Cheryl said:
Bazz, I thought you were talking about housing.

However just two posts back Cheryl said:
Domestic energy consumption is less than 30 percent of gross production. We export almost 30 billion of food.

Your comment on Bernard Salt, whoever he might be, but energy is behind everything.
Without energy at an affordable price you cannot build houses, grow
food or indeed do anything including increase the population.
No Cheryl, it does take more energy to grow food now than it used to.
We ship it further, we use no longer use animal power, who got their
energy from other paddocks set aside for fodder.
We process food more than we used to in that it is packaged
differently and the greater variety of food requires more energy.

Australia is entering an era on being dependant on overseas supply
of liquid fuels. It is these liquid fuels that is the key to food
production and also a very large factor in energy consumption.
Your quote of domestic consumption is as you said only 30% but what
do you think the rest does ? It puts food on your table and a roof
over your head and keeps you warm.

I seriously doubt that in the longer term we will have enough energy
available to support a larger population.
That is why I complained that the politicians don't even want to
find out just how many we can support.

so we should cut population because we're consuming too much food?

Or it's too expensive to produce in terms of energy? Is that your take?

The reason that I ask those questions is that if you believe we are going to run out of oil over the next 200 years or when ever and shale or synthetics won't do the job, then it doesn't matter about population because we're knackered anyway. See what I mean?

In fact, the most insightful thinking has been about new power sources rather than consumption. If though, you (and many of the anti-pops are) are fixated by consumption then your thinking might be more fruitfully directed at criticising large corporations and their inefficient supply chains and waste.

No Cheryl, you misunderstand what peak oil is all about.

It is NOT about running out of oil !
It is about reaching the maximum amount of oil that can be produced.
That happened in 2006.
At peak the price of oil has increased five times since about 2002.
AS demand from China and India has been increasing the shortfall has
been taken up by a 3 million barrel a day reduction in US consumption
down to 18 Million a day.
Europe has reduced its demand by about 2 Million a day.
These reductions are just about equal to the Chinese, Indian and
Brazil increases.
However that cannot go on forever. As developing countries keep
increasing their demand physical shortages could occur and there
might not be enough flexibility in developed countries to reduce
further.
It is the cost increases that will be inherent in this situation
together with increased food demand and increased food prices due to
the inbuilt oil cost in food that is the concern.
The increased population will increase oil for food demand at 10
times the rate of population increase.

It is these problems in which politicians show no interest.

The unconventional sources you keep reading about are not much more
than a drop in the bucket and at present are about 4% of total all
liquids production. Thewy cannot offset the current decline rate of
all the other fields of 4 to 6 percent a year.
It is physically impossible.

That is why energy and population is so important .

Some interesting numbers there, Bazz. So interesting, I'm not even going to bother to check them.

>>...a 3 million barrel a day reduction in US consumption down to 18 Million a day. Europe has reduced its demand by about 2 Million a day.<<

At first glance, it would not appear that these reductions in total US/European demand were caused by a diminishing population.

>>The increased population will increase oil for food demand at 10 times the rate of population increase<<

From this, I take it that the consumption of oil-for-food in the United States has doubled in the last ten years, as its population has grown by 9.6%

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2013/02/08/top-20-states-with-highest-population.html

Which is pretty impressive, set against the 14% reduction in overall consumption that you describe.

So what has in fact caused the lower levels of consumption in the US? Presumably, it is a by-product of their post-industrial economy, which means there is still hope for us all, n'est-ce-pas?

Pericles, the US reduction was caused by a slowing economy a change to
smaller cars and some reduction in electricity generation by oil fired
power stations. The latter I gather was a rather small amount.
Additionally in the US there is a change to rail for freight to a
significant degree.

The economy in Europe was the cause of the reduction there as they
already had smaller cars and also use diesel more.

I have not seen a breakdown on the oil for food, but if there was 9%
increase in population, there could well be a 90% increase in oil used
in food production. However the cost would be paid for by 9% more people.
There have been substantial increases in food prices from what I have read.
Are you confusing oil-for-food with total oil consumption. ?

>Which is pretty impressive, set against the 14% reduction in overall consumption that you describe.

Decline in oil production which is expected fairly soon as the plateau
which started in 2006, is not expected to go beyond about 10 years,
and will cause price rises which will be reflected in food prices.
Just how much, who knows !