<< I think Squeers and Yabby agree with each other, it is just that they are using different definitions of capitalism. >>

Maybe Bazz. And Squeers and Ludwig too (?). I was conscious of that possibility. That’s why I specifically outlined the definition that I was using.

<< Without growth everything changes ! >>

Depends what you mean by ‘growth’. It’s another one of those works with fuzzy interp, which can be very different for different people.

On one hand, there is the constant growth of population and economic turnover, which can result in low, no or negative per-capita gain or long-term gain for the community.

On the other hand, there is growth due to innovation and the improved efficiency of resource usage, which can occur with a stable population and can translate into a low level of economic growth but a strong per-capita gain and improvement for the whole community.

These two sorts of growth are poles apart, but are seldom teased out, being almost always lumped together as one good or bad thing, depending on your outlook.

<< However if you include the financial credit system we presently have then there will be no way to repay the borrowings and interest in a zero growth economy. >>

Not sure about that. With zero population growth and steadily improving technologies and efficiencies, we should be able to both improve the return to the domestic community and pay off our debt at a faster rate. With a rapidly increasing population there will be both more pressure to spend our earnings on domestic issues and thus less on debt repayments, and more pressure to borrow more and put ourselves further in debt!

Sure, this debt trap will make it harder to achieve a steady-state economy and it will blow the timeline out somewhat, but it shouldn’t mean that it is not possible.

Ludwig, I have good reason to doubt that the capitalist model can be adapted to a steady-state model and remain capitalism. Capitalism is based on profit and profit on growth. This problem is fundamental. I’m also against capitalism for ethical reasons, and because I agree with Marx that it distorts and alienates human nature and society. Be that as it may, however, since I don’t have time to go into it any more, a glaring problem still remains. I’m pleased that most of us agree something has to be done, yet my objection is that in the real world it remains a loaded agenda favouring the wealthy, and instead of real action on conserving oil and reducing consumption, we will get the opposite. Consumption is showing no signs of declining and consumption is fuelled by oil. It’s not enough to start developing alternative energy sources via the same blunt instrument: competitive trial and error and mass-production. The necessary innovations should not be market-driven, but publicly-funded and conservatively based on sustainable population models. Meanwhile, what we should be doing is conserving resources first by cutting back usage; phasing out the private motor car, unnecessary air-travel, McMansions, the individual excesses of the wealthy and luxuries generally that are oil-expensive, while populations enter a phase of natural attrition. All this would buy time and give us the chance to ease into the new paradigm. But isn’t it obvious that these modest, yet vital, measures alone would bring the whole house of cards down? That instead, peak oil is being treated as another lucrative venture? As if all life’s ills can be cured by consumption. They cannot! Despite peak oil and climate change, every country in the world at the moment is obsessing about growth. Listen to the news. Capitalism grows or it dies. The world economy has to shrink or “we” die. I’ll bow out now, but I remain obstinate that capitalism will not, cannot, address peak oil or climate change, it will merely continue to precipitate them. In other respects too, it remains an obscenity.

I can't escape the feeling that there is a significant opportunity going begging in the discussion on this article.

The discussion has diverted into an irrelevant contention as to whether the capitalist system can continue to function without 'growth', running in parallel with advocacy of the virtues of a system of centralized control and 'rationing' that ignores the reality of innovation.

Yet we have had posting in this thread the author of the article 'The coming liquid fuel crisis', Jenny Goldie (userID 'popnperish'), the comments thread to which has highlighted the same unexplained silence from government in Australia as to any reaction to this foreseen problem, as has this article's author Cameron Leckie in his earlier article 'The questions we don’t ask: a review of the Australian Energy Resource Assessment', published on 9 March 2010.

As Cameron Leckie (OLO userID 'Leckos') put it:

" Thousands of hours of time and taxpayers money
invested into a product that is incomplete, misleading
and fails to grasp some fairly simple concepts. This
results in an assessment of Australia’s future oil and
liquid fuel situation that is not only unduly optimistic
but also fails to provide the basis upon which a plan B
can be developed for our nation as we enter the second
half of the age of oil.

This leaves us in the rather uncomfortable position of
having a plan A, business as usual, which is not viable
and no plan B. How, in a country as advanced as ours,
does this occur? "

Nobody seems to be asking the question of those who are supposed to be representing US, and OUR interests, as to what it is that government knows in relation to this coming liquid fuels problem that it does not seem to wish to share with the public at large?

Innovations have already been made in coal-to-liquid-fuels conversion that show great promise of averting this foreshadowed shortage. Australia has lots of coal. Where is the public policy that will convert this promise into a productive reality owned by its own market, the Australian public?

Forrest Gump:
<The discussion has diverted into an irrelevant contention as to whether the capitalist system can continue to function without 'growth', running in parallel with advocacy of the virtues of a system of centralized control and 'rationing' that ignores the reality of innovation.>
You're entitled to your opinion of, course, but I disagree that the thread has been “diverted”, or that the comments are irrelevant. The article was “about” economic growth and Peak Oil:
<Reducing the oil intensity of an economy will require significant capital investment, something that in the weakened economic state of many OECD nations is unlikely. Reducing oil intensity is also subject to diminishing returns, each increment of improvement in oil intensity will become increasingly expensive and difficult to achieve. In this context, significantly reducing the oil intensity of the economy would be a monumental achievement.>
This validates my realist contention (as opposed to idealism) that peak oil and capitalism are irreconcilable.
And who is advocating “the virtues of a system of centralized control”? I've been advocating “inclusive democracy”, while also urging that peak oil, like capitalism, is a "global" predicament that is not being addressed.
As for advocating “'rationing' that ignores the reality of innovation”; I have been advocating husbandry in general and the surely reasonable measure that we start taking real action to break our dependency and conserve a precious and dwindling resource. Of course I do not advocate taking to caves and giving up oil cold turkey, and certainly alternatives have to be developed, but in tandem with reasonable compromises in living standards that can no longer be sustained. As the author implies, peak oil does not admit of “business as usual” no matter what the alternatives; indeed, his bullet-point list includes changes similar to the “rationing” I suggest:
<Use less oil. Transforming our transportation system from one where the car and truck dominate to one where rail and public transport dominate is a logical risk mitigation strategy>.
Peak oil presents as a paradigm shift that demands sacrifices as well as innovations. And yes, we should be asking why this isn't happening.

I think the nearest I can get to what I believe is zero growth would be
sero growth in GDP. You could mix it up with all sorts of concepts but
even if your effort was in non energy projects or processes you still
have to eat and wear things out, so even that would not be energy zero.

As for alternate fuels, the Hirsch report pointed out that it will take
at least 20 years to get to a new energy regime.
So it is the time between now and then that is the problem.

*The necessary innovations should not be market-driven, but publicly-funded and conservatively based on sustainable population models.*

As it is, Govt spends something like 40-50% of GDP. Govt is free
to finance all the research that it wants to bankroll. Fact is that
Govt hardly has a great record of picking winners.

We haven't even scratched the surface of effiency, when it comes
to energy. Last time I checked, only a small % of Australian houses
even have a solar hot water system.

*phasing out the private motor car, unnecessary air-travel,
McMansions*

Meantime people like me will point out the hypocracy of all this,
whilst some people keep popping out unlimited kids. So are you going
to ban more then 2?

Try and ban the motor car in the country and you city slickers won't
have any food to eat, unless your grow it yourselves. Its not going
to happen. But electric cars make sense, gas powered cars make sense,
all possible in Australia.

High liquid fuel prices will drive these things, including coal to
fuel.

The solution to the energy story won't be one magic pill, but a whole
host of alternatives, all playing their role. Some would not have
even yet been discovered, but stay tuned, because it could be tomorrow
that they happen.

Squeers has yet to make a good argument as to why we should not
consume resources, especially those that can be recycled, like
most metals etc.

As to capitalism, that can function at the village level, as it did
100 years ago. Either Govt knows best or people know best. I have
yet to see a Govt who does know best. Govt is free to show us how
clever it is, with the 40% of GDP that we are forced to donate
to it, every year. Their record is hardly a great one of spending
and investing wisely. More likely, it fattens little pigs at the
top of the Canberra trough.