)Julie - I know that people have been to see you about peak oil and have explained the situation to you. The world's current economic situation was predicted by the "peakists" 10 years ago and the fact that oil production is on a plateau while demand for oil (and its price) rises is the main factor underlying this crisis. (The inability to expand the physical economy due to energy limitations leads to "expansion" of the financial economy - i.e. more debt generation leading to illusory growth in value - e.g. property values.

What this means is that no amount of "stimulus" (more debt generation) is going to bring the world economy out of its current malaise. The only truly useful stimulus would be that which goes into supporting low-energy agriculture and renewable energy projects.

We have entered a 50 year contraction phase that will end with a new equilibrium between what humans demand and nature can provide. A true free market might help in some ways and we have certainly not had that with public money being used to bail out banks as a reward for their bad behaviour. but regulation with the interest of the public at heart will be necessary to maintain social cohesion as the world economy contracts and people scramble to hoard for themselves the world's dwindling resources. Of course, forcing population growth in Australia under such circumstances is insanity incarnate.

Julie fails to understand a number of important issues. Governments do not drive the economy? If you consider all the important things, all the services that are most beneficial to you, all material needs and wants, how many of them were or are produced by governments?

As Albert Jay Nock has stated “governments have no resources or power of its own. Everything it has, it has taken from us. It produces nothing, but exists only to the extent it can feed off its host - wealth creation aimed at serving customers in the private economy.”

As Bill Bonner rightfully stated, “GDP is just another phony government number.”

GDP growth alone is a fraud with the number not telling you anything worthwhile. It matters not how fast an economy grows it is the growth per person/capita and more importantly whether or not that growth is real. Growth as governments have grown to define it is not the same as prosperity. Politicians and economists are quacks when it comes to understanding the real economy and it is availability of cheap energy and the access and continued access to cheap non-renewable natural resources.

Our federal and state governments depend upon private-sector growth so it can be taxed. Likewise local governments are dependent upon the same flawed model.

Growth and economic success is not generated by the government.

It’s insanity to believe governments create jobs and economic wealth and prosperity, this occurs only in the private sector.

As worldwide non-renewable natural resources decline, populations continue to grow and more and more people consume these resources, there can be but one outcome. We are in the early phase of a permanent shift toward austerity whether we like it or not, get used to it.

As Benjamin Franklin said “"There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by war... This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is generally cheating? The third by agriculture, the only honest way”.

Julie, your complete lack of knowledge of limits, energy and per capita economics is a flaw in your deluded thinking.

Julie, the most important part of your otherwise rambling, rather pointless article was contained in the following:

"Similarly, the ongoing threats of an Israeli and/or US strike against Iran’s nuclear program has raised concerns of retaliation from Iran that could include missile attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz."

You forgot to mention that Israel's precipitous action might well start a nuclear war that might see off the human race.

The Australian Government and the Opposition, along with other 'democratic' Governments around the world, should be jumping up and down trying to stop Israel's madness (which is facilitated by the U.S. of A.).

Yet there is complete silence from so-called leaders like yourself.

Julie, another lightweight piece of analysis! Why do you bother writing such articles?

I love this line:

"A solution to Europe’s ongoing financial and economic crisis has proven elusive, despite the attention of some of the finest economic minds in the world."

These so called 'finest economic minds' who did not predict the GFC will not be able to solve it either. Why? Because their economic models of exponential growth do not conform to the harsh reality of a finite planet.

Limits to growth Julie. They are what is keeping the hoped for recovery from taking hold. Any policy position that does not acknowledge them is bound to fail.

The Great Depression and the more recent GFC was preceded and caused by the accumulation of more and more of our finite wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
Moreover, the Great Depression started out as a still manageable recession that was turned into the Great depression, by Hoover's and other's ultra conservative Ideology; and the contraction caused by their imposed austerity.
We were rescued by Keynesian economics and expansionist/make work policy paradigms.
Every western style economy rest on just two support pillars! Capital and energy.
The more we pay for energy, rents etc, the less we have for the discretionary spending our domestic economy depends on.
Around the US and almost every capital, are the tent cities of the unemployed, the homeless and displaced, a la, the Great Depression.
Extreme right wing Idealogs are once again, trying to impose the very same contraction/austerity measures, that turned a still manageable recession into the Great Depression.
The most profound lesson of history teaches us, that no rigid recalcitrant right wing Idealog ever learns the lessons of history. But may well rewrite and otherwise misrepresent the most cogent historical facts? Thus we see Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and economy contracting austerity presented as a remedy/method of/for, producing economic growth and expansion, we need to address our current global economic stagnation/reversal!
Yes, as others have pointed out, energy and its overpricing, by market cornering, profit demanding/price gouging middlemen speculators, have created much of the current problem, further compounded by Middle East volatility.
We should see and seize the opportunities and the economic growth these challenges provide/present; and not just for us, but friends and allies alike.
By, for starters, exploring and exploiting the possibly quite massive hydrocarbon reserves that lie to our immediate north, a euphemism for the Great Barrier reef.
Rhrosty.

Michael & Geoff, the US is currently moving towards being an oil exporter again, & would be awash with the stuff if they could just get rid of Obama, & start harvesting on government lands.

As Rhrosty keeps telling everyone, we have enough oil for a century or so in Queensland, & enough gas for a few more, once we start to harvest it, & that's just the stuff we know about.

However Rhrosty, if you think expansion is the answer to the EU & it's overspending welfare states, why don't you go buy Greek & Spanish bonds. The returns are very high, & you could participate in the experiment to see if you are right. Help keep them spending, & save everybody.

I do agree with you all that Julie does not do herself any favours with these pieces of fluff, except perhaps to show us how many have believed all the spin they've been fed these last few years.

For those of you worried about waste, start at the top. Eliminate the UN, & the EU, & there will be billions to go around.

Hasbeen, I think you should take a look at this link http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-08-22/don%E2%80%99t-count-revolution-oil-supply it outlines some of the issues the world faces in terms of continuing the growth paradigm.

I would also suggest you look at this additional report (PDF) http://www.countercurrents.org/clugston190812.pdf and it will give you a real sense of how much trouble we are really in.

If you think we can overcome some of these fundamental predicaments I would be interested to read your response.

Cheers

Geoff

Hasbeen, no plans to buy junk bonds, regardless of the rate of return! Don't fancy the "risk".
My beef with the European economy, or those who are responsible for its direction, is the mindless austerity paradigm.
Having run several businesses over my lifetime, I know and understand that the best way out of trouble or possible bankruptcy, is trade and or increased commerce, rather than less; given, base costs remain a constant, or can be reduced!
My solution, if it is one, is to develop and export our much lower carbon producing potentially massive energy products, at significantly less cost to both Europe and the US. This would be helpful to both the global economy and environment!
This would help inasmuch as, it would reduce base costs, and free up some of the discretionary spend; to allow it once again, add to and progressively ramp up economic activity.
It is in Australia's ultimate interest that the largest economies pick up/recover. As they do so, they will likely buy more Chinese made "stuff".
That in turn will underpin a symbiotic increase in Chinese economic activity, and a consequent rise in our exports; and or, terms of trade.
Apart from that, we need to quite dramatically reform and vastly simplify our tax act, tax collection and trade practises act! A good example others will follow?
We clearly need foreign capital, which would better serve our needs as export incomes, rather than more foreign debt!
And it would also assist, if we adopted/accepted a more cooperative, less corrosive form of capitalism, that puts/engages essential competition, with elements of the global economy; rather than, with states or other Australians.
That being so, we also need to invest in Australians and their better ideas, rather than debt laden, debt servicing, foreign "investors"!
[Cheap energy has always underpinned economic development and human freedom! Something as simple as a water wheel freed as much as one hundred humans; per wheel, from endlessly repetitive work, and or, slavery?]
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Michael in Adelaide writes

'We have entered a 50 year contraction phase that will end with a new equilibrium between what humans demand and nature can provide'

Yes in school in the 1970's we were told definetely no oil by the end of the century. Nothing changes in the propaganda wars.

I doubt that Julia writes many of these articles let alone reads the responses.

The singular perpetrator of economic oppression is the banking system.They own our productivity by virtue of creating from nothing all the money to equal it as debt.

It is enslavement from which we cannot ever escape unless we challenge their present authority who own our toil.The present economic situation will only get worse.Remember the "Green Shoots lies"? "Quantitative easing" is just the counterfeiting of our currency and we again get it as debt.They continue to steal from us and the pollies have not a clue.

Geoff of perth

‘If you consider all the important things, all the services that are most beneficial to you, all material needs and wants, how many of them were or are produced by governments?’

If you mean government as in parliament … then the answer is zilch. If you mean government as in public service departments, then the answer is … before the 1980s – lots!

Before mass global privatisation, governments actually earned considerable revenue in their own right, via their many, varied and profitable enterprises and utilities. Not only did this revenue go back into public wealth, it also provided a major ongoing source of reliable employment. Because government profits did not have to be maximised for distribution to shareholders, board member salaries and (mostly) foreign owners’ coffers, the fees and rates could be kept to a minimum.

Once the global privatisation juggernaut took hold in the 1980s, leading to mass sell-offs of government departments and utilities, revenues formerly earned by the government sector have been stripped from public wealth and redirected to the private sector. Likewise, fees and rates have skyrocketed to feed the profit monster.

The main reason government services can now be portrayed as ‘non-productive’ is because thirty years of privatisation has stripped them of their public earning power.

So the GFC was a product of peak oil, not a crisis in the banking system? I hadn't heard that one before, and I'd be stunned if there was any evidence for it.

Peak oil is no longer a problem for the foreseeable future. Unconventional gas finds have changed the energy equation.

Julie's basic point is well-made - all of these Keynesian solutions aren't making the problem any better. A strong economy rests on the ability of people to make decisions in their own interest, not have them taken out of their hands by governments.

I find it quite amazing how many people have bought into the unconventional gas is a game changer argument and that peak oil is no longer a problem. Without even getting into a detailed analysis the fact that gas is not oil and cannot readily be interchanged for oil in the majority of applications should give a fair indication that it is not a solution to peak oil. Peak oil is not the most immediate problem anyway; it is the declining quantity of oil available in the export markets (due to an increasing number of oil exporting nations ceasing to be oil exporters as their domestic consumption matches or exceeds their domestic production, the increasing consumption levels of the remaining exporters and rapid demand growth from China and India).

And a fair argument could be made that the oil price spike was a major contributor to the GFC (along with of course the other factors such as too much debt and a bursting US housing bubble). At least that is according to respected economist James Hamilton who along with others has identified that every post war recession (less one) in the US was proceeded by an oil price spike. (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/01/oil_shocks_and_2.html)

And the other comment that I find staggering that people believe is that the "US is currently moving towards being an oil exporter again."

A slight but not insignificant uptick in production does not constitute the US becoming a net oil exporter again. Go read the data from the US governments very own Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=p1#pet

2011 Consumption: 18,835 mb/d
2011 Production: 10,107 mb/d

Deficit (eg. imports): 8,728 mb/d

To put that in context that deficit is about 10% of global oil production.

Leckos you are infatuated with oil.Gas as Grahamy pointed out is taking over.Also there are at least 500 yrs of coal left which can be liquified.

There is no shortage of energy,just a shortage of imagination and courage by people like you.

Graham, prepare to be stunned:

Colin Campbell predicted the current economic malaise in 2005:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxO0AAEcojU

Economist Professor James Hamilton of the University of California in a Brookings Institute publication blamed the oil price spike of 2008 for triggering the financial crisis and bursting of the USA housing debt bubble. This is mentioned here:

http://oil-price.net/en/articles/did-high-oil-prices-cause-financial-crash.php

and Hamilton's paper is available here:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2009_spring_bpea_papers/2009a_bpea_hamilton.pdf

Other related work by Hamilton can be found here:

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/

Even the IMF is coming around, slowly, to a peak oil way of thinking about economic growth although it has a long way to go:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/13/oil-price-doubling-decade-imf

And if you still believe that unconventional gas will save the world then you have obviously not bothered to read or listen to anything by Art Berman:

http://www.energybulletin.net/media/2012-06-20/after-goldrush-learning-us-shale-gas-experience

Why do you think BHP had to write down its US shale gas "assets"?

Of course, most people cannot understand that the laws of physics might limit human ambition or underpin the behaviour of a system such as the human economy. But without an understanding of energy any form of economic thinking can never accurately reflect (or predict) reality.

MIA,anyone who quotes the IMF counterfeiters as a reliable source of information has lost it also.They are part of the New World Order and the Banking Miliatry Industrial Complex who want us all totally subjugated.

Michael the reason BHP has written down it's shale gas assets is that it is so cheap & easy to extract, so many companies are doing it that the price of gas has dropped by 70%. In the US, unlike here, companies have to sell on the open market. The profit margins are way down.

Utilities are converting to it from coal in some power generation plants with suitable systems, because it is now cheaper than coal, in many places. Other than the fool states mandating wind power, electricity prices in many states of the US are falling like a stone.

Not only that, but quite a bit of oil is coming from the same shale, with the fracking. Many other ageing oil wells are now flowing better than when new, after fracking.

If the Club of Rome were hoping oil shortages would send us back to subsistence farming, they now know they require another fraud. Peak oil has failed, as has global warming.

Haven't you noticed they are trying on ocean acidification as a replacement scare campaign? Pity for them the physics doesn't work there either. They are going to have to find a good one, like the boy who called wolf too often, they have blown it. Those who aren't really dumb, or fellow travelers, are going to take much more to scare them in future.

Arjay, imagination is the operative word here. To believe that there is endless energy to maintain current levels of energy consumption requires "the willing suspension of disbelief."

How exactly will gas take over from oil (apart from in power generation)? Gas provides power generation, ethylene for plastics, fertiliser and a very small fraction for transportation fuels such as CNG. It isn't a mainstream transportation fuel. There is hardly a major transition being made to CNG cars nor is there the infrastructure in place. Whilst yes theoretically this transition could take place we are talking about a timeframe measured in decades for it to have any real impact (where is the $$). Gas (and Coal) to Liquids is a very expensive proposition.

Hence why I focus so heavily on oil, it is the limiting factor (Liebig's law of the minimum) currently for the global economy and will put an upper limit on any economic "recovery."

Organisations such as the IEA now talk about all liquids production rather than conventional or crude oil production. Virtually all of the statistically insignificant increase in liquids fuel production since 2005 has come from liquids other than conventional oil, which has reached a prolonged plateau. These other liquids are inferior to oil in their energy density (eg ethanol and Natural Gas Plant Liquids), energy return on investment (biofuels and NGPLs) and scalability (all of the alternates).

It is not courageous to believe in wishful thinking. It is courageous to understand that the current organisation of society is heading to a torrid time so to start developing alternative ways of meeting humand kinds needs!

Hasbeen - obviously you have not listened to or read anything by Art Berman either! Do so and you will understand why gas prices are so low despite the fact that shale gas wells are relatively unproductive (short production life, high initial cost). Go on - challenge your preconceptions - do it!

And ocean acificication is about chemistry, not physics. And it can be measured. They were already talking about it in the news back in 2003.

The road to recovery lies in thinking outside the box. Doing what you've always done and expecting a different result is madness!
Austerity is not the answer.
They all have central banks, which are at least allegedly owned by the people. They retain the power to lend to themselves at 0%? Or write off debt, or buy each others bailout bonds, at very basic rates. [Social credit?]
The size of the total debt is no longer important; but rather, how can we once again grow the global economy so as we can begin to draw down debt.
Others are right on the money, when they say energy and its over pricing, kick-started the current economic malaise. Others tried and failed to compensate, for overvalued energy, [$87.00 a barrel, was the tipping point,] with the overvaluing and over-leveraging of assets?
Those banks that participated in creating illusionary wealth, or kick the debt can down the road via the creation of basically worthless derivatives? Are now basically bankrupt; and, must be first broken up, with those parts still solvent, allowed to continue to trade to see if they can trade their way out of trouble.
The rest have to be allowed to fail and or fall over.
Energy and its cost is still part of the problem, and an anchor that is continuing to hold back any real recovery or improved economic activity/outlook.
They/we need to break the hold of oil and energy cartels, with much cheaper, and or, endlessly sustainable alternatives.
Starting with the conversion of all biological waste into clean green energy and increasingly expensive soil conditioning organic fertilizer.
Just this much, would demand increased manufacturing, jobs, incomes, larger tax receipts/discretionary spending etc/etc.
Which if given sufficient initial impetus, would snowball.
As long as we produce biological waste we can convert it into energy.
And at least enough to power, cool and heat our homes.
Algae farming is also another source of oil/future energy, and a way to, break up the cartels, force them to once again compete for market share; and, impose downward pressure on energy prices.
Rhrosty.

It is quite likely that those who try to use the tired old "continuous growth" model for recovery will just go broke doing it. Eventually we produce far more than the world wants and can afford to pay for, by borrowing much more than we can afford to service and repay. By lowering our expectations, waste and spending but encouraging governments to bring infrastructure up to standard , funded by long term borrowings we have a good chance of slowly recovering. Boom times like these just lead people to lose their homes and businesses when the bubble bursts as it always does.

Michael, when the facts change I change my mind. I certainly believed that peak oil was an issue, but it isn't now, not if you look at the spectrum of hydrocarbon fuel sources. For every expert you cite there are dozens that disagree. Citations are not a fruitful way to conduct an argument.

Hasbeen is quite right. The reason that BHP had to write down gas assets is because there is so much of it around that the price has collapsed. Because it is expensive to transport the world market for gas is not homogenous in the way that the oil market is, so you can get higher prices selling it into Japan, and at the moment China. The Chinese are likely to have huge gas deposits too, so how long Australian natural gas will trade at the prices it does is anyone's guess.

I'll take the market signals before your experts' opinions on this issue.

As for peak oil causing the GFC, I myself argued that high oil prices were having a dampening effect on economies and that therefore interest rates could be set lower than they were being set, but that doesn't mean the oil price, which is a separate issue from peak oil, caused the GFC.

The GFC was caused by an overstretched credit bubble bursting. The inability to keep expanding credit was the major issue, not the increase in some prices.

If oil prices had caused the GFC you would have expected mortgage defaults to happen before the GFC but they actually tended to happen after. Without mortgage defaults I can't see what your mechanism for transferring oil prices into the financial crisis is.

Graham, I have been following the peak oil story since 2005. In that time I have conducted a major review of whether my opinion was supported by the evidence or I was just convincing myself that it was a major problem probably a dozen times or more.

What we can safely say is fact are the following:
1. Global oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have been in long term decline since.
2. Since the 1980s we have consumed more oil each year than we have discovered.
3. A large and growing number of countries appear (barring some major new discoveries) to be past their peak oil production.
4. The energy return on investment is showing a major long term decline.
5. Oil exports from oil exporting nations have been declining since 2005 and show no sign of reversing.
6. Despite the significant and sustained rise in oil prices over the last decade oil production increases have been statistically insignficant since 2005 (a couple of per cent rise).
7. Most optimistic predictions of oil production growth have proven to be inaccurate and/or been down graded.
8. Most major new developments (Thunder Horse, Brazil's deepwater, Kazakhstan) have taken longer to develop and been more expensive than planned and underperformed production wise.
9. Decline rates are generally agreed to be around the 4% mark and expected to increase over time meaning more and more new production is required just to maintain current production.
10. The alternatives are inferior to crude oil on a net energy basis (thanks thermodynamics!) and produce less useful energy for the economy than crude oil.

More to follow

Continued:

11. Most major oil producers are located in geopolitically unstable parts of the world and have competing interests to OECD (oil importing nations).

What we can infer, although I won't call them facts as yet is that:

1. Corn based ethanol is a marginal energy source that has had a signifcant negative impact on food prices.
2. The hydrogen economy does not look like it will ever be a serious proposition.
3. Algal based biofuels are a marginal fuel source if that (hence why the US Dept of Energy has cancelled its research program).
4. That efforts to develop the infrastructure to reduce oil consumption have been insignificant (Hirsch Report stated that it would take 20 years of wartime mobilisation type effort to mitigate peak oil).

The uptick in US oil production from tight oil is about the only upside from an oil production perspective but when you look at the details (extremely high decline rates, drilling costs and number of wells that need to be drilled, financial situation of tight oil companies etc) maintaining let alone increasing this production will be extremely challenging.

In summary peak oil is a major problem (well predicament actually). In a sense the major reason why it does not appear to be a problem now is the state of the global financial system and the sovereign debt crisis, which has reduced demand for oil.

Hi Graham, replies between your lines:

"Michael, when the facts change I change my mind."

Except when they are uncomfortable. Most people, including yourself it seems, believe what is convenient. Like I said before, "most people cannot understand that the laws of physics might limit human ambition or underpin the behaviour of a system such as the human economy. But without an understanding of energy any form of economic thinking can never accurately reflect (or predict) reality."

"I certainly believed that peak oil was an issue, but it isn't now, not if you look at the spectrum of hydrocarbon fuel sources. For every expert you cite there are dozens that disagree. Citations are not a fruitful way to conduct an argument."

How convenient! The problem is that, to scientists, citations are the way we conduct arguments. But if your idea of economic (not scientific) "truth" is established by how high you can stack your experts on each side of an issue then I can understand why you do not bother to read/listen to the references I have given but continue to believe what is comfortable for you.

"Hasbeen is quite right. The reason that BHP had to write down gas assets is because there is so much of it around that the price has collapsed. Because it is expensive to transport the world market for gas is not homogenous in the way that the oil market is, so you can get higher prices selling it into Japan, and at the moment China. The Chinese are likely to have huge gas deposits too, so how long Australian natural gas will trade at the prices it does is anyone's guess."

Like I said to Hasbeen - listen to Art Berman's talk. Then you can, yourself, make sensible comments on this issue rather than regurgitating the oil industry's hype.

(continued below)

(continued)

"I'll take the market signals before your experts' opinions on this issue."

In other words, you will continue to anticipate the future by looking in the rear view mirror. It works for a while but does not end well!

"As for peak oil causing the GFC, I myself argued that high oil prices were having a dampening effect on economies and that therefore interest rates could be set lower than they were being set, but that doesn't mean the oil price, which is a separate issue from peak oil, caused the GFC."

You have not bothered to read Hamilton. Do so and then we can have a sensible argument.

"The GFC was caused by an overstretched credit bubble bursting. The inability to keep expanding credit was the major issue, not the increase in some prices."

Yes, but the bursting was triggered by the oil price spike (see Hamilton). And the property bubble itself was driven by an inability to expand the real economy due to the non-availability of increased energy flows - so "increased value" instead was generated by speculation on property made possible by easy money generation trough cheap debt. Maybe you need to watch the video "money as debt" to understand this.

"If oil prices had caused the GFC you would have expected mortgage defaults to happen before the GFC but they actually tended to happen after. Without mortgage defaults I can't see what your mechanism for transferring oil prices into the financial crisis is."

See my comment above and read Hamilton.

There is indeed no point in arguing with you Michael if your only form of rebuttal is to suggest I read a book that you have read but whose arguments you apparently can't, or won't, advance or explain. I am not going to do the hard work for you of reading the pieces, distilling their arguments, presenting them here, and then rebutting them.

I should also point out that scientific argument is not carried out by citation. It is carried out on the basis of principle, hypothesis, counter-hypothesis and ultimately experiment.

The only respectable intellectual field that I know of where citation is actually the basis of much argument is the law, and in that case, given that each judgement is in essence an experiment, and succeeding judges will be bound or guided by these judgements in the judgements that they make, that is a reasonable and logical way to proceed.

Leckos, it is true that we are probably near some peak in oil, but given the alternative hydrocarbon energy sources that is no longer an issue. It may be for my children or grandchildren, but not for me.

And given the availability of nuclear energy, energy is unlikely to be a limiting factor for generations, if ever. The issues with peak oil were not to do with availability of energy per se, but transitioning to alternative transport fuels, as well as potential problems with finding alternative feedstocks for fertilisers, plastics etc.

I think all of you Cornucopians need to stop and smell the roses.

I go back to the second link that I posted, actually read it and consider the ramifications, you can go on about tight shale, nuclear, bio fuels, algae, whatever you want, the simple fact is unavoidable, look at EROEI and the PDF and you will see we have a predicament not a problem.

Problems can be solved, predicaments can't, it is that simple.

Please read this fully and then comment with some authority:

http://www.countercurrents.org/clugston190812.pdf

Cheers

Geoff

"There is indeed no point in arguing with you Michael if your only form of rebuttal is to suggest I read a book that you have read but whose arguments you apparently can't, or won't, advance or explain. I am not going to do the hard work for you of reading the pieces, distilling their arguments, presenting them here, and then rebutting them."

How can anyone have a decent argument on a forum that limits the word count so severely? The point about scientific arguments is that they are based on evidence that people publish (usually in papers) and that are then cited. There are no books involved in the links I put above - the longest one is a report by Hamilton - but you obviously are not interested in challenging your beliefs if you expect me to produce summaries of these in 350 words. (And why would I spend ages concisely summarising ideas for someone with [despite protestations otherwise] apparently fixed ideas when I can just refer them to the report and they can read it in detail or scan read it for themselves?) However, it seems (apart from your failure to understand EROEI) that one of the cornerstones upon which you base your optimism for the future is that there is a flood of cheap gas out there just waiting to be harvested. In that case, just take 40 minutes of your time and look at the presentation by Art Berman that I mentioned earlier:

http://www.energybulletin.net/media/2012-06-20/after-goldrush-learning-us-shale-gas-experience

You probably didn't notice that I had given up on you Graham after you allowed Malcolm King to publish his lies and then refused to do anything about it. But no matter - there is now much broader awareness in public and political circles of the peak oil issue (Leckie's excellent recent ADF Journal publication is a good example) and the population debate in Australia has exploded far beyond OLO's readership (visit the Global Population Speak Out Facebook page to see). However, it is still interesting to comment on some of the wilder views of your contributors.

Michael, I'm not in the habit of calling people liars, but what you have said in your last paragraph is an untruth, and it is hard to believe that it is not a deliberate untruth, which would make it a lie.

There were no "lies" in Malcolm King's article. You objected to his reporting that Sandra Kanck had supported a "one child policy" for Australia, and that he had accidentally made her president of the wrong body. You further suggested that this was defamatory.

In fact there are any number of media reports which verify that Ms Kanck indeed said what Malcolm attributes to her as this Google search will verify https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sandra+kanck+one+child. This comment was not a lie, and therefore not defamatory.

Attributing someone's presidency to the wrong organisation is not defamatory either, generally speaking.

Your complaint appeared to me to be an attempt to shut Malcolm down, not a genuine complaint about something that really was a falsehood.

I'm always interested in challenging my beliefs, but I don't have the time to go and read every book or link you throw at me, particularly when you care so little for them you can't condense their argument yourself. Other people cope with the word limit, so I can't see why you can't. If you need more words, then write an article.

GrahamY, noting your above comments, I agree that is often difficult to read everything that someone puts up as a link. The 350 word limit is almost ridiculous given the importance of this on-line forum.

However, If you have twenty minutes to spare I would really appreciate if you could read the PDF that I posted today, it clearly spells our what Michael in Adelaide is talking about.

EROEI is the key, you can have all the gas and the other myriad of new "Energy Solutions" you like, oil however is the game-breaker and whether or not you believe in 'Peak Oil" or not, the geological limits support the real facts.

Energy is now in a spiral of limited return, capital, under our current fractional reserve banking system is beyond help, stimulate all you like, drill all you like, austerity is the new norm.

I really think rational people should take off the rose-coloured glasses and assess the facts as they are, we are in a 'lot of trouble' energy wise, not if's not but's just reality.

My 2c worth

Cheers

Geoff

Graham, do you seriously want us to believe that Malcolm King who was apparently, "director of the RMIT writing programs. He was also a senior media adviser for the ALP and Democrats" did not know what he was doing when falsely describing Kanck as president of the "Sustainable People Lobby" rather than "Sustainable Population Australia"? I see that the text of King's article has now been changed to remove some (not all) of the "untruths". For the record, here is my comment from that article and I continue to stand by it,

"Wow - this article started with lies and then it was all downhill from there. There is no such thing as the "Sustainable People Lobby". Sandra Kanck is the president of Sustainable Population Australia that has patrons Bob Carr, Paul Collins, Mary White, Ian Lowe and Tim Flannery.

"Malcolm says that "SPGN wants to stop all immigration". This is a lie. SPGN wants to reduce NET immigration to zero. Since about 85,000 people emigrate from Australia each year this allows for the same number to immigrate in Australia.

"Malcolm tries to pretend that Europe's population growth rate is somehow representative of Australia when, at 1.6-2%, ours is more similar to many developing world nations. SPGN has no influence over Europe, Africa or other nations - it is an Australian political party.

"Malcolm is a Labor Party media advisor and the Labor Party is seriously concerned about SPGN's activities in South Australia. South Australia recently changed it political party registration laws to make it very difficult for new parties to register or for parties without a parliamentary representative to remain registered.

"It is disappointing that OLO allows unsupported lies to be published when the slightest bit of fact-checking would reveal them. This should be an embarrassment for OLO and is definitely one of their lower moments."

Sorry - no more articles for OLO - I want the things I write to be taken more seriously than that.

Michael you are right about "Money as Debt" and the financial system that enslaves us but energy is not a problem.The real environmental issues are being ignored.CO2 is not a problem.Toxic materials and "hot particles" such as Caesium and Iodine are the real threats to our environment.

Overpopulation will be the least of our worries if Fukushima continues to spew out radiation.Male sperm counts continue to fall world wide.Israel has had a 40% reduction in the last 10yrs which they believe is due to the Gulf Wars.The USA is seriously considering in using strategic nuke weapons.There is evidence in Iraq that they have already done so.

Having a good souce of human genetic material amy well be our biggest problem in the coming decades.

Get a wider view of what's happenning here; http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Michael, if you think the things Malcolm wrote are lies then you are unsuited to being involved in public debate. No problem if you don't want to send me any more articles. That is your problem as you appear to believe that OLO should only publish material that you agree with.

We are a public forum. We don't publish articles as a statement of our position. We don't guarantee that everything in the articles we publish is correct. If we did, and if newspapers and other media did the same with op-eds, precious few would get published here, or anywhere else, including the stuff you send in.

They are called op-eds because that is precisely what they are "opinion editorials".

Graham - I have been such a fool! I actually thought that worthwhile and educational agument was based on facts which is why I like to support my arguments with citations (and I challenge you to find a lie in anything I have written). But it seems you (and so OLO) do not care about verifiable lies which would make the quality of argument here on OLO nothing but meaningless jabber. So what purpose does OLO serve actually? Does it simply exist to provide you with an income and some degree of social prestige?

What worth is an opinion if not supported by facts? What worth is an argument if it does not help us find a clearer understanding of reality? Why would anyone interested in enlightenment waste their time reading here?

I feel sorry for you Graham - what you are involved in obviously has no meaning and cannot make a net contribution to society.

Michael in Adelaide has it right !
He did however fail to explain to some who thought it strange that oil
price could cause a crash.

It worked like this;
First this is what set it up.
Oil production stopped rising in 2005-2006.
As price started up during 2007 ethanol also became more expensive
pushing up the price of grain and subsequently food prices followed along.
This started to put pressure on mortgagees to make choices of either
driving to work, buying food or paying the mortgage.

If you look at the figures mortgage default rates rose during 2007
and early 2008 finally triggering the Collaterised Default Swaps (CDS).

It was the sudden activation of the CDSs that revealed how fraudulent
the whole CDS system was as oil prices soared to $147.
This caused the collapse of Learmans and several others.
This caused more unemployment and the crash was then made worse.

All this hit the fan when the cost of oil reached about 4% of GDP.

But as someone else mentioned we now use about 5 to 6 times more oil
each year that we discover each year.

There is only one way that can finish !

Well Michael, as you appear to be being deliberately untruthful about Malcolm, and my attitude to Malcolm's piece, I guess that must make you a liar. As I say, not an accusation I generally level, but you invited me to.

The only substantive thing that Malcolm could have said that could be construed as being deliberately wrong was the suggestion that Kanck had supported a one child policy, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that this assertion was correct, including from her party, the Australian Democrats.

Bazz, I acknowledged that fuel prices would have contributed somewhat to mortgage stress in the US, but there was no dramatic uptick in inflation, so one would have to say other costs were dropping at the same time. I'd say refinancing problems and the bust of the boom were the major causes, plus the finish of the initial low interest rate periods that many loans had.

Graham Y; Food price rises were quite severe and were hit not just by
grain price rises but the transport and production of food as well.

It was all so predictable. Many warned that it wold happen and it
happened within a year or two of the predicted date.
See Campbell, Deffeyes and others.

Unfortunately all politicians, except Martin Ferguson, refuse to look
at the problem from this aspect. It seems that many of them do know
about the problem but when spoken to try to shift the conversation
away to other problems.
Of course Barnaby Joyce has also spoken on the subject but seems to
have been silenced.

Energy and its ever increasing cost clearly contributed to the GFC. At least 70% of our economy is the domestic economy.
When energy charges impact negatively on fixed household budgets and the cost of virtually everything else, we simply have less to spend on the domestic economy.
Oil is the product of algae and millions of years of metamorphose.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and virtual child's play to extract.
Our local High oil content algae is in demand in the US?
Perhaps we should patent it and then trade that patent for the one that catalyticly converts methane, NG/BIOGAS, into liquid methanol. [A substitute for petrol/Avgas.]
Science has already established a way to circumvent those years/metamorphose.
A couple of mercs are running around Silicon Valley on algae sourced bio-diesel. And Dutch jets are flying on algae sourced fuel?
All that is required are economies of scale to make this source of endlessly sustainable future fuel, far less costly than the naturally occurring variety.
Heavier thicker oil is available just by recycling our waste tyres.
All Australia's tyres, and industrial microwaves, could potentially, produce something in the order of 500,000 barrels of the stuff annually.
Yes sure, it will take money to develop these and other equally promising alternatives.
That money will likely come from long overdue pragmatism/development and exploitation of our most promising northern hydrocarbon prospects, which according to published industry experts, could even eclipse the entire Middle East's reserves?
Arguably, the real reason why they are or have been locked away?
Unfolding Middle East volatility, may well force a change of really stupid, shoot yourself in your own economic foot policies, and see this probable source of quite massive future export incomes, [which if developed as a public project;] could conceivably, double or treble internal revenue.
As opposed to what happens now, with most of our natural wealth prospering offshore entities and foreign investors/international, tax avoiding, cartels?
And or, petrol pump prices, which are progressively killing our economy!
Rhrosty.

Yes algae is hopefully a future source of liquid fuel.
There has been a lot of optimism about shale oil in the US and elsewhere.
I have seen a calculation, on the Oil Drum I think that the shale oil
production in the US will delay decline by two weeks !

Which brings me to Rhosty's comment on Australia's tyres producing
500,000 barrels. Hmmm, that would last 12 hours !
Well every bit helps.
Then what would be the energy input to process those tyres ?
So after the processing would there be 6 hours of fuel available ?
Per year that is !

No we are going to have to think of something else to get recovery going.

ICELAND!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577396171007652042.html

Haircut for the bond holders, bankruptcy for the banks, prosecution for the culpable management, debt relief for the lower classes, devaluation of the currency, expansion of the welfare net.

Fairly common sense response really - and the bond holders who swore they would never again come back? - yep they're back.

Or you can go on doing things the US way as Europe has by protecting the bond holders, bailing out the banks, rewarding corrupt management, sustaining a currency value, punishing honest debtors and cutting welfare. All the while pretending you are defending free enterprise.

What idiot thought that could ever work? - The banking fraternity who created the problem

In reality, no one thought it would work.
Welcome to the Will to Power; where there is no purpose but power itself: where wars and financial crisis remain permanent fixtures. I could go on but it is pointless.

Yebiga said;
expansion of the welfare net.

Really ? Sorry you don't have the money !
We will be winding down, not up !