Many of you here have a quite different opinion to myself about the
reasons for the Great Financial Crash and the current world economic
turmoil. The following link is to a one hour talk and question time
by Jeff Rubin a Canadian economist.
I think that you will find it enlightening. It is a little dated as it
is from November 2010 and since then oil went well over $100 in US and
$134 here. Since then the European situation has blown out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUD4tvTImxU&NR=1

Bazz, could you possibly summarise this lecture and highlight the main points, given that it is over an hour long.

This write up was attached to the Utube page.
He goes somewhat further into the effects of no more cheap oil.
The talk is half hour and questions are half hour.
Remember this is 2010 and it had not hit the fan in Europe then.

Commentary:
What do subprime mortgages, Atlantic salmon dinners, SUVs and globalization all have in common? They depend on cheap oil.

According to Jeff Rubin, we are poised on the brink of massive change. Dependent as it is on cheap oil, our global civilization is about to get the shock of its life.

Systems of trade, of finance, of shipping and manufacturing, of labor and international relations are all about to be rearranged. Get ready for a new world—one in which domestic manufacturing will be reinvigorated and the products and services we still enjoy will start coming from places much closer to home. There will be winners as well as losers when the age of globalization comes to an end. Distance will soon cost money, and so will burning carbon—both will bring long-lost jobs back home.

We may not see the kind of economic growth that globalization has brought, but local economies will be revitalized, as will our cities and neighbourhoods. Whether we like it or not, our world is about to get a whole lot smaller.

Globalisation was always going to be a flash in the pan. Sounds like things will edge into reverse and local manufacturing and "neighbourhood relations" will again be the name of the game. Trade will still go on as it always has, but distance will again wield some tyranny.

*Distance will soon cost money, and so will burning carbon*

In that case Bazz, first of all a good portion of the world will
have to starve, because of course the most common cheap item that
depends on cheap transport is boatloads of wheat, barley, rice and
all the rest. Those who most depend on those boatloads are
the poor in developing countries.

In contrast, I'll still be buying my next Ipad from China, as the
thing only weighs a few hundred grammes, so freight hardly matters.

If it was built in Australia, I could never afford one in the first
place, so that would create no jobs at all.

So it might not turn out quite as you think, Bazz.

We will always have different opinions.
And we will usually have good reasons to hold them.
We should respect others views,well not some conspiracy type things.
Bazz/Poirot I disagree, strongly with both of you.
I strongly think peak oil will, when it comes, be the reason we get alternative fuels.
And the globalization is very much here to stay.
Indeed we should be aware some things are let die,some manufacturing, because it can and will be ,done better/cheaper in other places.
Oil, currently very cheap, is propped up by its owners, and blocking real change to new fuels.
We should be aware, greens and fellow travelers referring to distance things travel is a blind, and silly, who thinks about the great distances sailing craft bought food and spices from.
Or camels over deserts?
The naked Morris Dancers are as lost as Wil Robinson ever was in a space of their own.

I've heard this theory, and I certainly respect Rubin, but oil prices are now down around 80+$/barrell, having fallen dramatically in recent weeks.
With signs of a global slow down showing up in various data, oil demand will ease a bit more yet, so there could be further falls.
These price levels raise questions about the theory, at least in the short term.
On the other hand gold is also falling which is not normal, so we're in uncharted territory.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Belly,

We may develop some nifty alternative fuels. But there's a rule in nature that dictates that an unrelenting push for progress always leads to breakdown. You may think this epoch of human history will override that rule, but I'm not so sure

Yes Yabby, a lot of people will starve unless they get to work growing their own food.

Belly said;
I strongly think peak oil will, when it comes, be the reason we get alternative fuels.

Well Belly the International Energy Authority said in their 2010 report
that peak crude oil occurred in 2006. That is why we had the 2008 GFC problem.
Alternatives are a real possibility with the best transition fuel being
natural gas. Biofuels have a poor ERoEI and require more land than we
might want to devote to fuel.
Re ships, quite a job to build a fleet of sailing ships to do the job
that the current fleet does and many times the number of ships would be needed.

Anthonyve said:
but oil prices are now down around 80+$/barrell,

and this is exactly what was predicted many many years ago.
The price will rise again with recovery, and then the economy will
slow again because of the higher price and then the price will fall again.
This oscillation will continue for a small number of cycles and then
stop at a low level. For all anyone knows perhaps it has stopped already.

Many experts who study this problem believe that the lifestyle that is
coming has many positive features and will be very satisfactory.

Anyway if this post makes you all look at energy a bit differently
it will have been worthwhile.

Bazz,
Now that's a really interesting idea that I hadn't thought through before; the notion that oil availability will create a feedback mechanism limiting global economic growth which will fall back until the oil price is low enough for growth to kick off again.
It's certainly sounds reasonable and does seem to fit in with what we are seeing.
I have a friend who is the oil drill bit business, and he has been telling me that oil drills are becoming incredibly complicated pieces of engineering due to the difficulty of finding a way to tap remaining oil fields.
That certainly supports your hypothesis.
I'm not too pessimistic though, as I think the world might be better off running out of oil sooner rather than later. I'm confident that alternatives can take up the slack and at doable prices. Economies of scale alone will start to work in renewables' favour.
Also, once the need is dire, I have no doubt that human ingenuity will find solutions.
Hopefully, those solutions will be less polluting than fossil fuels.
In that vein, I admit to mixed feelings about nuclear. On the one hand there's the Japanese experience - pretty scary and not anywhere near played out yet, and on the other hand there's the argument that nuclear power offers a technologically doable interim solution, both to peak oil and to global warming.
But with the problems associated with it, it's tough to see the right answer.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

My previous post spoke of an "unrelenting" push for progress. That's the key word. If humans were as wise as they are smart, they would have resisted the continuous gung-ho approach in utilising their fuel reserves. They would have retained their control and a fairly reasonable lifestyle if they had learned the art of moderation and restraint...like a pot of boiling water slowly simmering will not evaporate as fast as one at full boil.

Anthonyve said;
the notion that oil availability will create a feedback mechanism

Yes, I think it was Colin Campbell and or Kenneth Deffeyes who said
that when peak occurred and the rising cost of oil started to eat into
GDP that the economy would collapse and the price of oil would fall.

This is a classic feedback loop, but I have not seen anyone present
the calculations. To me it looks like a classic three term control
loop with too much gain. I only wish I had the maths to work it out.

To stop it oscillating you have to reduce its sensitivity, eg by
reducing the demand for oil, or increasing the supply, or bringing
into the loop an alternative liquid fuel.
That is what they did with biofuels for a while but they are
overwhelmed by depletion in older oil wells.

The other way of stopping it is to permanently remove one of the inputs.

Permanently remove one of the inputs.
Damn, that sounds drastic.
Seems like we're in for a rough ride.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Just as war drives invention a near end to oil would drive new fuel.
I too am unafraid of the end of oil, right now we could run the world on natural gas.
Poirot we know what you say is right, but man will not live in caves wrapped in animal skins again.
Growth may not be good but it is unstoppable, at present.
Oil will be replaced one day,we can then fight about what replaces it running out.

Anthonyve, the whole Japanese nuclear debacle could have been avoided
if they had built those stations on the west coast instead.
The plate junctions are to the east of Japan so no large tsunamis are
likely from the west, but then that is hindsight.

aaarrrggghhh, should have said unlikely from the west, but that is hindsight.

Belly,

I don't think man will live in caves wrapped in animal skins in the future. However, I'm inclined to think that he will be forced at some juncture to fall back on technologies from the past. It doesn't mean he loses civilisation.

Poirot I understood, maybe I get a bit lost.
Had Friends once who sold a great home to go bush.
They left first one then a second and better warm comfy home in nice village then township.
To live in a shed on 160 bush acres, heavy timber their dream!
Fire a log for cooking all that, I had no choice as a kid, they did, they now live in a flat! bit sorry they ever went Ferrel.
Bazz yes you are right.
Nuclear should never have been used there, BUT THEY KNEW! still know! cash over rules safety.
But we could do it should do it, BUT ONLY GOVERNMENT others can not be trusted.

*It doesn't mean he loses civilisation.*

Nah, just big cities as we know them. Take the energy equation
out of big cities and you have big slums of disease etc.

I'll stick to Daisy the cow and some acres :)