected.
Your view appears to be unhappy with conditions that were in place before you were born, concern you aplenty, and based on the history of collapse and doom and whatnot within a human lifetime, will still be here after you are gone. The timing of a hoped for collapse is no more certain than that of when peak oil was supposed to have/is/will happen.
You face this squarely as of late, apparently coming to the conclusion that immersion in BAU is your answer going forward. Why? Because you can't afford to let the wait for collapse interfere with a life for your family and kids, ESPECIALLY once you realize that it might not even happen in your lifetime. A critical turning point, within the perspective of any doomer pondering these issues.