We have tossed it around in thread after thread ,blamed Kevin Rudd for it and just about every one.
But have we reached a point that world motorists will not pass?
It seems clear we will pay more still, that oil will continue to rise but at what cost?
The world economy is not assured to just keep traveling on this single issue may well drop it to its knees soon.
More protests more near riots and more increases is there a limit?
Is there an answer?
If say Pakistan blows up into a war can the west park its cars and not suffer massive damage to its economy?
Will it take more than push bikes and green power to avoid this problem?

I have said this before on this site, but I'll say it again. We have far too many people on this planet all competing for the same finite resources. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention, so for brief periods something comes along that alleviates certain problems but only encourages further breeding, because every country is committed to expansion. We seem only capable of living for the present and not looking to the future for continued sustainability. I suppose it's because no one wants to be left behind in this insatiable desire to "get in front". Even religion is caught up in this, wanting to promote only its version of a deity with its own beliefs and philosophy and so encouraging its flock in ever increasing fertility. All it does is widen the gap between the "Haves" with their power, and the "Have-nots" who do not have the influence required to often even get an education, let alone put food into their belly.
So whether it is oil, food, water, land....you name it, that has to be shared more and more with more and more people. Everyone looks round for someone to blame and it is usually governments that will bear the brunt of the social discontent, although, apart from their continued process of subsidising fecundity, they have little power to do much about it.

I agree with snake. The more allowances science and technology, the weather, or agriculture makes for humans to subsist, the more those human rapidly expand to fill the space...

The Murray Darling river is a perfect example. Instead of leaving the river healthy, the water is sucked dry by thousands of irrigators and towns, every last drop until the river doesn't exist anymore in all it's former glory. States have encouraged people to do this.

ok snake and steel no contest we have too many humans on the planet.
Do we only feed the ones we want?
it is related to the thread yes too many wanting too little but how do we kill half the worlds population?
In the short term ,right now we stand confronted by growing protests that will only get worse.
The impact of filling a fuel tank is minor compared to costs to transport food and every thing we need.
I do hold governments responsible , why no real effort at new fuels 10 years ago?
Why none now?
Truly we could do much better the world economy is in real danger.
Back to over population, no argument from me , but who says who has less children, truly is it of value for the west to undertake lowing the birth rate while others do not?
By months end, this month the world fuel crisis will be on all our minds.
By Christmas we will know the importance of it, some have blamed individual governments some blame speculation you blame population.
But we must find an answer very soon killing half the worlds people seems a bit harsh to me.

Part 1 of reply.

Belly, by putting up this post, are you scared of what you see happening in the World with relation to rising oil prices, perhaps hoping for an answer to alleviate your fears, or are you just creating a post that you hope will lead to an interesting conversation?

You said.....
"But we must find an answer very soon killing half the worlds people seems a bit harsh to me."

Well Belly. I'll give you the news and it's all bad. You won't have to worry about killing anyone. Nature will do all that for you, well, that is unless you count those who died trying to defend their last meal when the hungry hoards descend.

There's only one reason that we have in excess of 6.5 billion people on the face of the planet. Oil! Oil has allowed humans to breed out of control because of its use in food production and medication. Without oil the human population could never have exceeded 2 billion, so what do you think will happen when oil becomes too expensive to continue business as usual? Yes, the population will begin to decline as food production goes into a death spiral.

There is no replacement for oil. One barrel of oil contains the equivalent of 25,000 man hours of energy. And you can forget hydrogen. It's all about the EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested. It takes as much energy to make a unit of hydrogen as it contains. Unless someone can find a way to split hydrogen from water without using electricity, then it's a waste of time taking about hydrogen

So what's left? Coal, yes but finite. Ditto for Uranium, not to mention the clean-up bill if it all goes wrong or at decommissioning time. Wind? Nuh! Even Canberra can't provide enough wind to power the country, or the World. All "renewables" depend on oil in their production and it's NOW we need to be putting that oil to use, but I fear oil supplies will run down to the point whereby their use to make renewable energy becomes non viable.

Too late Belly, it's all over. We've still got plenty of tech believers out there, but best you learn how to grow vegetables and breed chooks before the crap really hits the fan. You haven't got long.
Aime.

Belly,
I don't believe for one minute that those with foresight actually want to "kill people off" as you imply. It obviously hasn't been brought to your attention that population control has absolutely nothing to do with taking lives. What mankind needs to learn again is to live according to it's own ability. What I imply by that is for those who can't afford to keep large families must do everything they can to not have large families. Only buy what they can afford, don't expect others to support them when they live beyond their means & the list goes on. Those who need assistance due to no fault of their own should be supported by the rest of us. Over the past 50 or so years many who could support themselves but because of their lack of will (not lack of ability or opportunity) & initiative have been able to exploit & just about ruin a system that was introduced to assist the needy.
Social security is for the needy not for the idle. Unfortunately, the many irresponsible left-wing expert advisors have wasted valuable resources & created three generations of people who are capable to fend for themselves but have instead developed a "everybody-else-owes-me-a-living" culture & "if we choose to have many children the social security system can pay for them"

It may not be nature that reduces world population but war.
My intention in starting the thread was to talk about this problem not introduce the idea that it is the end.
Right now in NSW Australia this week in fact road transport company's that have existed in some cases for 45 years closed the doors fuel prices did that.
people on low incomes are in fuel induced pain.
Coastal tourism is suffering.
Christmas bookings are lower than ten years ago.
We know, we have been warned , fuel will be nearer $2 by Christmas.
Some good intentioned people think the answer is push bikes, not for a second considering so many who must travel 100klm journeys just to buy food.
I except we will find new fuels and new cars new power and cleaner power the doom and gloom is worthy but after the pain comes the gain.
The answer to world population will not come because of oil prices.
And in a world that can not agree to stop killing one another or fix problems like Burma and Zimbabwe in the miss named United Nations we will never agree to do what China has limit population.

Belly,

I think your posts would be much more effective if you used punctuation a little more. Specifically commas and full stops.

Just a friendly suggestion.

The truck drivers in Europe protesting about prices are doing no more
than the politicians, denying the inevitable.

They are totally wasting their time.

Belly, the worlds population after the last war was higher than it was
before, so war will not solve the population problem.
Population will only be reduced by lower fertility brought on by
malnutrition and disease. Like peak oil it will happen but mercifully
it might be gradual as oil supplies decrease gradually.

However the poorest countries will have their populations reduced in a
steeper curve than the richest countries.
Will the worlds population follow the Hubbard curve.
Now someone could do a thesis on that.

PaulL so do I!
Can you show me a system that will do it for me?
Like it or not I left school before age 13, I passed only in returning milk bottles and burning the rubbish in the incinerator.
Most of my school time was spent swinging on a cross cut saw, earning the money to feed my siblings with dad, 15 more of them.

That was the fate of the eldest child in big family's.
Some 3 years after in a roadside construction camp it became clear I could finally read any word in front of me.
Does it matter that much?
Now still learning something each day, I live I am rather proud of getting lessons in place to teach the huge number who can not, to read.
What impact will my poor education have on world fuel prices?
Is education a measure of IQ?
Read my first posts here and understand even my spell check had a break down trying to understand me.
The university of life has entrenched in me the view some of our best educated people have little common understanding.
By Christmas the contents of this thread will matter far more than my composition.
Read any good books of late? my education came from a never ending hunger to read and learn thanks for your lesson.
I however think we need to know people from all backgrounds post here all standards of education and all faiths.
Those of us who place too much value on their own thoughts and too little on others are self defeating.

Aime made some cogent points.

But, how will Aime protect her chooks and vegies from the opportunists? Those pitiful unfortunates who, due to their underpriveledge have not been able to acquire the means to supplement the supermarket. Perhaps she could put a sign out the front -- Free veg and chook. After all, Aime does not have the human right to protect her chooks from human predation. Maybe Kev07 will implement a veggie bonus for increased veggie production.

I like the idea of community markets better.

I have been eyeing off my backyard wondering what the price of green beans will need to be for me to have a serious garden, instead of the microscopic ones I have had in the past.

Good on ya Belly. Great response. The stereotype of a tolerant secular progressive is grossly exaggerated.

Belly,

I'm sorry you took it as an attack on your person and your education. It was not meant as such as I assumed you were being lazy. I take it back and apologize unreservedly.

I agree that education is not a measure of IQ.

I do not imagine that any of us can have any impact on oil prices except by refusing to buy it. If we could do this together globally, it would most definitely have some effect.

My only addition to this topic is to relate the explanation of an economics analyst for higher prices. He noted that the rise in price is almost entirely unrelated to the rise in demand, and this difference can be explained by the speculators profit taking.

I am rereading Great Expectations, and you must forgive my more flowery posts of late for this is the cause. A truly great book.

60 minutes -- Johnnie on the spot as always has highlighted shale oil and oil sands.

Two years ago I used these as examples to refute the peak oil claim. 60 Min also failed to mention that China has bought a significant amount of Canada's present and future production.

The environmental movement that has stopped most oil exploration and has stopped building a new US oil refinery for 35 years are more to blame than the oil companies.

Yes I know what happens when oil exploration moves in as I have seen it in the Over Thrust Belt. But I also know what it is like to walk to work as well.

Scoff at technology all you wish but it is technology that enables the human population to increase. Nothing is certain except death and there would be far fewer humans alive if it were not for technology.

BTW Snake

China thinks that when official reports recommend lowering the population the Chinese interpret this as China must lower their population.

Hence, China's recent interest in increased military spending. Gadzooks a society that thinks ahead!

They didn't even invite a million citizens over to stuff the suggestion box either. What would Kev think of that?

I found it a tad ironic that the same Rudd govt which came to power on an anti-fossil fuel crusade, a little more than six months ago, was last week asking for pressure to be put on the oil producers- to produce more oil. And warning local explorers that if they didn’t quickly develop their finds, they’d loose them.

Pragmatism (?)–a desire top protect existing industry & workers –perhaps –but, when Howard moved to push clean coal technology he was shouted down by labourite naysayers(!)

And when you add in the fact that Rudd recently saw fit to cut funding to the CSIRO and gut subsidies for solar power installation. It does make you wonder if all the pre-election sermonising about climate change, was only ever about power –a labor power grab.

No worries PaulL reading all I can find on the web about next generation fuels and cars.
Also re reading old but loved recollections of a bleeding heart about Paul Keating.
One impact of international fuel prices is sure to be some better cheaper cars.
The protests will continue it is international and the impacts are too.
No use at all increasing oil out puts we must get new fuels better fuels and soon.
2010? my mate Kev can stick that! we need innovation now.
Think with me folks if next years car built in Australia included a VW sized LPG fueled car without any government tax, and free rego paid by the federal government for first 5 years could we impact on oil prices?
Or our balance of payments? could we as some one Else has pointed out use coal Field gas to run part of our country's fleet?

Horus,

You are in denial if you do not realise the impact fuel prices have on everyone. Rudd is encouraging greater levels of production because high fuel prices can send economies into recession, which can mean significant job losses, mortgage stress, and inflation etc. It hurts everyone, but always hits those least able to afford it the hardest.

This is not to say we shouldn't be working on new energy sources, we clearly should. In the meantime, though, we need to put downard pressure on oil prices any way we can.

Belly
"Will it take more than push bikes and green power to avoid this problem?"
I would suggest that it takes common thinking.
Oil tankers which roll of an assembly line (as per documentary two years ago)with US names on it.(what..one every three days or is it weeks?)
Would there be a peak oil? I don't think so.
Oil happens to be renewable according to geo-scientists.
The Conspiracy theory is proven to be a factual occurrence.Why would the Bilderbergers have meetings behind close doors? To decide over us worldwide!
All those messages about overpopulation,peak oil,climate change,earth warming-up panic calls,aids epidemic,dollar devaluation,oil prices going thru the roof,worldwide GM push,The Pill,baby vaccinations with mercury what's next? Get the picture?
A lot of bulls..t you might ask? It is beyond conspiring...it is happening! Thanks to our PC's with lots of leaking info.Some of it bad but lots of it great knowledge.
FEAR is what needs to be created amongst us human beings, how else can we be controlled! Don't be had!Open your eyes and see what's out there! It's better to know for your own protection!

No chance for new fuels in time Belly.

Forget Kevin Rudd, he hasn't a clue about what to do.
He was aked on 7-30 report tonight a direct question about it being time
to level with the public that this is a permanent problem with price of oil going ever higher.

He squibbed it. He waffled around it.

There is no government solution, not even rationing.
It will be devil take the hindmost.
The politicians are not prepared to face up to the problem, it will be
up to us as individuals to find our own dolutions.

1. The Fisher-Tropsch process kept Germany going during WW2 and now keeps S. Africa in fuel. In Australia we have coal to 'burn' and produce our own oil and fuel.

Bio-fuels have hardly been exploited at all.

Plus we are swimming in Natural Gas. (or at least Exxon Mobil is)

2. The 38c a litre excise is a WRONG tax, especially in a country as vast as Australia. It increases the price of everything, food, farmer's costs. exports, anything that needs to be moved etc etc.
With the added 10% GST it has a multiplier effect on the cost of fuel.

Abolishing the Fuel Excise would result in no net loss to total government('s) Tax revenues and would drop the GST and therefore interest rates. All good news for the economy.

Keeping the Fuel Excise Tax is a crazy economic philosophy.

Most of us have looked at the conspiracy theory's, just maybe some of it is true, but the problem is here and now and getting worse.
This world never was based on human needs and wellbeing just greed and a mantra often quoted of creating wealth.
Just why I will never understand.
I reject as uninformed the idea Rudd can do much about international fuel prices.
And I reject totally the idea we should blow our budget by reducing tax on fuel.
But I hold Kevin and his government accountable for not doing more to use LPG.
I see no true urgent action to replace oil as our power source from any western government.
Consider however if Rudd mandated by law every future motor used in Australia had to run on new fuel or LPG by 2012 we would have zero effect on world oil prices our use is small in the big picture.
We however are getting near the prices that will drive us to act and future generations will have new fuels.
Just maybe Rudd will understand it takes more than idiotic fuel watch to save us.

Michael2,
There is an alternative way to look at the fuel tax.
To make petrol cheaper will not make people reduce their use of petrol.
It has the wrong effect and just puts off the price rise for a short
period.

To increase the tax will be an incentive to reduce consumption and would
be accepted by the public. However it would be accepted only on condition
that the politicians tell the public that this is a permanent problem
and guarantee that the tax will be devoted to public transport and
related infrastructure. Political courage to face up to the problem
is in short supply, but this is going to be a test of leadership.

Only last night on the 7-30 report Kevin Rudd did his best to avoid
admitting that there is no solution and that we will need to make
major structural change.

Without national leadership telling it as it is and being honest with
the public there is little hope to avoid great difficulties.

Time is short and natural gas should be reserved for our own use during
our period of adapting to a new energy regime whatever that may be.

The coal to liquid process known as Fisher-Topsch can also take a
major part in letting us down gently.
Frankly I think it will be all hands to the pumps to keep us afloat.
However the ship will gradually get lower in the water and we will
have to abandon it for a new arrangement for living.

PaulL
As Maxwell Smart would say: 'missed by that "............" much'.

My intent was not to downplay the importance of fossil fuel to our
economy/society.But rather to highlight the opportunism & shallowness of the Rudd govt - & the climate-change-bandwagon in general.

In the strangest way if oil gets to $200 and protests get worse we will be better served.
Leaders of most party's world wide are not hurt by high fuel prices as they fill up.
In a country that uses fuel like we do, some who must spend $300 a week, we need to pressure leaders.
Such prices do, voters are not interested in who is to blame, some blame any one in power.
We however must not forget like it or not lowering use of fuel is not the answer it would destroy some farmers and small businesses.
If oil prices bubble busts now we may wait years for the innovations we need now.

Steel>"The Murray Darling river is a perfect example. Instead of leaving the river healthy, the water is sucked dry by thousands of irrigators and towns, every last drop until the river doesn't exist anymore in all it's former glory. States have encouraged people to do this."

Looks like I was well informed and prescient. The scientific report that was leaked a week *after* my comment describes how dire the situation is. I've said it a couple of times over the last year, too.