| Author |
Message
|
| synthdude |
 Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:04 am Post subject: Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash |
 |
|
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 910
|
<b>Life After the Oil Crash</b>
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil"...
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.
In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.
The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year...
More: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
<b>Eating fossil fuels</b>
Human beings (like all other animals) draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.
It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth. Solar energy has a limited rate of flow into this planet. To increase your food production, you had to increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace your competitors. There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and appropriating more and more of the available solar energy.
More: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Jeff |
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mod Squad
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 551
Location: Land of the Head Hunters
|
| thanks for the highly appreciated info. I was educated by green cor lecturers in designing evironmetally sustainable buildings. The earth is a very fragile place and its a shame ppl dont take these issues seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ridzi |
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 06 Feb 2004
Posts: 2198
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
well in Kyoto it was agreed that we need to cut 70% of green house gas emmissions, but the US went and increased it by 20%,
Go figure...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| energon_drive |
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 49
|
i read somewhere abt the Kyoto thingy. i dont know much abt stats but ive seen how bad it is.
my friend lives in a condo overlooking a bungalow housing dev project near Bkt. Mayang in PJ. We used to admire the patch of forest from the condo, nice trees, can even see families of monkeys hanging around directly from the windows from the room. At times, you could see the entire family grooming each other on the trees, then you could also see alot of Kingfishers around, quite a distinctive sound it makes.
A year ( or two) ago, the started bulldozing the ground. Gradually we saw the forest shrank. We could physically see the monkeys running away, no more birds singing, now the entire landscape is gone, replaced by lots of bungalows ( huge ones ) and a few rows of shoplots. Sad huh?
_________________
My Music...
http://www.i-bands.net/audiovault/bands/1856/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| synthdude |
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: No Stopping The Burning Bush ! |
|
|
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 910
|
<b>Bush wants to shift global warming debate</b>
LONDON, England (AP) -- Ahead of this week's G8 summit, President Bush says he wants to shift debate on global warming away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions to new technology that would reduce environmental harm without restricting energy use.
In an interview with British journalist Trevor McDonald to be broadcast on ITV television Monday, Bush repeated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and said the United States would not sign it or any similar deals limiting gas emissions.
"I think you can grow your economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases," Bush said. "That's exactly what I intend to talk to our partners about."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who hosts the three-day summit of major industrial powers that begins Wednesday in Scotland, plans to make action on global warming a top focus along with tackling poverty in Africa.
Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55 billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission power stations and other technology.
The Bush administration opposes the 1997 Kyoto treaty because officials believe it would raise energy prices and cost 5 million U.S. jobs.
"My hope is -- and I think the hope of Tony Blair is -- to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil," Bush said.
Blair, who has described global warming as "probably the most serious threat we face" wants an agreement among G8 leaders on the scientific threat posed by global warming and the urgent need for action.
He also wants greater research in so-called green technology, and to draw emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico into the debate.
Prospects of agreement when the leaders of the United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan join Blair in Gleneagles, Scotland, remain uncertain.
Bush described climate change as "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with" and acknowledged that human activity is "to some extent" to blame.
Bush also made it clear that he was not ready to slash the farm subsidies that critics say distort global trade and make it difficult for African economies to compete unless the European Union was also prepared to scrap its Common Agricultural Policy.
"We've got agricultural subsidies, not nearly to the extent that our friends in the EU have," he said. "... The position of the U.S. government is, we're willing to do so and we will do so with our fine friends in the European Union."
In the interview, Bush was also asked if he would make a special effort to support Blair at the summit in return for the British leader's backing for the war in Iraq.
"I really don't view our relationship as one of quid pro quo," Bush replied. "Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did. So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
