Peak Oil, What Happens When We Run Out Of Oil?

[Smithson]

The emergence of China in the next 25 years will probably reshape the world as much as the emergence of Europe in the 19th century and the emergence of the USA in the 20th.

Just as the world seems to be beginning to run out of oil along comes china with 1.3 m ppl.

China has an insatiable appetite for oil and few reserves. As it enters the an oil market dominated by Europe and the US friction will be inevitable. This will have implications for all of us.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Smithson

[sibeymai]

The emergence of China in the next 25 years will probably reshape the world as much as the emergence of Europe in the 19th century and the emergence of the USA in the 20th.

Just as the world seems to be beginning to run out of oil along comes china with 1.3 m ppl.

China has an insatiable appetite for oil and few reserves. As it enters the an oil market dominated by Europe and the US friction will be inevitable. This will have implications for all of us.

I agree with Chownah.

Part of the cost of moving to new energy technology is the cost of changing or making redundant existing energy technologies. There is a lot of money invested in the use of current energy technology and it is an additional cost for business already using existing technology to move to new technology. Often this is only economically viable when the return on investment for current technology has already been achieved, or when new technology offers better returns on investment. While a better return on investment is not possible the existing technology in use will most likely remain in use for its projected economic life span.

China, India or other developing countries have the advantage of being able to move straight into new technologies as they become available without the additional cost of the redundancy of the technologies they already use. This means new energy technology will be adopted faster in developing countries than in developed countries. Once, old technology plant and equipment used to be relocated from from developed countries to developing countries once it had passed it's deemed productive life span, but new environmental consciousness in both developed and developing countries has greatly reduced this practice.

On a per capita basis China uses much less energy than the US and I would expect it to remain so into the future even as their economy grows simply because on the whole, their energy technology should be more modern and therefore more efficient across the board than the US or Europe.

[canuckamuck]

The emergence of China in the next 25 years will probably reshape the world as much as the emergence of Europe in the 19th century and the emergence of the USA in the 20th.

Just as the world seems to be beginning to run out of oil along comes china with 1.3 m ppl.

China has an insatiable appetite for oil and few reserves. As it enters the an oil market dominated by Europe and the US friction will be inevitable. This will have implications for all of us.

You must have meant billion

Not that I am usually pedantic, but 1.3 million people in China is a small town. But at least they aren't increasing, whereas India with 1.1 Billion and rising is going to eat the planet someday, good thing their mainly vegetarians.

[mixed]

And even aside from all this...if the cost of oil doubles again it will not really have much impact on the lifestyle of the people around where I live....or me for that matter. If you have a small motorbike for transportation, no aircon, and bathe in tepid water then energy is not really a big part of your budget......heck, even in the local style of farming fuel is a relatively insignificant input....artificial fertilizers require alot of energy to make so I expect that fertilizer prices would go up but even if they doubled in price it would not be a show stopper...it would just mean that rice would cost a bit more....also, fertilizer would be used more carefully and natural sources of fertility would start being used again (organic farming techniques).

Really I think that the only people who need worry about this issue at all are those that are addicted to fuel consumption because of their life style of course these are the people who are creating the "problem" in the first place by consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel which causes the "shortage".....for alot of us it is a total non issue if fuel prices keep going up.

Chownah

Chownah,

Thanks for the post, I think your input could be valuable here. As someone who knows about sustainable agriculture, how do you think rural Thailand would go without the use of chemical fetilizers and mechanized equipment? Could sustainable methods produce similar amounts as present day methods? How would rural communities fair if all there food had to be produced locally? Could enough food be produced if land was also used for bio-fuels? How would farmers cope if food exports dropped significantly?

Reading about peak oil, most of the info is focused on developed countries, many of which are cold and all of which require huge amounts of oil. Their may be a big shift in the balance of power away from these countries in the future. How will Thailand fair? Self suffiency in rural communities may be possible, but will it happen considering that the poor always end up carrying the burden.

Sorry to ask so many questions!

[chownah]

And even aside from all this...if the cost of oil doubles again it will not really have much impact on the lifestyle of the people around where I live....or me for that matter. If you have a small motorbike for transportation, no aircon, and bathe in tepid water then energy is not really a big part of your budget......heck, even in the local style of farming fuel is a relatively insignificant input....artificial fertilizers require alot of energy to make so I expect that fertilizer prices would go up but even if they doubled in price it would not be a show stopper...it would just mean that rice would cost a bit more....also, fertilizer would be used more carefully and natural sources of fertility would start being used again (organic farming techniques).

Really I think that the only people who need worry about this issue at all are those that are addicted to fuel consumption because of their life style of course these are the people who are creating the "problem" in the first place by consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel which causes the "shortage".....for alot of us it is a total non issue if fuel prices keep going up.

Chownah

Chownah,

Thanks for the post, I think your input could be valuable here. As someone who knows about sustainable agriculture, how do you think rural Thailand would go without the use of chemical fetilizers and mechanized equipment? Could sustainable methods produce similar amounts as present day methods? How would rural communities fair if all there food had to be produced locally? Could enough food be produced if land was also used for bio-fuels? How would farmers cope if food exports dropped significantly?

Reading about peak oil, most of the info is focused on developed countries, many of which are cold and all of which require huge amounts of oil. Their may be a big shift in the balance of power away from these countries in the future. How will Thailand fair? Self suffiency in rural communities may be possible, but will it happen considering that the poor always end up carrying the burden.

Sorry to ask so many questions!

Some UN committee did a study of natural farming and their bottom line was that the world could feed itself using only natural farming methods. Who knows if they are right or not...I don't.....but I do know that every place that I have lived there has been alot of farmable land that was not being used or not being used to full capacity. Where I live now in the north of Thailand most fields are used for only one rice crop per year and as fodder for wandering cows the rest of the time...there is alot of slack there that could get taken up. I don't think that there is any reason to think that farmers will have to do without chemical fertilizers. Since the use of chemical fertilizers is standard across the world for the bulk of the food that is consumed the increased cost of these fertilizers will ultimately be born by the consumer and for the farmer is will make little difference because all farmers will have to pay the price so there will be an across the board increase in the price of farm goods to absorb this cost....this will give a bit more advantage to natural farming as long as the natural farmer uses techniques which do not require alot of fuel. Just to answer your question though, if Thai farmers have to use natural farming methods then that will be the situation everywhere around the world and I'm sure that Thai farmers will do just as well as any other farmeres anywhere else....at least I can't see any reason why they wouldn't. Oh...I just noticed you mentioned using no mechanised equipment....I think its really an exercise in fanatasy to think that mechanical equipment will not be used for farming....even if the cost of fuel quadrupled it would still be desireable to use fuel instead of draft animals or just hand tools for farming....let's face it....given the advancements in technology a farmer can grow enough fuel to keep his tractor going.....and....just like fertilizer the increased cost of fuel (if it should ever become a big factor) would be the same for all farmers so it would just be incorporated into the cost of the produce.

Local farmers around here mostly eat local produce anyway so if that is all they could get it would probably not be much of a change.

Food exports benefit rich people mostly....small time farmers would not be so affected...also, small time farmers can easily shift what they grow quickly to enter new markets.

Thai farmers will not be much affected by rising fuel prices....the food supply in developed countries will not be much impacted either except that prices will go up so that food will take a larger percentage of people's incomes...who will be hurt are poor people who do not have access to land so they can grow their food.....but even that problem could be handled quite adequately through international aid.

I think that political struggles and military actions pose the biggest threat to people's well being throughout the world....these are the things which keep food from being produced and distrubuted to those people who suffer from lack of food.....the cost of energy is really not the problem....the problem is politics and war.

chownah

Edited January 19, 2008 by chownah

[plachon]

And even aside from all this...if the cost of oil doubles again it will not really have much impact on the lifestyle of the people around where I live....or me for that matter. If you have a small motorbike for transportation, no aircon, and bathe in tepid water then energy is not really a big part of your budget......heck, even in the local style of farming fuel is a relatively insignificant input....artificial fertilizers require alot of energy to make so I expect that fertilizer prices would go up but even if they doubled in price it would not be a show stopper...it would just mean that rice would cost a bit more....also, fertilizer would be used more carefully and natural sources of fertility would start being used again (organic farming techniques).

Really I think that the only people who need worry about this issue at all are those that are addicted to fuel consumption because of their life style of course these are the people who are creating the "problem" in the first place by consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel which causes the "shortage".....for alot of us it is a total non issue if fuel prices keep going up.

Chownah

Chownah,

Thanks for the post, I think your input could be valuable here. As someone who knows about sustainable agriculture, how do you think rural Thailand would go without the use of chemical fetilizers and mechanized equipment? Could sustainable methods produce similar amounts as present day methods? How would rural communities fair if all there food had to be produced locally? Could enough food be produced if land was also used for bio-fuels? How would farmers cope if food exports dropped significantly?

Reading about peak oil, most of the info is focused on developed countries, many of which are cold and all of which require huge amounts of oil. Their may be a big shift in the balance of power away from these countries in the future. How will Thailand fair? Self suffiency in rural communities may be possible, but will it happen considering that the poor always end up carrying the burden.

Sorry to ask so many questions!

Some UN committee did a study of natural farming and their bottom line was that the world could feed itself using only natural farming methods. Who knows if they are right or not...I don't.....but I do know that every place that I have lived there has been alot of farmable land that was not being used or not being used to full capacity. Where I live now in the north of Thailand most fields are used for only one rice crop per year and as fodder for wandering cows the rest of the time...there is alot of slack there that could get taken up. I don't think that there is any reason to think that farmers will have to do without chemical fertilizers. Since the use of chemical fertilizers is standard across the world for the bulk of the food that is consumed the increased cost of these fertilizers will ultimately be born by the consumer and for the farmer is will make little difference because all farmers will have to pay the price so there will be an across the board increase in the price of farm goods to absorb this cost....this will give a bit more advantage to natural farming as long as the natural farmer uses techniques which do not require alot of fuel. Just to answer your question though, if Thai farmers have to use natural farming methods then that will be the situation everywhere around the world and I'm sure that Thai farmers will do just as well as any other farmeres anywhere else....at least I can't see any reason why they wouldn't. Oh...I just noticed you mentioned using no mechanised equipment....I think its really an exercise in fanatasy to think that mechanical equipment will not be used for farming....even if the cost of fuel quadrupled it would still be desireable to use fuel instead of draft animals or just hand tools for farming....let's face it....given the advancements in technology a farmer can grow enough fuel to keep his tractor going.....and....just like fertilizer the increased cost of fuel (if it should ever become a big factor) would be the same for all farmers so it would just be incorporated into the cost of the produce.

Local farmers around here mostly eat local produce anyway so if that is all they could get it would probably not be much of a change.

Food exports benefit rich people mostly....small time farmers would not be so affected...also, small time farmers can easily shift what they grow quickly to enter new markets.

Thai farmers will not be much affected by rising fuel prices....the food supply in developed countries will not be much impacted either except that prices will go up so that food will take a larger percentage of people's incomes...who will be hurt are poor people who do not have access to land so they can grow their food.....but even that problem could be handled quite adequately through international aid.

I think that political struggles and military actions pose the biggest threat to people's well being throughout the world....these are the things which keep food from being produced and distrubuted to those people who suffer from lack of food.....the cost of energy is really not the problem....the problem is politics and war.

chownah

Just taking your last sentence, I think you're missing the bigger picture and have failed to join up the dots about what is going on in the world. If you can't see the huge efforts made by the Empire of Oil (read: the US govt and military in tandem with the monopolistic oil corporations) to protect the interests of those same institutions and the oil addicted "American Way of Life" (NB: also lived in many other countries) against rising pretenders and coveters of that most precious and strategic asset, seen acted out time and again in the Middle East and other oil rich states (e.g. Venezuela, Nigeria) , and how that affects the cost of energy; then you've been missing the point of the Great Game of the last 5/6 decades. All the things you mention - politics, war, food production, energy prices - are so intimately interlinked that they cannot be considered in isolation, without reference to the others.

Thus oil peaking, global warming, international politics and food prices are all intertwined and unless we make the links, then the picture will get grimmer year by year, decade by decade for our species and ultimately, much life on earth.

You also fail to mention the degree to which the "small farmers" livelihoods you mention, are now largely dependent on remittances from family members' working in the oil-addicted economy and will be hard pushed to cope with a rise in food prices and rush of new mouths to feed, people to clothe and house, should there be a concurrent rise in fuel prices due to oil peaking, severe economic recession and increasing climatic uncertainty from globabl warming. The present economic order has weakened the Thai farmer so much, that imo they are poorly positioned to cope with great perturbations to the system.

[Lickey]

Oil extraction in the Gulf has caused cities like New Orleans to sink below sea level, and we all know the result of this,

[cathyy]

Lots of good stuff in this thread. I too read the Oil Drum, and I believe oil peaked in 2005, as 2006 shows an 8% decline at Ghawar, IIRC, in spite of bringing a new processing plant online. Canada's shale oil is there, but due to the tedious nature of extracting it production there cannot ever do more than meet the demand of Canada alone.

I think the King's "sufficiency economy" program is a thinly disguised program to help Thailand get through peak oil and beyond. As far as energy, Thailand is better off than most countries. They have plans to build 4 nuclear plants in the next decade or so to meet rising demand for electricity. 90% of the natural gas used (primarily to run electricity-generating plants) is extracted in-country. Thailand is quite close to self-sufficiency in terms of energy, and has plans to become more so.

Thailand also is quite efficient at reducing gasoline demand. All the taxis in BKK, and tuk-tuks nationwide run on LPG gas. There are conversion kits for automobiles to run on LPG gas, too, and they are popular. I don't see that happening in Europe or the USA anytime soon. The major mode of transportation is the motorbike or some variety of mass transit. All good things.

Food distribution will be affected; but the big hit there will be in BKK. A lot of people will starve unless there is a means to get the food into the city markets. Things like tomatoes, so dependent on artificial nutrition as they are grown hydroponically here, may become expensive and scarce. Imported food is likely to be wholly unavailable.

Everybody should begin learning to grow food. It's not like you can just plant something and get enough to feed your family, never mind share with neighbors, without some experience. I have planted a mango tree and an avocado tree; kra pow, basil, dill, and chilis. I already had lemon grass and khaa. I plan to learn to grow (in containers on my patio) broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots next.

The USA already began the first oil war in an attempt to get a 30-year supply from Iraq. the USA is unlikely to be leaving there as long as there is oil that can be extracted. Sadly, the coming water wars will be much worse.

[tartempion]

Don't worry; you will always be able to have a night light on when you go to sleep.

Not all of us six billion people though

[chownah]

Food distribution will be affected; but the big hit there will be in BKK. A lot of people will starve unless there is a means to get the food into the city markets. Things like tomatoes, so dependent on artificial nutrition as they are grown hydroponically here, may become expensive and scarce. Imported food is likely to be wholly unavailable.

If a time should come (I doubt it) that food can not be transported into Bangkok then long before people are starving they will leave Bangkok....Thailand is very lucky in that there is enough agricultural capability to feed the entire nation and more....and each region has enough agricultureal capability to fee the entire region and more....50 years ago the vast majority of the food eaten by the majority of the people in Thailand was local food grown predominantly without much in the way of chemical fertilizers....it worked then so I really don't see any reason why it won't work now.

If you want to ponder who will starve look to Africa.....you don't even need to imagine some apoloclypse causing this starvation because it is happening already and has been happening almost constantly even through times when the world was dripping in cheap oil.

The oil isn't going to dry up in a week or a month or a year or even a decade....it will be a gradual decline and for many reasons I stated in previous posts it will not be nearly so dramatic as many people here are fantasizing.....there will be starving people....we have them already...instead of trying to think about how people WILL starve in the future perhaps why not try to do something about how people ARE starving today and I'll give a hint....it has very little to do with the price of oil but it has alot to do with politics and war.

Chownah

[Brigante7]

I wasn't saying we would run out, more that we've reached peak supply. Are you saying we haven't reached peak supply? If we haven't reached peak, then you would expect oil prices to drop. I can't see this happening.

I'll bet a pound to a penny that when oil does finaly run out, car mnanufacturers will amazingy come up with an alternative way to power a car. I truly believe that they already have an alternative way to power a car but with car manufacturers and oil producing companies in bed together it isn't in either of their interest to promote it in a massive way, but then what do I know, I'm just a cynical member of the public who doesn't belive anything any goverment tells us.

[Jamie]

The emergence of China in the next 25 years will probably reshape the world as much as the emergence of Europe in the 19th century and the emergence of the USA in the 20th.

Just as the world seems to be beginning to run out of oil along comes china with 1.3 m ppl.

China has an insatiable appetite for oil and few reserves. As it enters the an oil market dominated by Europe and the US friction will be inevitable. This will have implications for all of us.

I agree with Chownah.

Part of the cost of moving to new energy technology is the cost of changing or making redundant existing energy technologies. There is a lot of money invested in the use of current energy technology and it is an additional cost for business already using existing technology to move to new technology. Often this is only economically viable when the return on investment for current technology has already been achieved, or when new technology offers better returns on investment. While a better return on investment is not possible the existing technology in use will most likely remain in use for its projected economic life span.

China, India or other developing countries have the advantage of being able to move straight into new technologies as they become available without the additional cost of the redundancy of the technologies they already use. This means new energy technology will be adopted faster in developing countries than in developed countries. Once, old technology plant and equipment used to be relocated from from developed countries to developing countries once it had passed it's deemed productive life span, but new environmental consciousness in both developed and developing countries has greatly reduced this practice.

On a per capita basis China uses much less energy than the US and I would expect it to remain so into the future even as their economy grows simply because on the whole, their energy technology should be more modern and therefore more efficient across the board than the US or Europe.

I disagree. The Chinese are not using the new coal gasification technologies available for power. They definitely have not adopted hybrid technology to any great extent to power their vehicles. I wouldn't say the Chinese have much of an environmental consciousness either. Over the next 10 years, the Chinese will need to build hundreds of coal fired power plants just to keep up with their growth demand in todays numbers

[gregb]

The oil isn't going to dry up in a week or a month or a year or even a decade....it will be a gradual decline and for many reasons I stated in previous posts it will not be nearly so dramatic as many people here are fantasizing.....there will be starving people....we have them already...instead of trying to think about how people WILL starve in the future perhaps why not try to do something about how people ARE starving today and I'll give a hint....it has very little to do with the price of oil but it has alot to do with politics and war.

There is alot of truth in this statement. I think you could explain pretty much everything that will happen just by analyzing this.

The root of the problem is politics, which is of course driven by consumption and the need for economic expansion. This creates wealth, which in turn acts to cement the politics. The politics/economy will obviously be non negotiable with respect to those who have something to lose. Those who have nothing to lose will do nothing, because they won't care. Hence, the end result will be driven by those who do something, and that means resource wars. Lots of historical precedent for this...this shouldn't be something that boggles the mind. It is the natural result when things start to run short.

The argument that things won't run short is disingenuous. A need for expansion coupled by peaking supplies means that something has to give. That will start in the discretionary areas of the economy, but eventually will bleed to other areas. Pick your area of the economy that will suffer first. It will eventually bleed to the rest of the economy. When this happens, the interconnected system starts to unwind. You can see Thailand's future today by looking at places like Cambodia. Oil is available, but is more expensive and there is alot less of it. End result? Mechanization still exists, but alot of things are done by hand over there. This isn't just due to the price of oil, but also to the lack of spare parts that limit the ability to fully utilize machines. Again, scarcity of spare parts is a natural part of the larger industrial economy shutting down. Things are all interlinked.

As you further unwind the economy, even though it might be possible to get oil, it becomes less and less practical for the farmer. Draft animals will return to Thailand (for the same reasons they are used in Cambodia today) because it is easier than trying to deal with repairing the decaying industrial infrastructure. While oil may be made available as a priority to farmers, it will not be made available as a priority to those industries making farm implements. It's the old immediate need vs. long term perspective.

The obvious resource wars will result in rationing, so that the boys on the front line can have theirs first. It has happened that way all throughout history. As resources are diverted to the war effort, the industrial infrastructure will further decay. Those in areas that have alot of food will have more than they can use. Those in the cities will be hungry. Again, as Chonwah suggests, politics will be the reason why vegetables are left rotting in the fields. The next fuel delivery is needed to take hill 309. Those in Bangkok who need food will just have to make due until the next one.

These will all appear as isolated incidents, but the sum total will be to reduce food production, except for the military, where it will be given priority. The military of course will only sign contracts with large scale, industrial agriculture outfits. Small farmers will be left out. They will be the first to realize the market for their produce has become unstable. (Please note: not missing, but unstable.)

While all this is happening, disease will slowly start to creep in. While today governments take immediate action in this case, during the wartime economy attentions will be diverted. A bird flu outbreak that today would result in widespread culling, could easily go unnoticed until too late, especially when people were hungry and desperate and aren't willing to cooperate when there is an exceedingly low (perceived) probability of infection.

About the only statement Chonwah makes that I must really take exception to is that people will leave Bangkok for the countryside. History doesn't support this assumption. People will most likely stay where they are until it is too late. Of course, some will return to the family farm, but many will prefer to wait in the cities for government assistance, as during a crisis aid will arrive there first. From my own experience, I have a hard time beleving many of the Issan ladies that have left for the lights of the big city will willingly return to the hard life of the farm, even if starving is the result. Stupid yes, but it's human nature.

As I've stated before, there are options for transitioning to a non fossil fuel based economy IF EVERYONE TOOK THIS CRISIS SERIOUSLY and worked towards it. However, short term thinking (the default) will necessarily lead to disaster. The root of that is politics, which is in turn controlled by the fiat monetary system's need for an exponentially growing economy. This leads to only 1 place, and that is resource wars. This means rationing and decay of society, and eventually collapse.

People tend to concentrate only on oil and look past the social factors. It is the unwinding of the growth economy that makes this such a disaster. Civilizations have collapsed countless times before in history due to unsustainable practices and resource shortages, and it will happen again. You would be wise to prepare for it. The sooner you start the easier time you'll have of it.

[plachon]

Lots of good stuff in this thread. I too read the Oil Drum, and I believe oil peaked in 2005, as 2006 shows an 8% decline at Ghawar, IIRC, in spite of bringing a new processing plant online. Canada's shale oil is there, but due to the tedious nature of extracting it production there cannot ever do more than meet the demand of Canada alone.

I think the King's "sufficiency economy" program is a thinly disguised program to help Thailand get through peak oil and beyond. As far as energy, Thailand is better off than most countries. They have plans to build 4 nuclear plants in the next decade or so to meet rising demand for electricity. 90% of the natural gas used (primarily to run electricity-generating plants) is extracted in-country. Thailand is quite close to self-sufficiency in terms of energy, and has plans to become more so.

Are you sure about that? I thought the Burmese gas fields were far more significant? You are definitely wrong that "Thailand is close to self-suffiency in terms of energy" or they wouldn't be doing 30 year deals with Laos, Burma, China and Cambodia to import vast amounts of hydropower. It also relies on vast imports of oil, growing annually, so I don't know where you got that notion from?

Thailand also is quite efficient at reducing gasoline demand. All the taxis in BKK, and tuk-tuks nationwide run on LPG gas. There are conversion kits for automobiles to run on LPG gas, too, and they are popular. I don't see that happening in Europe or the USA anytime soon. The major mode of transportation is the motorbike or some variety of mass transit. All good things.

When was the last time you went to Europe? What you seem to be forgetting, is that a majority of European urban commuters travel to their places of work by public transport, not private transport as is the case in Bangkok and most Thai cities. In some cities, London included, it is just too expensive to take a private car into the city centre due to pricing structures for fuel, parking and taxes. Not so Bangkok. In Holland and a growing number of other countries, masssive numbers of commuters use a bicycle to get to work, or take the kids to school. When was the last time you saw a commuter in Bangkok do that?? Europe is eons ahead of BKK in terms of planning sustainable transport systems, although sadly my home country Britain is behind the rest of the pack in this regard. Having said that, even small cities employ sustainability officers to try to encourage the move to low carbon footprint lifestyles, but having been encouraged by previous governments to fall into the trap we could create an economy based on oil consumption, it will take a long time to climb out of the hole that was dug over the last 40 years. And even now they prefer to subsidise cheap air travel, rather than cheap train travel which is absolute madness from the Brown govt. But at least Britain - "the dirty man of Europe" - is eons ahead of USA in terms of global commitments to moving past oil. The USA stinks big time, as it is in too deep in its addiction.

Food distribution will be affected; but the big hit there will be in BKK. A lot of people will starve unless there is a means to get the food into the city markets. Things like tomatoes, so dependent on artificial nutrition as they are grown hydroponically here, may become expensive and scarce. Imported food is likely to be wholly unavailable.

People will move out the cities before they starve and will wreck the remaining countryside, unless there is a planned reduction in city size, with a move over to a non-fossil fuel dependent economy. That means farming sustainably without the crutch of artificial fertilisers over the nation - a core principle of the "sufficiency economy" that many on this thread find so scary. Ergo, it is not going to happen any time soon, as there is not the political will for a sea change and with foam kratong Samak back in charge, it will probably be mandatory to burn your compost heap, kill your buffaloes and buy a bag of 16-16-20 every time you shop at 7-11 or Tesco-Lotus (the only shops that will be allowed to operate).

Everybody should begin learning to grow food. It's not like you can just plant something and get enough to feed your family, never mind share with neighbors, without some experience. I have planted a mango tree and an avocado tree; kra pow, basil, dill, and chilis. I already had lemon grass and khaa. I plan to learn to grow (in containers on my patio) broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots next.

Agreed - growing your own food, whether you live in a condo or a townhouse (even some herbs and sald veg on the balcony) or in the middle of a moobaan is a good way to start the long, hard road to understanding about "sustainability".

The USA already began the first oil war in an attempt to get a 30-year supply from Iraq. the USA is unlikely to be leaving there as long as there is oil that can be extracted. Sadly, the coming water wars will be much worse.

The USA will probably leave there pretty fast when the economy goes bust and they throw out Bush and his evil mates in the Empire of Oil!!!

[plachon]

My thoughts are wrapped inside the quotes above - bit tricky to decipher - apologies for this incompetence with the quote functions.

[chownah]

Agreed - growing your own food, whether you live in a condo or a townhouse (even some herbs and sald veg on the balcony) or in the middle of a moobaan is a good way to start the long, hard road to understanding about "sustainability".

Don't paint such a dire picture!!!! Learning gardening and farming can be lots of fun. Many many people actually ENJOY doing it. It does require some physical effort and planning but not really that much if you only do a small area or a few pots....and it doesn't cost much...it can even save you money!!!!

Chownah

[Cipher]

OK, let me put an end to this discussion about Oil, Energy and the end of the world FOREVER. I am probably the most degreed man on the planet when it comes to this stuff, so listen up.

When the world was formed, it had what is called a "Reducing Atmosphere". There was little to no oxygen and a lot of carbon in the form of CO2. When plants first appeared (God/Evolution…who cares), they thrived on this primitive atmosphere. By absorbing carbon and using the suns energy to produce sugars, they exhaled oxygen. The same is also true of primitive sea creatures like plankton (the ingredients of all our oil). This is where are oxygen comes from, in large part.

Now here comes the kicker…if we dig up these dead remains such as oil from the primitive plankton and coal from the primitive trees, it has to combine with the oxygen that was made during the living cycle to burn. When this stuff burns, the oxygen is reduced and the carbon is put back into the atmosphere.

Theoretically, if we dig ALL of it up and set fire to it, the oxygen will go to zero and the carbon dioxide will max out. Because it will not be possible to get the planet back to the primitive atmosphere, any increases in CO2 will cause warming. The more the CO2 that is put back into the atmosphere, the hotter it will get.

If I were to take a balloon and fill it with CO2 and take it outside and POP-it, the effect of the added CO2 would increase the temperature of the earth. It would not be possible to measure such a small increase in temperature, but the effects of the CO2 will be experienced. Now, take the effects of the USA, it puts 2,000,000,000 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere EVERY YEAR alone. China is planning to build a coal-fired power station every week for the next 10 years. Now India has produces the first $2,500 car. Imagine the effect on car pollution. There are about 600,000,000 cars in the world and China has a population of over 1,200,000,000 people and almost none of them have cars…India is the same.

Fortunately, there is a SIMPLE solution. Unfortunately, the governments of the world are so hooked on spending OUR money, they refuse to use it and go along with the money grabbing Oil Nazis who pay off government officials to keep things "Same-As-Usual". What is this miraculous fuel…ITS HYDROGEN.

Two thirds of the planet is covered with water made of Hydrogen and Oxygen (H2O). When you pass electricity through water (electrolysis) you split the water into the two gasses. When you burn the resulting Hydrogen, it combines with the original oxygen and makes water again…perfect. God/Nature/Science is so cleaver.

You get hydrogen by an electrical process, so all we need to do is make cheap electricity. It does not matter how, Solar, Nuclear, rat-in-a-wheel…who cares. Currently, electricity is about 14 cents/KWh in the USA. Solar energy will reduce this to 7 cents. That's right, about half. The reason is that Solar electricity systems (PV) will operate for 30 years without replacement. You have to pay now, for what you will use later.

THE BIG PROBLEM:

The governments will do NOTHING until it is too late, because they have their money, who cares about us. It is almost too late now. For example, the USA is spending $3,000,000,000/month in the war in Iraq for the last 6 years. If this money would have been spent on Solar PV, the whole of Texas would now be energy self sufficient and operate wholly on hydrogen, it would use NO OIL or COAL EVER AGAIN.

We are going to have to do this problem solving ourselves, nobody is going to help us.. If you want to join forces, lets see how many of us there are. The power we have is in our numbers, there are a lot of us. Remember, the governments need us (taxes), we do not need them.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Cipher

[Smithson]

I think that political struggles and military actions pose the biggest threat to people's well being throughout the world....these are the things which keep food from being produced and distrubuted to those people who suffer from lack of food.....the cost of energy is really not the problem....the problem is politics and war.

chownah

The politics and war of peak oil are already emerging, look at Darfur and Iraq.

China plans to build an overland oil pipeline from Iran, so they will never let Iran be taken to the Security council over a possible nuclear weapons program.

The US has military bases on both ends of the Mallaca straits which 3/4 of China's oil passes through. Besides the Iran pipeline, China is doing deals in Kazakhstan.

Kyrgyzstan has both Russian and American military bases, as well as accepting a of of aid from it's neighbor China.

Chavez in Venezuela is punching above his weight diplomatically because of the power given to him by high oil prices.

Russia turned of the gas to the Ukraine for a while. How much of Europe is dependent on Russian gas.

Foreigners are the first to be blamed in tough times. Thai politicians don't mind a bit of nationalism so things could get tough for us. Not to mention that air travel will be something only affordable for the very rich.

[wilko]

All energy can be measured in calories......these are the only reliable currency....forget gold/dllars/baht.....and at the end of the day virtually ALL energy - old and new - comes from the sun....that will last longer than we need to worry about.

so long as we concentrate on how to get energy form the sun we should be OK.

Edited January 21, 2008 by wilko

[mixed]

All energy can be measured in calories......these are the only reliable currency....forget gold/dllars/baht.....and at the end of the day virtually ALL energy - old and new - comes from the sun....that will last longer than we need to worry about.

so long as we concentrate on how to get energy form the sun we should be OK.

Makes sense. I've heard that for every calorie produced with modern agriculture, 10 calories are used. Since Cuba ran out of oil they have reduced this to 1:1 using sustainable techniques and growing food in available space in the cities.

[Naam]

OK, let me put an end to this discussion about Oil, Energy and the end of the world FOREVER. I am probably the most degreed man on the planet when it comes to this stuff, so listen up.

i am impressed!

[Naam]

Just stay the <deleted> off your high horse, don't try to mandate how you feel other people should live, and let me and others like me enjoy my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Somone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Nobody is trying to tell you how to live your life. In fact, I say "go for it". Consume all you can as quickly as you can. If you don't, somebody else will.

At issue is the fact that your current party life style won't last forever. It's not going to end tomorrow, but your life in 20 years won't be close to what you have right now. So, you can make your future alot less miserable if you leave the party early and start to plan ahead. Those who don't are going to have an awfully rough time of it once the punch bowl is taken away.

in my opinion the impact from individuals "leaving the party" is too small to count as long as developing countries are "partying" as if there is no tomorrow. and my [not so] humble opinion is that they have a right to do so, the same right the industrialized countries used when they polluted the environment and burned fossil fuels for more than a century.

moreover, those who keep on partying will not have a less rough time in future than the others. because if the punch bowl is taken away then no exceptions will me made. i see no logic in this statement but perhaps i'm missing something?

has anybody been travelling lately? perhaps to the Gulf, London, Singapore, Paris or Hong Kong. if yes did you see all the nonsensical lights which are on all night long although they are as superfluous as (my favourite metaphor ) the uterus of a nun sworn to eternal celibacy? does anybody think his/her tiny efforts to reduce his/her carbon footprint by changing to energy saving light bulbs at home will make any impact globally and conserve energy?

[mixed]

Just stay the <deleted> off your high horse, don't try to mandate how you feel other people should live, and let me and others like me enjoy my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Somone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Nobody is trying to tell you how to live your life. In fact, I say "go for it". Consume all you can as quickly as you can. If you don't, somebody else will.

At issue is the fact that your current party life style won't last forever. It's not going to end tomorrow, but your life in 20 years won't be close to what you have right now. So, you can make your future alot less miserable if you leave the party early and start to plan ahead. Those who don't are going to have an awfully rough time of it once the punch bowl is taken away.

in my opinion the impact from individuals "leaving the party" is too small to count as long as developing countries are "partying" as if there is no tomorrow. and my [not so] humble opinion is that they have a right to do so, the same right the industrialized countries used when they polluted the environment and burned fossil fuels for more than a century.

moreover, those who keep on partying will not have a less rough time in future than the others. because if the punch bowl is taken away then no exceptions will me made. i see no logic in this statement but perhaps i'm missing something?

has anybody been travelling lately? perhaps to the Gulf, London, Singapore, Paris or Hong Kong. if yes did you see all the nonsensical lights which are on all night long although they are as superfluous as (my favourite metaphor ) the uterus of a nun sworn to eternal celibacy? does anybody think his/her tiny efforts to reduce his/her carbon footprint by changing to energy saving light bulbs at home will make any impact globally and conserve energy?

Of course they don't, which is why people are saying if the governments don't start leading the way we're all in trouble. In the US the govt is so close to big oil that they'll never change.

[plachon]

Agreed - growing your own food, whether you live in a condo or a townhouse (even some herbs and sald veg on the balcony) or in the middle of a moobaan is a good way to start the long, hard road to understanding about "sustainability".

Don't paint such a dire picture!!!! Learning gardening and farming can be lots of fun. Many many people actually ENJOY doing it. It does require some physical effort and planning but not really that much if you only do a small area or a few pots....and it doesn't cost much...it can even save you money!!!!

Chownah

How is this a "dire picture"? I never said that gardening or growing veg on a home plot can't be fun. I'm one of the many that enjoy doing it and I urge others to take it up, for more reasons than just the food, fun and saving money aspect. One of the foremost is that it connects or even re-connects us with nature, soil, our roots and for some Mother Earth. Anyone with a little space, a little time and a little money can do it, yet millions don't and are all the poorer for it. BUT, as I say in my post, it is just one step of the many that must be taken at an individual level to achieve anything like real, genuine "sustainability". That is a long, tough road to travel for most people I believe.

As I'm sure you know Chownah, true "sustainability" is something of a nebulous concept, not easily defined, but something like, "living frugally, within one's means and where possble, off of nature's interest; where satisying the needs of today does not sacrifice the ability of future generations to meet their needs". There are various definitions you might care to use, but if we are aware of what parts of our consumption patterns are using up finite resources that people may need in the future and are not causing damaging "pollution" or degrading the environment, then we may start to raise our level of consciousness about where this species is headed on it's current fossil-fuel addicted course of destruction. If this is too "dire" for you to contemplate then so be it. We can still all get on with farming our plots, observing soil, weather and seasons, and be a little richer for it.

[steveromagnino]

OK, let me put an end to this discussion about Oil, Energy and the end of the world FOREVER. I am probably the most degreed man on the planet when it comes to this stuff, so listen up.

You get hydrogen by an electrical process, so all we need to do is make cheap electricity. It does not matter how, Solar, Nuclear, rat-in-a-wheel…who cares. Currently, electricity is about 14 cents/KWh in the USA. Solar energy will reduce this to 7 cents. That's right, about half. The reason is that Solar electricity systems (PV) will operate for 30 years without replacement. You have to pay now, for what you will use later.

THE BIG PROBLEM:

The governments will do NOTHING until it is too late, because they have their money, who cares about us. It is almost too late now. For example, the USA is spending $3,000,000,000/month in the war in Iraq for the last 6 years. If this money would have been spent on Solar PV, the whole of Texas would now be energy self sufficient and operate wholly on hydrogen, it would use NO OIL or COAL EVER AGAIN.

We are going to have to do this problem solving ourselves, nobody is going to help us.. If you want to join forces, lets see how many of us there are. The power we have is in our numbers, there are a lot of us. Remember, the governments need us (taxes), we do not need them.

They have still not come up with a workable economic solution to use fuel cells for single vehicles in 150 years; most experts consider it years away. Solar may be GENERATED for 7c per KWh (not sure of the economics in USA, but that sounds slightly low) but you are ignoring the cost of the infrastructure to deliver the power; transmission lines, distribution lines, associated losses.... it is nothing to do with capital cost vs. running cost (nuclear for instance has monster capital costs and very low running costs once you ignore the cost of storing the muck for 10,000 years as is the case for every case made for nuclear power) which can easily be dealt with using a discounted cashflow model to project.

But....that said, while it isn't nearly as easy as what you say, you are definitely on the right track. Solar, wind and more embedded generation are key. The transport sector can easily rationalise; if we were to ban cars from the centre 5km of Bangkok, and everyone had to walk...would that be so hard? Suddenly, you'd have fitter people, slimmer 'hot chicks with fitness bodies' and immediately more clean air. If oil prices keep rising, will you see people start to grow their own crops and would you see buildings start to invest in green roofing with a follow on effec of reducing storm water run off? Sure.

Governments taking a leadership role are a total waste of time for this. Deregulate the energy markets, introduce heavy tax signals, regulate emissions and provide tax breaks for clean technology. Then you will see the free market seize and push the opportunities.

Problem is, most of the world's economies don't want to be the first to start. Least of all the USA.

So... that brings in the intermediate technologies. Just as the web began with awkward browsers, low speeds and less porn than we have now, it shall be with transport and economies. NGVs, smaller vehicles, more motorcycles, less 2 stroke engines, less plastics, more recycling...and so on.

Disruptive change will never happen and will be a huge fight with idealists on one side with no idea, and practical people on the other. Intermediate technologies provide an easy series of stepping stones to get there without the hardship. We just need a little regulation to encourage some more, but I am not too optimistic that they can be acheived at the same cost as existing unless costs continue to rise....think hybrids and so on.

That's why $100 USD oil is a good thing. Cold turkey or rehabilitiation?

[Dupont]

There never will be an energy crisis if bullsh_t could be harnessed.

And the heat generated from all the hand wringing by liberals, fun banners and tree hugging hippies.

Perhaps some of these people will then be happy for the first time in their lives as they say we told you so!!!

[Spee]

OK, let me put an end to this discussion about Oil, Energy and the end of the world FOREVER. I am probably the most degreed man on the planet when it comes to this stuff, so listen up.

............

The governments will do NOTHING until it is too late, because they have their money, who cares about us. It is almost too late now. For example, the USA is spending $3,000,000,000/month in the war in Iraq for the last 6 years. If this money would have been spent on Solar PV, the whole of Texas would now be energy self sufficient and operate wholly on hydrogen, it would use NO OIL or COAL EVER AGAIN.

For a self-claimed highly educated person, your response doesn't really seem to reflect it. Let's start with the concluding statement. Govenments don't fix problems, they create them. Yet here you are concluding by stating it s governments' problem to fix. We have the energy problems that we have today because of excessive government intervention, not because of too little. If governments would get their greedy little fingers out of the equation and allow free market capitalism and consumer economics to reign, then people and markets will determine what it best for everyone.

Your other statements previous are no more closer to the point. The only obvious governing physical rule is matter is neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form. Matter gets altered in form through various chemical and nuclear reactions. Some of those reactions release energy and some of those reactions absorb energy (binding energy science is a very well defined. mature area of study).

You further attempt to classify global climate science as a microcosm of burning petroleum resources and CO2, which is obvious nonsense as there are dozens if not hundreds of additional variables. Then you go on to talk about other energy sources like converting solar radiation to electricity and generating hydrogen from which to make fuel cells. Of course these are both noble thoughts but hardly practical in the broad scale. For starters solar cells are not hardly as green as one would seem. They require a lot of energy to produce and generate some rather unpleasant side products just as with other similar products. Efficiency also leaves a lot less to be desired, with respect to both keeping clean so as to absorb maximum solar energy to maintaining efficiency over time. Producing hydrogen takes a lot of time and energy too. There is no free lunch. You want hyrdogen to use as an energy source. Well it takes energy to create it.

The real kick in the pants is the theory that the atmosphere was at one time uninhabitable, only became inhabitable after plants came on to the scene, and man and man alone is well on the way to making the entire atmosphere uninhabitable again. Of course the only thing missing through all this (dare I say) semi-rant is the considerations of the global economy. Face facts. The global economy is an oil driven economy. Radical moves to remove oil from the equation will do nothing but disrupt the economy and cause inumerable human suffering, starvation and premature death. Your tome is more like straight out of the return to the stone age handbook than a scientific overview. What a bunch of chicken-little, scare tactic hokum.

[Robski]

If governments would get their greedy little fingers out of the equation and allow free market capitalism and consumer economics to reign, then people and markets will determine what it best for everyone.

Just like Enron

Even Milton Friedman or George Soros may admit they were stretching the truth about 'what's best for everyone'.

To the 21st century Spee

Edited January 22, 2008 by Robski

[canuckamuck]

If governments would get their greedy little fingers out of the equation and allow free market capitalism and consumer economics to reign, then people and markets will determine what it best for everyone.

This is true, except for the fact that parasite of government has so invaded the host that its removal might kill the patient. And if not, it will certainly be unacceptable to the parasite; which is there for one purpose: free lunch and power.

No matter how you slice it human greed will keep things from finding equilibrium.

[steveromagnino]

If governments would get their greedy little fingers out of the equation and allow free market capitalism and consumer economics to reign, then people and markets will determine what it best for everyone.

Just like Enron

Even Milton Friedman or George Soros may admit they were stretching the truth about 'what's best for everyone'.

To the 21st century Spee

actually, a fair chunk of what Enron did was capitalising on loop holes in the govt regulatory structure. And a fair bit was just totally illegal.

I don't think free market capitalism alone works, there does need to be a little light handed ENFORCED regulation, but yeah, I knew some of the Enron type guys (they even picked up a similar mechanic to what we had been doing in NZ years earlier with advance revenue recognition via fixed contracts after a fact finding trip) and mostly it was because the USA's deregulation was so amatuerish and under done that they could do what they did.

In NZ, similar deregulation led to an at the time 70% decrease in power prices for large industrial clients, and an improved load profile for power generators and network operators plus major incentives to upgrade inefficient coal and gas stations and incentives to promote cogen and embedded generation plus improved energy efficiency.

Free market works.