Bazz in nineteenth Century England, there were economic doomsayers predicting the end of civilisation as known due to pending exhaustion of coal resources.

These prophets were no different to the greenhouse brigade of today who focus their profound lack of vision on “all things remaining equal” and fail to appreciate that even whilst they speak new innovations and inventions are ensuring that “all things are no longer equal”

I am a great believer in how individuals are paramount. All ideas and innovations are first visualised in one persons imagination before they evolve into development and the factories which churn them out or implement them into the market of users and consumers.

Example in recent years, the power requirements of a modern colour TV or radio is significantly lower than the powre needs of their valve based predecessors. Rechargable battery technology has leapt foreward and solar cells did not exist 50 years ago. In around 1965 an executive left important papers in his office in London and went to a meeting in New York. He realised and had his secretary jump on a plane with the papers and deliver them to him using a later flight. Nowadays he would have them either faxed or emailed.

Nothing remains equal except, it seems, the lack of imagination of the doomsayers.
Fortunately through mass communication, the world relies of the imagination of but a few, the marketing skills of a few more and hopefully a government with enough intelligence to "not want to repair what is not broken" to counter-balance whole nations of the mindless and unimaginative (and of course, be rewarded according to their contribution)

Sorry Col Rouge, I don't understand the connection to electrical demand.
I am talking about oil supplies, ie liquid fuels.
If you think oil depletion is a myth then I suggest you take it up with
the oil producing companies and countries. They are fully aware of what
peak oil is. Australia peaked in 2000, the North Sea in 1999,
Iran has peaked, the US peaked in 1970, 65 of 98 oil producing countries
have peaked so what is mythical about that ?

In 2000 we produced about 800,000 barrels a day, which was just about
what we used. We are now down to around 500,000 barrels a day.
The difference between our increased demand and our depleted output
is made up by imports. Nothing mythical about the multibillion dollar
bill we are paying for those imports.
The only argument about peak oil is when not if.
It all depends on how big a liars are the Arabs.
You should really have a look at what has happened.
The peak of oil discovery was way back in 1964.
We have never discovered more oil than we used since 1983.
Anyone who thinks a finite resource can be used indefinately is
either a madman or an economist.

Bazz “Sorry Col Rouge, I don't understand the connection to electrical demand.

I am talking about oil supplies, ie liquid fuels."

I was illustrating, using electricity as an energy media.

So to put it another way, we, as consumers, consume “energy”. My illustration was intended to convey that energy “productivity” in regard to electricity had improved significantly in the past 50 years.

But to be more specific to your comment; developments in engine efficiency now produces cars which travel further on gallon of fuel than models built in say the 1940’s. Another illustration – some of the gas we now use as an energy source used to be burnt off at the well head or in process, thus we have a better utilisation of absolute energy through capture of previously wasted resources.

Whilst I am sure a finite resource cannot be used indefinitely I am equally sure that the ways of utilising what remains of that finite resource is tied up with competitive market forces and improving the economic viability of alternatives, as that finite resource becomes scarcer and its base price increases.

Example, the production cost of hybrid cars would deem them non-viable / uneconomic whilst oil prices were at $15 / barrel. However, with oil at $60+ / barrel, everything changes.

Research and risk capital for alternative sources of energy or capital intensive improvements in process, be they renewable of otherwise, whilst oil was priced at $10 / barrel were not worth investigating but oil is now 6 times more expensive and every alternative that much more worthy of research and potential development

Col Rouge;
Well yes everything you say is correct about the effect on
making other fuels and harder to get oils more economical as prices rise.
The problem is however all these alternatives, including replacing the
car fleet with more efficient vehicles needs time and we do not have
that sort of time.

Have you read the Hisrch report ? This change over and development of
alternatives was addressed in that and the minimium required is 20 years.

You can find the report on the ASPO web site; www.aspo.net

Bazz: I think people are more resilient and flexible in responding to a crisis that you may be giving them credit for. During World War 2, the USA and England changed their economies massively in less than a couple of years in response to the actions or threats of Japan and Germany. Here in Western Australia, the Water Corporation has responded in less than 5 years to our so-called water crisis. Japan in less than 10 years after WW2 took all the necessary steps to start down the path of being one of the world's economic powerhouses.
The shortages of oil caused by peak oil being reached will not happen over night. Prices will rise over several years as oil shortages start to bite over the same time frames. This will give human beings lots of time and opportunities to respond positively to the challenges that we will have no choice but to resolve sustainably.

Bernie,
You said . . . "This will give human beings lots of time and opportunities to respond positively to the challenges that we will have no choice but to resolve sustainably." . . . and that builds to the author's point. How do people adapt if they don't even know there is a need to do so? On what grounds would they constrain their lifestyles? For as long as Government, of any persuasion, ignores the inevitability of our future, we will be late to respond and so experience greater stress - social and economic - than we need to.

You said previously . . "we've been pumping large volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere for some 200 years" . . . and that argument too ignores a fundamental reality. 200 years ago there was a relatively miniscule world population with only a small minority of them partaking in CO2 emitting practices. Globally the rate of CO2 emission, like the rate of oil, gas and coal consumption continues to increase. Consumer demand for oil will be met in those countries that have the military or financial power to secure and control them. Take a quick look at Australia's national debt and military status and consider whether we will have access to the oil we have grown so accustomed to.

Then consider whether the Australian population will reduce any time soon. Check out the SA (Labour) Premier, Mike Rann's idiotic goal to increase state population by 33%, or the (Liberal) Treasurer, Peter Costello's glee at rising birth rates. Its all irresponsible smoke and mirrors. They make travelling snake oils salesmen look downright honest.

So it doesn't matter what a politician says, and we should have little faith in what they will do. But ordinary folk like us, acting locally to prepare for the coming power-down, can at least be ready for the inevitable decline in economic strength and living standards.

This is not doom and gloom. Its realistic and positive action.