An interesting article and review; I too have spent some time researching and thinking about the implications of peak oil, climate change and the manner in which the population of the world is expanding beyond what I understand of the world's capacity to sustain us.

While Malthus may be criticised for the innacuracies and the under-lying ideology of his predictions, we need to recognise that populations expand exponentially while food production can only ever expand arithmetically.

Therein lies the problem; technology has helped us to produce more food, but even with the best technology there is no getting away from the fact that there are more mouths to feed every day. Second, despite the best of intentions, technology is never without unintended consequences. On balance, while research and technology can do wonderful things in increasing food production, there are more consequences, both realised and unintended, related to issues such as dependence on oil and oil derivatives, energy expenditure, and the misuse of scarce water resources, as examples.

Still, even if we all disappear as a species, the really successful species will continue to thrive and not notice our passing - the insects (especially cockroaches and little black ants). Probably all that will be left to show our passing will be unmatching lids and bases of Tupperware containers.

Humans are wonderful creatures, when there is REAL NEED, we will develop a REAL solution. There are even 2 bit solutions out there today, and plenty that are under wraps.

Find something better to do than worry about unknowns, and things out of your scope of control.

Peak Oil and the changes in our society are real issues involving real people and real solutions. It is in everyone’s interest to get the facts. In relying on the government or big business to solve all our issues and the world going on as before just doesn't make sense. We all have the rights and responsibility to do what is best for ourselves and children. By not discussing this issue does not make it go away or make things right. The sooner we make changes the sooner the transition will be and smother it will be.

People have survived without oil, cars, electricity before and many are happily doing so now. The human race will not end tomorrow with the peak of oil production. In the end it is up to you to do your bit to make a change, let some one else know about peak oil and they make a change to there life style and soon the more people making changes the better it will be.

The old saying is knowledge is power. Lets get the knowledge out so the real power of the people can get things done. We must lead so our politicians can follow. The future is what we as a community, nation make of it.

My physics is a little rusty to say the least but I confess bewilderment at, Hydrogen is an energy carrier not source. Surely the same applies to oil perhaps even electricity. The energy comes from the sun or Uranium is used to split H2O or other source and returns
after use of the energy to H2O. Oil admittedly is dirtier and more complex source, but basically plants trapped energy which was compressed to give oil, tapped and burnt again releasing carbon (and other). Probably I am wrong until quite recently I had little interest in physics except in using its principles largely taken as wrote, the way it was taught.
As for nuclear yes indeed there is money to be made our current account to settle and cargo cult offering. Some 2900 nuclear plants producing each year some 2000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste. (more low level) Each milligram is as dangerous as the venom of a red back spider the quantity of which is small, a milligram? Yet the industry goes out of its way to say how small the waste is! So far no solution for disposal of waste.
It will be some ten to twenty five years before these can be built and cost 2900 times several million to more $ each, decommissioning cost is built into electricity charges it ia said. This satisfies current ELECTRITY needs negating some 35% of GHG. Still 65% to go largely transport oh yes down time Hydrogen production the hydrogen car which exists. Same 35% reduction achieved by energy efficiency and renewable sources and provided there is a grid supplying base energy into which each dwelling, factory the no sun no wind times can be met. What supplies the base load? Clean Coal, nuclear, hot rock or waves.
A tangent and I admit I do not like Nuclear, centralised control, an unsolved threat which the precautionary principle would say if another solution is possible use it. But money and profit will be spread more labour needed quite counter to economic rationalism and to democracy, (be careful of definition used!)

I admire your faith, realist, but the idea that solutions will just "happen" is an abrogation of the responsibility we all share for both the problems and any solutions we might come up with.

Kunstler is right on the mark.

Concerns about peak oil are absolutely real.

This business is of such magnitude that it should be an overarching concern to our politicians, business people and whole of society right now.

How obvious is it that oil prices are on a one-way trend, that will see fuel become unaffordable in the very near future, and start to severely affect food production and supply, employment, inflation and the core nature of society? We are hearing prices of $3/litre being seriously mooted for later this year.

There has never been a more urgent time in Australia’s history to act in our self-preservation. The ominous nature of the peak oil scenario is every bit as threatening as Japanese invasion and conquer in WWII. Left unhindered, it has every likelihood of resulting in such enormous civil strife, breakdown of law, dispossession of the masses at the hands of a small portion of physically powerful people, and massive death rates, as the Second World War scenario did if it had eventuated.

It presents one of the most amazing political opportunities, and imperatives. If the reality of the peak oil future was presented as the basis of a new party (or an existing one [att: Kevin Rudd]) along with very firm policies on how best to deal with it, then that party would surely stand every chance of winning power at the next election.

There is a political black hole. And our national future is being sucked right into it.

To quote Doug Cocks'comment on the Future Dilemmas debate, "anyone who makes predictions on the nature of Australian society in 2050 needs counselling." But the likely scenarios arising from the data currently available don't provide much to cheer about.
I go along with Peter McMahon's comment "we need to construct new ways of interacting that place need over want, scientific evidence over ideology, and to develop an awareness that in this matter we sink or swim together". But, should such construction take place, what scenarios are reasonable, and in what time frame could they be implemented?
In the two centuries of industrialisation, oil - and fossil fuels generally - have enbabled world population to grow from one billion to six and a half; in spite of warfare, disease, and malnutrition. In about two generations from now, if present world population growth rate continues, the world will have about double the present - about 13 billion; although for various reasons demographers point to a peaking at maybe 9 billion.
Inexpensive fossil fuels - and particularly oil - have impacted tremendously on agriculture. They have mechanised it, provided artificial fertilisers, enhanced irrigation, and facilitated distribution of produce. They have not increased resources. Rather, they have enhnaced exploitation of resources which are being seen, increasingly obviously, to be finite.
Courtesy of inexpensive oil, not only have numbers been able to increase, but per-capita consumption is greater than it has ever been. Apart from the pressure upon inexpensive resources, the burden imposed upon the earth's biosphere by human wastes has never been so evident; for land, sea, atmosphere, climate.
Continuing availability of inexpensive energy for present, or increasing, human numbers is just as perilous as its cessation.
The best scenario for Australia (and the world, from which it can not be divorced) would be a steady-state economy and a stable population of a size which is in balance with the resources available.
It is unlikely to be given the nod by a government enmeshed in the fairly-land economics of growth forever, and a society unwilling to elect any other.

Realist are you saying there is no REAL NEED for a cure for cancer, AIDS, diabetes, Muscular Dystropy. I suppose if there was a REAL NEED then humans would have found those cures.

And the billion people without access to clean water. Do they have a REAL NEED?

I worry that the solution to the end of cheap energy will be that lots of people will die and most people will just enjoy a much lower standard of living. Problem solved. No need for any planning or analysis of what might happen or what might be sensible actions to take now so that we can get ready for it.

"My physics is a little rusty to say the least but I confess bewilderment at, Hydrogen is an energy carrier not source. Surely the same applies to oil perhaps even electricity."

No, they are different. Oil is both a carrier and source of energy, while hydrogen is only a carrier.

To get oil, you stick a pipe in the ground and up shoots oil. You process it a bit and it yields an amazing amount of energy, much more than you used to get this oil out of the ground. It is a source and a carrier of energy. Of course the original source is solar energy but that doesn't apply because it is sitting in the ground ready to be used. We weren't there for the "taking solar energy and turning it into oil" part of the equation.

There are no sources of hydrogen to mine anywhere on the planet. In order to make hydrogen, you have to use a greater quantity of energy, whether using electricity or natural gas or coal, than whatever you will get by consuming the hydrogen later.

Show me one example of our species acting cohesively, or sensibly, or any other way when the chips are down. The response of any species in the presence of abundance has always been to consume, reproduce, overshoot, and die off. We will do the same and no one will deny that the Earth is a better place without the human race. At least now we have alternatives to thermonuclear war.

Some of us forget that we dont know everything, we are not fully informed, we are not on the technology threshold like we like to think and there is much money to be made in alternate energy, just like bill gates and microsoft being the first to market the opportunity is immense.

Why worry about something you cannot fix or control?

If you think the world is going to revert back to the middle ages you are all kidding yourselves. Using combined alternated energy sources i have a completely self sufficient property in the Eastern Scarp of NSW, and i know from this inefficient technology that the scope is enormous.

Just like computers in the 50's we have a long way to go. Being a survivalist does not mean i expect the world to stop, it never will, but the chaos factors such as environment will mean we cannot predict the future.

Poeple take pleasure and always have when talking about the end of the world as we know it. There are many theories regarding, rubber band effect and the like, but we have reached an unmatched point in civilization via communication.

Have faith in humanity folks, there is so much cutting edge stuff out there that even a mug like me has info on without even thinking of what the oil companies, alt. energy providers and the like have under wraps.

Find something else to worry about, oil woes are not one of them, it is a psychological tool of dependance as people think that we are not smart enough to develop solutions.

How on earth did we get to the moon? no oil needed.

Like the positivity of Realist.

One must wonder why our governments are selling off the Snowy River hydro electric scheme when energy resources and this is a clean sustainable one, are going to become so valuable.

Where are our rent a crowd demonstrators when you need them?

Bravo Realist for putting your money where your mouth is!

The danger is shutting the gate after the proverbial horse has bolted... if you're implying by your post that market forces will be sufficient to make the transition to a sustainable future I think you're quite naive. Energy markets are a joke, there is monopolistic (or oligopolistic at best) control by multi-national corporations that are consolidating as we speak to stall the inevitable death of their polluting, socially destructive ways. The clock is ticking on climate change and too little is being done.

I'm probably reading too much into your post, if so, apologies.

Renewable naysayers,

The solution to peak oil is renewables, the economic SUPERIORITY of renewables to fossil fuels is within grasp, we just need to overcome the political hurdles and dismantle the perverse tax incentives these industries get.

I agree with Kunstler, the alarm must be raised, action must be taken now. However, falsely citing the inability of renewable, decentralized energy systems to maintain quality standards of living is a terrible disservice, it strengthens the strangle hold fossil fuels have over lives.

Get over your antiquated base load ideas about electricity, it is bunk put out by the fossil fuel lobby to prop up their filthy manipulation of the market.

Read economist Herman Scheer for an achievable realistic future that awaits if we abandon oil, coal and nuclear. Peakniks, get with the program and educate yourself about the potential alternatives, you're not going to win anybody over with doom and gloom.

Read more here: http://www.sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1624

“We are living through our third oil shock, and the last two ended really badly for the world and Australia” (Peter Costello 12/04/06)

Well! Even Mr Maximus Growthus can see that things look ominous.

How about realising that your continuous growth ethic is completely at odds with the resource crisis that peak oil is about to impose on us?

So how about getting serious about the whole deal Peter…. and Johnny?

The real impending crisis is the end of economics as economists have become comfortable with.

The basis of our economies is not so much a particular cheap fuel, but a reliance on certain social constructs. If those constructs collapse, or are overthrown, we face the same excitement as the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.

At the moment, some societies - or at least segments of them - seem to be shifting the "means of production" away from purely physical to more ephemeral means. Much of our economic modelling is based upon the idea that resources are limited, and are valued according to supply and demand.

With intellectual products, the difficulties lie in enforcing the scarcity (through "Intellectual Property" regimes) and in their 'unreliability'. Putting more brains on a problem doesn't necessarily solve it faster, or better, or at all.

The content and the quality of education - and experience - are very important, but they're "mere" enablers. Both are required, but not sufficient, preconditions for a "knowledge economy" or whatever we're calling it today.

The emergency is artifical, not the least because we're trying to hold on to an old model of our own constructed reality. Something that cannot, and will not, last. Knowing that, we still fear the uncertainty of change - despite it being our oldest and most constant friend - and instigated by our own hands/minds.

Looking for a spot to put this in, Peter - hope its okay

Two spatial discussions proved tremendously interesting on Wednesday, April 15th- one between George Negus and US Professor Fukuyama on SBS Dateline, and the other, between Tony Jones and an American cleric, not an Evangelist.

The first with Fukuyama, brought out the change of attitude that has come from the professor since things have not been going so well in Iraq. Now for some of us who were against the pre-emptive strike on Iraq, Fukuyama’s philosophical turnabout, though certainly good news for the loonie left as some of our Posters might declare, might indeed be better news for our Greens and Democrats, who have been regarding the international scene all along as too much relying on big power brutish force as the only path to world democracy, Sadly in a sense, as well as Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld’s way, it has also been Blair and Howard’s way.

Bushbred - Part Two

Turning to the environment, there has also been change among whom we might call the uptite right, an admittance that Global Warming is not just a cyclic change but could be caused by modern man and his overdoing of ways and means to make it a more comfortable world to live in. But as shown lately, there has come a rather quiet admittance from the conservative corporate quarter that we are facing a scary environmental future.

Admittedly we did see spells of political spin coming out with Blair, Bush and Howard, formerly not agreeing with Kyoto one iota, but then with inclines of a rather dirty switch-over agenda about global warming being a serious problem - pretty well a paper-copy. of the opposition, but their own way to present it.

But just lately it is from Blair and Howard from which this 19th century type political spin seems to be coming, George W’ staying with his ME problems and surprisingly rather earnestly saying that it might be better not to pepper Iran with modern shot and shell, but to use diplomacy. Let’s hope Condy Rice also has a change of heart, considering she has too long been called the Devil’s Handmaiden for such a classy looking lady. .

But all in all, according to the religous leader talking to Tony Jones, as well as Fukuyama to George Negus, that Pax Americana might be looking for a Third Way to solve our present political world problems. Could be real hard to take, but maybe they might listen to Nelson Mandela, as well as some of our loonie leftist uni’ professors many of our Posters are still aiming at.

If it really does turn out this way, my goodness, what a cracking future for any genuine historian, though it could be said our futuristic cartoonists are already well on the job.

"The basis of our economies is not so much a particular cheap fuel, but a reliance on certain social constructs...

At the moment, some societies - or at least segments of them - seem to be shifting the "means of production" away from purely physical to more ephemeral means. Much of our economic modelling is based upon the idea that resources are limited, and are valued according to supply and demand."

Ephemeral indeed, this is the great sleight of hand of much economic wishful thinking today. The necessities of life, food, warmth, shelter are physical in nature and always will be, we take them for granted in rich countries but lack of these necessities is a bitter reality for the people locked out of our centralised economies.

Globalization driven by the established and quickly developing countries is not about "intellectual property" it is about increasingly scarce yet highly concentrated energy and material resources that need to be exploited and distributed on a global level over very long supply chains. America, with 5% of the global population consumes a disproportionate amount. This hierarchical system has been the driving force of the consolidation of corporate multi-nationals and their immense power and their ability to erode the democratic nature of western nation states.

The dawning crisis is obvious when one perceives that the current increase in the use of military force (at unheard of cost) is being used to maintain this system. This is not about imposing democracy by use of brute force, it is about a desperate empire teetering on the brink of failure. The real economic crisis will be the realisation that endless creation of money through debt, backed by the collateral of future growth, cannot be sustained forever because it is based on finite resources. The ephemeral issues of copyright and intellectual property will pale in comparison to the inevitable failure of neoclassical economic folly. Changing the resource base to sustainable solar energy and materials can enable a healthier, more equitable decentralised global economy.

I totally agree Peakro

So with this horrible scenario, especially the ever-more desperate state of the US to prop up its lifestyle, is the situation in Australia even grimmer than we or Kunstler make out?

Could it be that we are in very real danger of having our share of imported oil taken by more powerful players, and of being pressured to boost our exports of coal and uranium to the maximum level, at minimum prices, under the threat of larger players just coming and taking over if we don’t agree?

Even if we were to effect the transition to alternative energies relatively smoothly, would external forces continue to make life very hard for us?

Are we in immediate danger of having our imported oil being "taken away"? I would welcome such a development as it would be a great catalyst for change. Is it a horrible scenario - the beginning of the end of the carbon economy?

It really depends on too many contingencies to make the sort of predictions Kunstler indulges in. This is always the problem of prediction, it is easy to go spectacularly wrong.

Should we view the break down of the current world order as the end of the world, or an opportunity to push for change. I just totally disagree that peak oil is going to push us off the "oldavai cliff" and send us back to medieval feudalism.

The situation in Australia is not grim, we are geographically isolated from the worst trouble in the world, we have vast (in relation to our own population) untapped resources in the form of great insolation and wind regimes, a world class pool of knowledge about utilising these resources within our universities, low population densities, the largest area of organic agricultural production in the world (and steadily growing), huge potential to reinvigorate our regional areas with cutting edge biomass schemes that would promote the replanting of forests and diversification of our primary industries, etc, etc.

The problem is one of politics and entrenched vested interests, these are huge hurdles to overcome but they are not insurmountable. World events, expensive oil, and growing acceptance of climate change are beginning to conspire against the status-quo, welcome the developments and get active in promoting positive futures.

“Are we in immediate danger of having our imported oil being "taken away"? I would welcome such a development as it would be a great catalyst for change.”

I don’t think we are in immediate danger of this, but you never know what might happen when things get really desperate. A very sudden change like that would not be a good thing. We really need a slow weaning off of oil. A sudden change may bring about the new ‘equilibrium’ more quickly, but with a lot more pain….. and many more people falling by the wayside.

“Is it a horrible scenario - the beginning of the end of the carbon economy?”

No, not in itself. But management of the transition will have to be very tight…or the transition will have to be long and gentle. There are no good indications about governmental management. Just the opposite looks likely: a failure of governmental control and indeed of law and order per se. And there are strong indications that it is not going to be a gentle transition.

“It really depends on too many contingencies to make the sort of predictions Kunstler indulges in. This is always the problem of prediction, it is easy to go spectacularly wrong.”

Predictions are educated guesses. Just because there are many ‘contingencies’ doesn’t mean that the predictions are flawed. Kunstler is by no means alone in making these sorts of predictions. Anyway, we should very seriously consider the worst-case scenario.

“The situation in Australia is not grim.”

I think our situation IS grim, because we are so profoundly dependent on oil. Such a massive change is going to be required, and that cannot possibly happen without large-scale major disadvantage to many people. You list a whole lot of advantages that we have. Thank goodness for those, but the simple fact is that the economics of alternative energies completely don’t stack up to those of oil….. and that means massive societal disruption.

Good on you, Peakro, our bush newspaper The Countryman last week gave cover and front page all about Westralian grain and oilseed cockies being on a goldmine in twenty years time. Looking at Brazil right now, it might be so, especially with them pretty well on full reliance now on power alco and bio mass.

Might tell you back in the late 196o's early 70s when we became hit with grain quotas, many farmers in our Dalwallnu district spent thousands of pounds or dollars on shares in Graincol, our factory set-up becoming a full concern till our rotten Federal Government with its non-seeing future eyes, suggested we close it down.

We happen to be too old to gain by another oil shortage, Peakro, so if you are young enough don't believe that Big Biz or governemnts like John Howard's will help any farmer investment run by themselves alone.

From one who has done a lot of research in his retirement, the advice for smallholders especially, is to get together and go agrarian social, as we did during the Great Depression, for Big Biz will never help you only steer governments towards the corporates to take it from you.

They'd be already well into planning it, Peakro, and with any Jew Boys with them. Hasn't changed much really from the 1920s and thirties, Peakro, so look out, mate.

Finally, never believe that agrarianism is Commo', Peakro,
can be left or right, as proven when Stalin knocked off most of the Kulaks because they wanted to run their own farms as Lenin had promised them. So whatch out for bloody government promises, matey.

George C, WA - Bushbred

George

I’m right with you re: small-scale agrarian adaptation, bypassing ‘Big Biz’, and grain and oilseed becoming major high-profit biofuel crops.

But I think your timeframe of 20 years is a little long. We also need to realise that with a major switch from fossil fuels to biofuels, the costs are going to be very much greater and hence the whole economics very different. Nothing comes within a million miles of the incredibly cheap and potent energy package that liquid fossil fuels hold. Hence the need for small-scale localised operations.

The more fuel crops we grow, the less food we grow. This could go as far as essentially eliminating wheat and other food-crop exports and only growing enough for domestic consumption, with all other agricultural land turned over to biofuel production.

With other western countries doing the same, the millions of people that rely on these food sources could be hard-pressed for their very survival.

--

Ah Dalwallinu… my old botanical haunting ground of the 70s. One of the most amazingly biodiverse areas of the world. An incredible initiation for a young botanist. I picked up more than 100 unnamed species of Acacia in the WA wheatbelt and associated areas, the centre of diversity being in the Dalwallinu area. Most have been formally described now, one named after me. And yet the area is one of the most totally cleared landscapes in Australia. What a crying shame. Makes my heart ache.

A different perspective to your agricultural outlook….just coz I felt like expressing it. Nothing to do with the subject. But there you go!

Nice to make your aquaintance, Ludwig, specially as you know about our district's natural production - wildflowers. Crying shame really, to have so much clearing, the only uncleared country mostly left, is along railways and roadsides. When you drive north on a hill before you reach Wubin from Dally', is still said to be some of the most interesting wildflowers in the state.

Nothing to what was on some of our properties, Ludwig. Fact is, with the grandkids wanting to stay on the land we own a big stretch now. They are still using our joint name G&M Counsel and adding a Co.

Been retired now nearly 32 years, Ludwig. Still helped on the farm for a few years, in between playing golf and bowls. But my wife said I was hanging around the club bars too much - so she got me finishing my schooling - not that I drank that much, but liked the company.

Though was picked for a scholarship close to harvest time in 1933, had to leave school to drive a wagon team hauling bagged wheat. Looking back after all my studies during retirement, part of which is Honours in International Relations
based on the old Tea Economy in India and Sri-Lanka - now of course its the Oil Economy - it's been possibly the most interesting part of my life. Bloody changed me though, I guess from a know-all bush barstard into a bleeding heart. Though seeing my wife has always been a bit of a greenie as far as looking after the bush is concerned, as our friends tell me. Surely it must have been her.

Anyway, Ludwig, must have just about run out of Poster space - hope we can keep in touch.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Thanks George for that personal history. Fascinating. Especially the studies and life-changing outlook post-retirement.

Cheers

If you are reading this then you are reading oil. It's the computer, stupid. I'm constantly amazed how, when oil is mentioned, the discussion immediatly transfers to transport and household energy. Effectively every thing we buy has a high 'oilyness' to it. If not in the direct production (like plastics or food) then in the wrapping or in the machinery that is used to make the stuff. The oil farmers need equipment with a high oil input to harvest the oil seeds etc, etc. Even the so-called (self-delusional) claiming self sufficiency need high oil inputs (ever noticed the amount of metals/plastics you need to be self sufficient. And, hey, you make your own lightglobes?)

I'm not into being alarmist. It won't happen overnight but here's a scenario: you'll be paying $3-$5 a litre for petrol within 10 years, even with a gradual rise in prices. Then, add to that, the higher input prices for manufactured products (it's estimated that it takes 6 barrels of oil to make a car). The effect of that will be a massive shift in purchasing habit. Jobs will be affected but most of all asset prices. The consequence of plentiful, cheap oil has been sustained property prices. If it costs $300+ to fill the family car how many households will have enough left over to satisfy a $500T mortgage. The history of prices over the last 1,000 has seen many major (as in 80-90%) declines in asset prices when different external events (wars, famine, disease) strike. I don't see why 'it will be different this time' when oil prices finally get to market levels that reflect the scarcity of a commodity that is also largely used for manufacturing

Hooray for Kunsler, Brain Fleay and others have been trying to make these problems sexy for more than a decade but Australia can't see anything till its reflected off Uncle Sam (or mother england)s pants, so HK is a necesary prophet and the book a great wakeup text for those still sleeping.

Peak oil/energy descent is the invisible gorilla in the phone booth and its too funny that its a marginal issue on what tries to be a relevant and topical website. There is a desperate need to expose the fatuous optimism of those who've lived very sheltered lives, lest we all see our worst fears fulfilled.

For hard news of what is actually happening on the energy front try energybulletin.net or theoildrum.com, and for what aussies could be doing about it at institutional level see ASPO Australia http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/

Ludwig & George - I think some distributed biofuel production would be wise, for fuel security if nothing else, but obviously we couldn't dream of maintaining current consumption volumes with what ethanol + biodiesel could produce.
The odious 'jew' comment is classic case of preexisting bias tainting discussion, does nothing to help faint hearted progressives focus on what makes their world go round.

--

Realist: "Why worry about something you cannot fix or control?"
What a motto for helplessness! You think it'll be too hard so you wont bother with trying or even thinking about it - thats the spirit that makes lemmings great. Cowards love company, thats why they promote pessimism. We have no choice but to try for sustainability, every other outcome will be worse.

Realist: "How on earth did we get to the moon? no oil needed. "
Such smug and profound ignorance deserves only a quick exit.