"Unfortunately nearly all long term planning by Government, business and individuals is based on an assumption that growth will continue forever."

How do you know? You've inquired with all individuals, businesses and governments have you?

What makes you think that you're the only person whose knowledge, valuations and time preferences are valid?

"This doesn't have to necessarily end badly, but by basically ignoring it as we currently are, we are likely to cause ourselves a lot of unneccessary pain."

This assumes that you have superior wisdom. You don't.

"If we as a nation got serious about implementing mass public transport, rail (preferably electric from renewable sources) for interstate transport and local food production, we could maintain a good standard of living."

Socialists have a love affair with choo-choo trains, don't they? http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs114.html

This is just more of the anti-rational idiocy that says that if we waste more natural resources on producing less output, we'll all be better off.

But you can't just magically re-shape the world closer to your heart's desire by confiscating people's money en masse and spending it on things that would not otherwise be economical. It a) is unethical and b) doesn't work.

We may still be referred to by others as the lucky country, not as lucky as we are now, but still luckier than others. As others point out, Australia has vast per capita gas reserves; but also vast solar and wave energy possibilities.

Imagine an array of wave energy power stations dotted around our abundant coastline providing continuous energy for our coastal cities.

It's no less feasible than the handful of massive coal fired power generation sites and massive distribution network would have seemed to our forefathers on the First Fleet.

As for transport, first the motor cycle will rule, followed later by the push bike. Oil fired transport dissappears first, but without air travel our tourism industry dies. Get a job close to home in a low carbon and low energy industry.

Look out for the coming carbon tax, and a hike in petrol tax to discourage petrol use, but watch the govt spend the revenues on the wrong things.

Jefferson,

I to put your of worship of "all knowing, all seeing market" in the same basket as other religions. But that is probably unfair to the religions, as you can't disprove god.

I agree the current GFC was caused by governments. Their mistake was to believe that markets really are magic and self regulate, and so they removed all controls. And yes, you are right that natural market forces will fix this. The GFC is the fix. The only issue is, in human terms it a pretty unpleasant fix. I think most agree the US enforcing an open transparent market instead of the allowing a lassie-fair market to run free would have been a much better fix.

Curmudgeon: "Sing out when its about to happen, but until then maybe ther is not much point in forecasting it."

Eh? A lot of people have been singing, and for a while now. In hindsight I was personally amazed when Kenneth Deffeyes said easy lift oil production peaked at the start of 2006. At the time I thought a bold statement, to say the least. http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-06-02.html In hindsight he nailed it. Looking at the graphs in the story, total oil production did indeed peak them. Indeed, I'd like to know you explain the drop in oil production during 2005..2008 given prices went from $50/bbl to $126/bbl in the same period. Given by the end of that period everybody knew it was a bubble you'd think suppliers would be falling over themselves to take advantage of the inflated price.

Wing Ah Ling: "This assumes that you have superior wisdom. You don't."

I gather from that statement that you, Wing Ah Ling, do have a superior wisdom which allows you arbitrate on the wisdom of others.

Wing Ah Ling: "But you can't just magically re-shape the world closer to your heart's desire by confiscating people's money en masse and spending it on things that would not otherwise be economical."

You can't? Someone should tell the Scandinavian countries. They have grown to be some of the richest on the planet by doing exactly that.

Hi Cameron. Two points to some of the previous posts. Firstly, the assumption and expectation of everlasting growth is built into economic system, otherwise known as "Fractional Reserve Banking." For those not acquainted with that, I would strongly recommend Paul Grignon's animation, "Money as Debt," as well as the erudite explanation furnished by World famous economist, Richard Douthwaite, in "The Ecology of Money." Neither is rocket science, and a brief perusal of either resource will quickly illustrate that our global banking system is a Ponzi scheme, that either expands forever (which as we all know, is impossible), or crumbles. And further, here's a key quote from World famous oil geologist Dr. Colin Campbell:

"It is becoming evident that the financial and investment community begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil, which ends the First Half of the Age of Oil. They accept that banks created capital during this epoch by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that Tomorrow’s Expansion, fuelled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral for Today’s Debt. The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges."

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5944

And here's his CV:

http://www.energycrisis.com/DE/cv.html

Secondly, it doesn't matter how much extracting an energy resource costs, the exercise is completely futile unless you extract more energy than you put in. We've become so blinded by economics, that we're (some of us at least), forgetting and/or ignoring the basic physical laws of our Universe, thermodynamics being the main one. It's called "Energy Return on Energy Invested," and a very good resource to explain this in more detail is Richard Heinberg's book, "The Party's Over." By the way Cameron, great article. Thanks.

www.kimspages.org

Try Again, the server crashed.
Experts like Colin Campbell and Kenneth Deffreyes are telling us that
we have reached peak oil. These people as well as the two I have
mentioned are retired Oilfield engineers and geologists.
They have worked in the industry all their lives and held senior
positions in various oil companies, so when they tell us we have
arrived at this historical point I think it is reasonable to accept it. They will tell us if they get the timing wrong.

It seems that peak oil occurred around June last year.
My main worry is that the politicians refuse to acknowledge that it
is a problem that needs attention. They use euphemisms like,
"Energy Security" which could mean anything.
They need to call it for what it is, a really big problem.
The Hirsch report warned that we need 20 years to prepare to mitigate
the effects of peak oi and avoid the worse problems.

Our main problem now is how to get the politicians to tell the public
what it is that they are facing.
I agree that natural gas conversion of trucks and important transport
should be done now. That is if there is any left as we are selling it
to the Chinese on a 25 year contract for a very low price.
If the Chinese can look ahead why can't we or is that we have dopey
politicians ?
I would ban the export of natural gas, that might give us enough time
to make the necessary changes.

Railways need duplicating and electrified and branch lines rebuilt.
This will enable wheat farmers to continue in the country and we will
still be able to eat bread.
Make no mistake there will be food distribution & production problems.

Hello Wing Ah Ling,

I acknowledge that my statement with regards to assumptions about growth is a generalisation. I am confident however, if I went and surveyed the assumptions people and organisations make about the future not very many would be planning on a future of long term economic contraction. If we look at government policy, they are all based upon, or aimed at continuing economic growth. As such I stand by my statement. Please provide examples if I am wrong.

In my humble view, our future oil supply situation is a cause for major concern. This is based on data from numerous sources and what I view as a reasonable extrapolation of current trends into the future. I also differentiate between what is possible and what is probable. For example, the IEAs World Energy Outlook 2008 foresees oil production increasing to 106 million barrels a day by 2030. Is this possible – probably! Is it probable – no! This is due to the assumptions upon which the forecast is made being unlikely to occur, such as the trend of declining oil discoveries since the 1960s being reversed (just one example). Those who think technology will save the day should pause and reflect on this.

I am confused about your point about trains. I am not a socialist. My view is simply that we have a problem and we need solutions. Rail and public transport are solutions that will give us the services we want whilst using significantly less oil and can be powered by renewable sources.

If you have other solutions, I would look forward to hearing them.