Peak oil to trump climate change?

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by Patrick

why is it that so much of the sustainability discussion revolves around emissions?

Because its difficult to come up with a solution for it and keep business going as usual?


People say that I am hard core about some of this stuff but I know because I have been to Davos, and I’ve sat with Bill Clinton and I’ve sat with Bill Gates and I’ve sat with Tony Blair and I’ve sat with Nancy Pelosi. I’ve sat with all these people who we think are in charge, and they don’t know what to do. Take that in: they don’t know what to do! You think you’re scared? You think you’re terrified? They have the Pentagon’s intelligence, they have every major corporation’s input; Shell Oil that has done this survey and study around the peak oil problem. You think we’ve got to get on the Internet and say, “Peak oil!” because the system doesn’t know about it? They know, and they don’t know what to do. And they are terrified that if they do anything they’ll loose their positions. So they keep juggling chickens and chainsaws and hope it works out just like most of us everyday at work. That’s real, that’s real.

Personally, I would see PO as a bigger problem to society than global warming.


To handle PO I think we need to look at changing our socioeconomic system if we want to maintain a good standard of living in a post peak world.

.ui

[Patrick]

Good quote Isenhand. I disagree with one part, and that is where he claims that they don't know what to do. I think it is possible that they do know what to do (mass transit and re-inventing our cities around mass transit instead of the automobile, renewable energy, etc). Maybe they just don't want to do anything because they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Bush and friends have ties to the oil industry, so it would make sense that they do everything possible to avoid cutting emissions. The automobile industry is the largest industry in the world. That is why we have all this talk about alt-fueled cars, and billions of dollars in research poured into them, when we could have had a national passenger rail network by now with that money.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by Johnny Electriglide

"Peak Oil" is an average. The Venezuelan oil is expected to last to 2080. It is where the average cost to pump exceeds the price they can get in any individual field. Prices are up and will keep going up, which will affect the price of food and distribution of total nutritional needs.
We can use bicycles, electric or hybrid cars, but mass farming and food distribution uses high horsepower that only oil can provide in a small enough package, except for biofuels which, to be enough, would use acreage already in use for food. A transition to people growing their own complete nutrition is necessary, but improbable with the cities and sheer numbers. Those without complete nutrition will suffer lower immunity and deficiency diseases. There will be fighting for food, fuel, and water.
The use of coal keeps increasing, and that won't be gone for a long time. The smoke from Chinese and Indian coal plants contains massive amounts of mercury and many other toxics spreading to lethal levels globally. They dim the sunlight up to 20% downwind, and mask 4*F of the total global warming in many areas. Other areas with strict coal plant and vehicle emissions requirements have to spray cloud forming aluminum and barium salts with gossamer copolymer fibers to hide global warming.
The economic outlook is a depression 4 times worse than the 1930s for 20 years before the population crash. Abject poverty, increasing diseases, wars, and continued economic then ecological migrations. As die-off occurs in China and India, there will be far less soot and CO2 emissions. With the already high CO2 levels and the forests lessened, along with methane release increasing, the net result is the masking of global warming will be gone, and temperatures at mid century or so will be up to 9*F warmer than 1900. It will be going up from there with the methane and ocean warming loop.
Peak oil is what will lead to the depression and massive dropping of food production/distribution (along with GW effects, and groundwater depletions, mainly).:peace:

The rich will still be able to afford gas and jet fuel for a while, and the dropping of 50% of the dollar's value will happen from trade imbalance and extreme national debt, probably in two years or less. The economic effects of "peak oil" are from the extreme demands of overpopulation. Right now we are in a condition I call "overpopulation feeding on itself". Meaning that increasing demands are increasing sales and profits, temporarily. Not enough is being done to mitigate the effects of either the economic or climate ramifications and effects. They are all triggers for the population crash and extinction of 87% of species. The "triggers" are just extra causes. Oil depletion and climate change are not necessary for the human mammal population to crash, but sure help it along. Water and soil depletion will also be there, with water depletion of aquifers happening alongside oil depletion. Yet, Bill Gates has been giving money for feel good survival of African over-breeders. He and the others know full well that the overpopulation Juggernaut is at the base and root of all enviro/ecological catastrophes projected. They are terrified that it can't be stopped. Human behavior in past instances of localized equivalents shows desperation, cannibalism, wars, and breakups of societies and governments. Peak oil will help induce the crash, but global warming can put the element of mass extinction after that. Lowering CO2 output 70+% to mitigate methane release, quickly enough within 9 years, maybe, might stop the extinction, but not the crash. If Bill Gates used his billions to buy solar panels, home wind turbines, and solar thermal gain and mass remodels, and superinsulation strawbale exteriors with better glass, for others--then it would certainly reduce the US CO2 output.

[Metyu]

Originally Posted by isenhand

You think you’re scared? You think you’re terrified? They have the Pentagon’s intelligence, they have every major corporation’s input ... So they keep juggling chickens and chainsaws and hope it works out just like most of us everyday at work.

Absolutely! I am reminded of a PJ O'Rourke quote I read today:-

"Bush and Gore are educated idiots [ like me, eh, Cap? ], members of the Lucky Sperm Scholarship Society, a small privileged class of elite Americans who have shoe-size IQs and the best educations that money, power, and influence can buy."

This I think applies to Blair in the UK, although I have slightly higher hopes for Brown.

I do think there are some good people working on the problems, e.g. Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment (October 2006 – present)

Originally Posted by Johnny Electriglide

Yet, Bill Gates has been giving money for feel good survival of African over-breeders.

That is just appalling. Can you please keep your unsubstantiated fascist opinions out of the conversation? There is some good discussion here but this interspersal of caveman-like tribalism is plainly wrong and offensive and will surely discourage others from joining?

If anyone else agrees please say so!

[Patrick]

"Lowering CO2 output 70+% to mitigate methane release, quickly enough within 9 years, maybe, might stop the extinction, but not the crash"

A quick thought for Johnny. In the United States, most people own a house and car and if they do not, they aspire to do so. After studying urban planning for a while I have found that the average energy consumption of a person living in an apartment and using public transportation uses roughly one third (30%) as much energy as the average person living in a house and driving a car. Case in point: Europe. Using this data it seems like we could accomplish the required emissions reductions in the given time frame if we did the following:

1) immediately begin converting single family housing stock into multi family units. This can be done by retrofit (turning homes into duplexes or triplexes) or by teardown (tearing down homes and replacing them with apartments). Housing which is already close to existing goods and services would be targeted for conversion before suburban housing. The idea is to bring more people closer to existing services so that auto dependency is reduced.

2) ban cars or ration fuel use to something like 4 gallons per week per person. This is what existed under wartime rationing during WWII, so we already know it can be done.

3) take all the money which is currently being used to build new highways and suburbs, and use it instead to build mass transit systems and improve central city infrastructure so that higher residential densities can be supported.

4) reform zoning laws to allow for corner grocery stores, drug stores, laundries, etc. So that people can walk to basic services.


Ok, so maybe that thought wasn't so quick after all.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by Metyu

Absolutely! I am reminded of a PJ O'Rourke quote I read today:-

"Bush and Gore are educated idiots [ like me, eh, Cap? ], members of the Lucky Sperm Scholarship Society, a small privileged class of elite Americans who have shoe-size IQs and the best educations that money, power, and influence can buy."

This I think applies to Blair in the UK, although I have slightly higher hopes for Brown.

I do think there are some good people working on the problems, e.g. Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment (October 2006 – present)

That is just appalling. Can you please keep your unsubstantiated fascist opinions out of the conversation? There is some good discussion here but this interspersal of caveman-like tribalism is plainly wrong and offensive and will surely discourage others from joining?

If anyone else agrees please say so!

Your putting the word "fascist" and "caveman-like tribalism" shows you name calling for me calling the facts. Now, that is disgusting.
The term "over-breeding" applies to any situation past sustainability, or returning to sustainability, and is a number of children a woman can have in a time frame set up as practical for a rate of variable decline or increase depending on the carrying capacity of various areas. Right now in the global human ecological niche, that number fell below 1 at 27 years old, in 1998. African women still average 6.6 kids by that age. Nothing racist about it, it is just data. I would say it has more to do with IQ, culture, religion, and government policies. The only people in my research who are NOT overbreeding are the high IQ who are non-hispanic, non-moslem, or non-mormon, and not greedy or nazi like(or the 1.5% who can't have children physically, or the .5% who choose not to and are very careful).
Calling Al Gore's intelligence as low as his shoe size is insulting to him and the people who support his efforts against global warming.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by Patrick

"Lowering CO2 output 70+% to mitigate methane release, quickly enough within 9 years, maybe, might stop the extinction, but not the crash"

A quick thought for Johnny. In the United States, most people own a house and car and if they do not, they aspire to do so. After studying urban planning for a while I have found that the average energy consumption of a person living in an apartment and using public transportation uses roughly one third (30%) as much energy as the average person living in a house and driving a car. Case in point: Europe. Using this data it seems like we could accomplish the required emissions reductions in the given time frame if we did the following:

1) immediately begin converting single family housing stock into multi family units. This can be done by retrofit (turning homes into duplexes or triplexes) or by teardown (tearing down homes and replacing them with apartments). Housing which is already close to existing goods and services would be targeted for conversion before suburban housing. The idea is to bring more people closer to existing services so that auto dependency is reduced.

2) ban cars or ration fuel use to something like 4 gallons per week per person. This is what existed under wartime rationing during WWII, so we already know it can be done.

3) take all the money which is currently being used to build new highways and suburbs, and use it instead to build mass transit systems and improve central city infrastructure so that higher residential densities can be supported.

4) reform zoning laws to allow for corner grocery stores, drug stores, laundries, etc. So that people can walk to basic services.


Ok, so maybe that thought wasn't so quick after all.

As far as I've read, Europe has only cut GHGs by 30%, and getting to that 70% figure in time will be very difficult.
Your suggestions for urban transport and living for the US would help maybe 10%. Reforming zoning would also help.
I wrote Al Gore in 1995 that V-8s should immediately be outlawed, only one tax deduction for one child with a tax increase for ovewr two, executing all three time burglars on up to increase the death rate of those whose recidivism is 90%, and save badly needed money, kick out all illegals and bring immigration down to a maximum of 10k per year, give tax incentives for remodels with tires, strawbales, and solar/wind power, and to make all new construction be Earthship/strawbale solar independent homes.
The problem with urbanization is bio-ecological in the fact that crowded conditions over time breed in genetically, crowd tolerance--a very negative trait for the sustainability of the species. The inherent trait of crowd intolerance is to prevent ecological ruin of a species' habitat, and developed over millions of years.
I have seen charts of how much farm, ranch, forest, river/lake, and wildlands are needed for sustainability of cities, i.e. Los Angeles would need a circular area around it of such qualities 600 miles in radius. Instead, cities run up a deficit of resources needed for future generations. This includes oil, groundwater, and soil depletions, and industrial pollutants. All of these are of long duration for regeneration, recharge, or absorption. As examples; oil takes over 100 million years to form, soil in the best conditions takes 700 years per inch(and we are down to 1/3rd of the 15" world average of 1910), the giant Ogallala Aquifer of the USA will be gone before 2040 and take 2500 to 6600 years to recharge, industrial wastes like mercury and stuff in dumps like PVC plastic will take 50k years to be less harmful.
Sustainable living is a matter of staying within the numbers, and cities over a small size, too many of them, and their existence in bad locations are mistakes of misguided, lack of knowledge of the big picture and lack of foresight type people. Now the knowledge is available, the foresight of wise men given, but the lack of good guidance is holding the rate of change to insufficient.

[Metyu]

Originally Posted by Johnny Electriglide

Your putting the word "fascist" and "caveman-like tribalism" shows you name calling for me calling the facts.

FACTS?! What facts? I have tried putting your "facts" into google a few times - try e.g. "crowd tolerance gene" - and all you get are the forums that you have posted on!

I call you those names because you insist on stating that anyone that is not white has a low IQ, and other un-scientific nonsense. And when anyone asks you for proof, or references, they are met with silence. All the stuff about how many children people should be able to have, how much resources they should be able to use, etc, is unsubstantiated totalitarian nonsense.

I am this [*holds up thumb and forefinger*] close to leaving this forum as a result of your racism. And it is racism - if there was any truth in your statements you would reply to the requests for your references.

It makes me sick that someone has co-opted the term "sustainability" in order to proliferate such nonsense. Seriously, please show me the proof. Enlighten us all.

[Johnny Electriglide]

The "Human Overcrowding Syndrome" characterized by anxiety, hostility, and depression, and its genetic origin, are known to few--even those professors who should know. Yet, for anyone with a modicum of experience, learning in psychology, like many of our wise old people--it has quite apparently increased a lot. At one seminar I attended in 1995, it was reported that anxiety diseases had increases 400% per capita since 1943, and depressive illnesses 700% since the early 1970s. The old people report people aren't as friendly as the used to be in newspaper inquiries years ago in the Denver Post.Sources for human intelligence studies are generally cut down non-scientifically. Like the recent firing of a Nobel lauriete for a non-PC factual comment that was not even degradational at all. It happened to another one, Shockley in the 70s when PC first raised its ugly head, and to the well documented and researched book "The Bell Curve" in 1993. My own studies were from obituaries over a 10 year period 1994-2004, along with data on various ethnic and religious breeding rates recorded by Worldwatch Institute, NPG, CCN, and others. The obituary studies are relatively easy to duplicate for those with the information on age, education/jobs, number of surviving direct relatives. Obviously as physics professor would be high IQ while one with nothing listed would be average, and some low from the types of work and educational level. The effects of religion become quite clear. Also cultural influences. Do it yourself, and you will see, report back to me and tell me I am a racist. I just report what I have studied, observed, and calculated over many years. Calling that racist is absurd. As absurd as the GW deniers and other deniers of human caused planetary degradation.
For more on overpopulation go to this recent article by my friend and fellow warrior for right, Frosty Wooldridge -- What all Presidential Candidates Refuse to Talk About

[Patrick]

"All the stuff about how many children people should be able to have, how much resources they should be able to use, etc, is unsubstantiated totalitarian nonsense. "

It depends. We have to live within the physical limits of the available resources. If we have a lifestyle that refuses to acknowledge these limits, than we will set ourselves up for a big crash in the future (just like deer that have overbred and eaten the entire food supply). So the question is: do we voluntarily reduce consumption now with proper planning, or do we continue business as usual and just wait for the crash?

We have an economic model which originated during a time when there was always somewhere else to go to get more resources. It is based on indefinate growth. Given that the world is finite, one can see the basic incompatibility with reality. When the Bible said "Be fruitful and multiply" there were fewer than 0.5 billion people on the planet.


Johnny -
I used Europe as an example because they use transit more and tend to have development that more closely resembles what I am talking about. If they emit 70% what we do, and the Swedes have found a way to reduce their emissions 50% from what is typical for them, than is that 35% of what we emit? That is pretty close to the required 30%. There are still a lot of things that could be improved on. I agree population is a big part of the problem and no one is talking about it. There are many obvious things we could do that simply aren't being done.