sarnian: Actually, I *do* believe in peak oil!! The reason why I believe is because I like to think rationally: oil is a finite resource and since we are using it up then logically there *must* be a point at which we have used up 50%-- ie, the peak. Also, it is a fact that once an oil field reaches a certain point in depletion it gets harder it is to retrieve each remaining barrel of oil. So, yes I *do* believe in peak oil.

But, I'm not worried at all about it at all! The reason why is same as the argument I used in the population debate. Basically, the peak and decline is a slow gradual event-- slow enough that we have plenty of time to either-1) switch to a new fuel source or 2)reduce our population by natural attrition.

It is interesting that even the greenies admit that according to the laws of physics we can supply all our energy needs without having to use *any* fossil fuels by methods such as solar. In fact, the ecofreaks are constantly telling us this. However, at this current point in time oil/coal is the cheapest option. All other non-fossil alternatives currently cost a lot more. So we *can't* supply all our current needs according to the laws of economics without a dire effect on the economy. So dire effect that if it were mandated that the world switch within the next 10 years away from all fossil fuels then this could suddenly shock the economic system to the extent that food production drops resulting in mass starvation for the poor. Hopefully, For the sake of us and our children we will never implement such a crazy idea.

To prevent this sort of shock the best strategy is to let the fossil fuel supply dry up over the coming decades and let the population naturally adjust. ie, business as usual.

thinkabit

Good that you didn't mention pollution, I did but I think I got away with it.

With apologies to John Cleese.

thinkabit,

You are ignoring the role of inadequate safety margins in the disasters leading to societal collapses. What turned the late blight, which repeatedly wiped out potato crops in 1840s Ireland, from a run of bad luck into an absolute disaster that caused 1 - 1.5 million deaths by starvation and forced another 1.5 - 2 million people to emigrate was that a significant proportion of the population were living on land holdings that were too small to feed a family on anything but potatoes. This was partly because the British had confiscated a good deal of the best land to grow export crops (since England was losing the ability to feed itself), but the main reason was population growth (from ~1.2 million in 1600 to 8.5 million in 1848) and inheritance customs (and colonial laws) that required land to be subdivided among all the sons.

You are also ignoring demographic momentum in assuming that people can adapt smoothly to limits to growth. A population can go on growing for up to another 70 years after fertility rates have fallen down to or below replacement level. This is because rapid population growth results in a pyramid shaped age distribution, so for a long time, the births are in the very large young adult generation, but most of the deaths are in the relatively tiny elderly generation. That is why a third of Australia's population growth is still coming from natural increase, even though the fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976.

There are similarities with arguments for food supply and water supply.

In Australia, the growth advocates regularly confuse the issue of water resources, with no distinction made between water that is available and the time over which it is available. As an example, no distinction is made between water falling as a deluge during a tropical wet season and steady and regular rainfall. The former can be very damaging, is impractical to capture, and is available over a short time frame. The latter provides a far more substantial benefit, yet the growth advocates would have you believe that all rainfall is equal. It isn't.

Similarly, you might have a massive crop of strawberries available over a month or so. Even with substantial price discounts, most of the strawberries will go rotten. But, according to the growth advocates, those strawberries are regarded as being available year round in an average amount, and the fact that the strawberries have gone rotten is attributed to inefficient distribution networks. Of course, the food distribution networks are similar to the massive water pumping infrastructure that some have advocated for drought proofing Australia. Yes, it might be technically possible to send the commodity great distances, but what is the point of transporting a cheap resource at great expense to a distant place where it is unaffordable?

but what is the point of transporting a cheap resource at great expense to a distant place where it is unaffordable?

Fester, the answer in my view lies with finding efficient ways to reuse water, rather than the current practice of wasting it.

Remember, we collect water, we treat it, we shower and wash our cloths in 'A grade' drinking water, we then collect it again, treat it again and then dump it.

It clearly is a 'no brainer', don't you think.

I have not read all the posts here but a lot seem to assume that the
world population will be decreased by starvation.
This not necessarily so. I suggest two possibilities.

1. Energy depletion will not be sudden due to buffering by biofuels etc.
If so while food production will fall the effect on populations will
be a reduction in fertility due to a restricted diet.

2. If as some who have studied complex systems suggest that failure in
energy supply and or a failure in world finance and trading facilities
may be sudden and unexpected. The whole collapse can
be triggered by the loss of a key component in the energy train or financial system.
This would result in a sudden failure of the agricultural infrastructure.
This would not allow time for poor diet to reduce population and
mass starvation would result in may parts of the world.

I think that the risk of a sudden collapse may well be more than 50%.
There have been a couple of studies on Oil Drum and ANZ,oildrum.
It probably needs n actuary not steeped in conventional economics to
do a study on this aspect otherwise we are just all scrambling around
with pet theories.