myrridin

And apparently you simply don't recognize the assumptions that underlie your "analysis", which suggests you don't know much about either economics or how our current system works...

myrridin

+1. The only thing I disagree with in the above is that it won't be pretty and that population will decrease. I suspect that the change will benefit some and hinder others, much like change always has. Living in one of the richer nations at least increases our likelihood of being among those who benefit from the change.

cooker

Yeah, faith that somebody else will fix the problem - that's the way to go. Very reassuring.

cooker

It's all in the happy spin, isn't it? The article says exactly what the OP said - the end of cheap oil. The high prices are (a) motivating oil companies to torture their existing fields to squeeze more out, and to develope more difficult, more expensive sources of oil, and (b) motivating people to cut back on their energy use. So we will have plenty of oil in the future, but it will not be cheap. It's the end of cheap oil.

cooker

How do you figure that? It seems to me even as fairly eco-conscious person, I live a lot less sustainably than a troglodyte.

mihlbach

Prehistoric people persisted with the same basic lifestyle for well over 100,000 years. Industrial civilization is a blip in comparison. Its absurd to argue that their lifestyles were unsustainable or lower impact than ours, even on a per capita basis.

Its also absurd for myrridin to refer to all human and animal impacts as "negative". For example, metabolic production of CO2 from animals is part of an essential biotic cycle. At any rate, calling all impacts "negative" neuters the term of any significant meaning.

Roody

That is so funny, but probably not in the way you meant. The end certainly was there for the Pompeians,. and maybe the volcano erupted before the tagger's painf was even dry!

I'm somewhere between you and pedes, Actually, I think you're both kinda naive.

myrridin

Our technology allows us to consume far less resources on an individual basis and with less waste than primitive peoples. We also understand more about impacts and that allows us to prevent the worst of the impacts (think avoiding dust bowls). Of course when the total human population on the planet only numbers a few tens of thousands, individual impact doesn't add up to much collective. Hence why it took so long for them to impact vast areas. Even though individually we have a smaller footprint, collectively the footprint is much larger do to the vastly increased total population.

myrridin

As I said, I personally don't consider any impact "negative" or "positive". But many environmentalists label human impacts as "negative" hence my use of the term. I consider it absurd to call one set of impacts as part of the "essential biotic cycle" and label another set as "negative" or "artificial" or whatever pejorative term you like. There is nothing about humans that make their behaviors or impacts "unnatural", after all we are part of nature.

And you may call my statement that early humans had a greater impact absurd all you like; however, the only reason such impacts didn't cause more damage was population levels. If an activity is a negative impact or unsustainable at 7 billion population, it is also negative and unsustainable at a billion or a million or ten thousand. Size doesn't change the nature of the impact.

pedex

except we don't, we consume far more resources per capita than primitive people ever could even dream of

myrridin

Actually that was exactly how I meant it. I have no doubt that such a tagger had no rational basis to believe that a volcano was about to erupt and bury his city. So his graphitti had no bearing on the natural disaster that ended his worrying.

Frankly, I don't know what I've said that sounds naive. People live, people die. Some live well, most not so well. There is nothing that indicates any of that will change.

Oh, I suppose, it might be perceived as naive when I state my belief in the human intellect to solve any problems presented to it... Don't see a downside to this. If the doomsayers among you turn out to be right, well I'll have lived with less worry and stress and a generally happier life until we ALL end up dead...

cooker

Okay, I see your point and it is an interesting notion - if we were consuming renewable resources, for example firewood, at prehistoric per capita rates, but with our modern population - yeah we would strip the planet bare of all forests in weeks. We are using far more resources than they did, but it's coming from the buried fossil account, not the surface biomass account.

So in that sense, by consuming the vast store of non-renewable energy instead of using renewable resources which can't replenish fast enough, we are sparing some trees and keeping ourselves going. So our per capita impact above the surface of the earth is less than if we lived a stone age lifestyle with modern population.

However the stone age lifestyle was sustainable or at least enduring for millenia, with stone age population levels, while the modern lifestyle is not sustainable at current consumption and population levels.

It's like living well by depleting your inheritance rather than living within your income. Your chequing account doesn't go in the red, so it looks good.

Until your money runs out.

Roody

As I understand it, the biosphere is about balance, and talking about "negatives" and "positives" (as myriddin does) doesn't come close to describing the complexity of the system that sustains us. But we do know that humans evolved in a world where most of the CO2 had already been removed by organisms who kindly died and were buried with their carbon in silt. We developed in that carbon poor atmosphere. Now we are well on our way to digging up all that carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere. This has helped us to develop a marvelous civilization, but it's also likely to put unprecedented strains on that civilization in the near future. (You know that already if you happen to live in Greenland or Bangladesh.)
The National Geographic just had an interesting table that explained human impact on the biosphere. They drew a cube with the three major variables on it--population, technology, and affluence. Roughly, the cube was the size of a sugar cube in 1950, and it's now the size of half a loaf of bread. This is a sharply different picture than myriddin's view that primitive humans (and even one celled organisms!) were just as destructive as us modern humans. myriddin can see only one axis--ppulation--and he has no idea of the equally important dimensions of technology and affluence.

Actually, I share myrridin's hope that technology will again pull humanity's bacon out of the fire. But he sure is wrong to imply that technology is mostly benign. He's also hopelessly naive if he thinks that technology by itself will la-dee-da solve anything. These are complex issues that will require technology PLUS political, social and economic innovations.

Roody

We're running up our credit cards and buying overvalued houses with liar mortgages that are bundled up and sold and resold.

What could possibly go wrong?

electrik

Nothing, so long as you wear the tin foil hat provided - it will prevent the bad thoughts from getting in.

HoustonB

A quick search of Google News, provides a comprehensive and contemporary list that reveals the truth;

21 hours ago - Kenya Fuel Shortage

April 27 - Wall St Journal - Russian Gasoline Shortage

May 6 - Washington Post - Central Asian nations feel the pinch of dwindling fuel supplies

May 4 - Fuel shortage cripples life in Karachi


And on and on it goes - which begs the question, which planet are you on?

I am guessing you have your own self defined criteria for what constitutes a supply situation that does not satisfy demand. Maybe the high price of oil is because we have way too much of the stuff.

The rest of your thinking seems equally nebulous.

You wondered why others might think you are naive - alas that word should be preceded by 'profoundly'. Several others have pointed out the extreme flaws and lack of clarity in your thinking and yet you continue to drone on and on.

You conflate the impact (negative or otherwise) of animals etc. with that of humans - to put it mildly that is crass bordering on obscene.

At first I thought you might be either a troll or actually paid by some lobby group to come here and stir things up - but after a cursory inspection of your posts I see that you are for real.

By the way, congratulations on your weight loss (kudos where it is due), and also kudos for taking up cycling again after a 25 year hiatus.

Malloric

"The world's biggest oil producer Russia is facing gasoline shortages in some parts of the country, as prices are kept artificially low, leading producers to cash in on higher fuel prices abroad."

"Oil marketer KenolKobil yesterday said scandals in the oil sector is the major cause of disruptions in product supply in the country and absolved itself from blame for the recent national oil shortage.
"Reacting to criticism by Nyoike over KenolKobil's announcement on Monday that fuel prices might go up by Sh6, Ohana said they are obligated and will continue informing stakeholders issues pertinent to the industry that may affect them, including projections on pump prices in view of international market developments."

"Nyoike told a press conference on Tuesday that the statement by KenolKobil was irresponsible as the company lacked the capacity to predict oil prices."

Great examples of "demand" out stripping "supply" there. Serious, if you don't even have a clue what supply and demand mean, I'd suggest not weighing in on economic topics. Perhaps if you weren't so ignorant on the subject of economics myrr's post would be less nebulous to you?

myrridin

+1 :-)

The simple fact is that is a very few bright individuals who have solved the problems we have encountered in the past, while the majority sit around and pontificate--accomplishing nothing...

Roody

And others oversimplify the problems, dream silly dreams, congratulate themselves on their ignorance, and leave a big mess for their grandchildren to clean up.

HoustonB

Malloric, for your thoughts to have any honesty and integrity, you have to state whether you agree or disagree that demand for gasoline would increase if the price fell back to historic norms.

Where "historic norms" means the relatively stable price in effect after the US peak in production that occurred back in the mid 1970's. This would be the period from 1985 to 1998 when regular gasoline was in the $1.50 to $2 per US gallon price range.

Any graph of prices for oil (or gasoline) post 1998 will show continuous prices increases up until the $145 per barrel peak in July of 2008. This resulted in massive demand-destruction.

To state (or agree) that "demand has yet to outstrip supply" without the addition of a qualifier, for example, "at a specific price", is asinine - and indicative of the level of thought on most Internet forums that can only be generously considered wooly.

If the price of gasoline were to arbitrarily jump to $10 a gallon - no one would be surprised if there were large quantities that remained unsold for the length of time that the price remained high, or until personal incomes rose to match the price - and thus supply would actually exceed demand.

Absent a qualification, the phrase "demand has yet to outstrip supply" is itself complete nonsense - anyone with more than two neurons to rub together knows this.

You revealed your comprehensive knowledge of economics with the sentence "A road doesn't have operating costs".

myrridin

Supply, in the US is largely limited by processing capabilities. During periods of peak demand, our current refineries operate at near capacity. Which is why the fires/explosions at some of those refineries have in recent years caused spikes in price...

Oh and your statement that "any graph of prices for oil (or gasoline) post 1998 will show continuous price increases is patently false. Price fluctuates, it goes up and it goes down.

Oh, and anyone with more than "two neurons to rub together" knows that oil supplies are still available in quantities to satisfy demand. Care to point to anything other than short term shortages. Had trouble filling a tank lately? The answer is no, because there is still more than sufficient supply. Your problem is you don't understand the difference between short term processing/delivery shortages and an actual shortage of the resource.

myrridin

And what "solution" have you or anyone on this forum offered to the "oil problem"?

And no I have either, for at least two reasons. 1. Its not a problem as far as I am concerned and 2. Its not an area I have any interest in

cooker

Clearly you are interested or you wouldn't be debating. Plus your job is in transportation if I understood you. So it's hard to take your denial of interest seriously.

Roody

One of the most fundamental principle of economics is that supply and demand will always be equal. Prices make sure of that.

In the case of peak oil, which will result in gradual but steady price increases, there won't be a run on the gas stations. There will be a run on the banks. I don't think it will be long before the Fed starts raising interest rates, largely (but not totally) as a result of rising oil prices. That will shake up the world economy!

I do agree with you that there may be technological innovations that will mitigate the effects of price rises related to peak oil. The Obama administration is betting on this also, and trying to nudge it along. I don't share your optimism that technology will magically prevail without some help from political and economic policies.

As for wanting examples of shortages, I think one example might be Saudi Arabia's current inability to increase production in order to ease back prices. In fact, it looks like no producers are capable of ramping up production to take full advantage of the current high prices, which I think is indicative that the world is reaching full production levels.

Of course it's always possible that huge new reserves will be found somewhere in the world. Maye Antarticta or the Arctic is sitting on pools of crude. Jed Clampett could come along any day and find some black gold bubbling near the surface.

HoustonB

Indeed, if you use a magnifying glass and look at any short period of time, you will see prices move in both directions, up and down.

However if you zoom out, or look at a moving average, you will see the upward trend - but only if you are prepared to open your eyes and mind.

If I am willing and able to pay circa $4 a US gallon then it is indeed possible for me to fill a gasoline tank. But as Roody and others have attempted to explain to you - the matching of supply and demand is balanced by price. There are obviously plenty of folks that cannot afford gasoline at the current price - hence the demand destruction. Do you deny that demand destruction has occurred?

It is not often we see someone that is simultaneously mendacious toward themselves and others.

You might aswell ask what people have done about the 'growing old and dieing problem'. Whilst further increases in medicine, science and technology could no doubt increase our lifespans, maybe even a doubling - the fact is that we will all eventually die - its called life. Equally, the situation with us constantly burning our way through the oil legacy and polluting the atmosphere, is not so much of a problem. It is more like a predicament.

If you jump out of an aeroplane without a parachute - you do not have a problem, you have a predicament. It is lamentable that you struggle so hard to understand something that others see so clearly - maybe your job depends upon you not understanding the issue.