Campfire Open Thread

Lots of the TOD staff are here in Denver for the ASPO-USA meeting. Consider this a Campfire open thread.

editing to add link.
something discussed by aangel & leanan; & i've been thinking about a lot lately.
will financial collapse bring down essential parts of our system; food, electric, etc.?

their discussion begins below here;

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5838/546836

lots agree on a financial collapse approaching. with that as a given, what would be the linkages that would cause a collapse in electricity, food, petro, etc.; or what would be some possible adaptations that would 'firewall' off the collapse of these other parts of the our global systems, or significantly delay/mitigate collapse of that part.

one example i think of is the bailouts, nationalizing fanny/freddie seem for example to have put off the financial system itself from collapsing for now; & i think another round of stimulus could drag out the financial collapse into another presidential term.

personally, i think it will depend on if the US dollar collapses before or from oil shortage. if the dollar goes first (ie from global policy to shift away from us dollar for trade) then oils effects maybe delayed for the money rich countries.

a dollar collapse would see the biggest consumer in the world run out of credit. this would spin out the US and change oil consumption and basically buy us more time until supply catches demand.

if we see a recovery up in business continue, we will find out limits and crunch out economically slowly as inflation/stagflation finds a new sub prime audience to consume.

worst case (i think personally), will be if demand finds supply sooner than we think, this strains out another financial collapse in markets and then we are slapped with our first contested steep decline in supply. ie. 10%+. from the bell curve we will see a sharp pickup in decline that now is likely to be compounded from low investement in the past year or so and lost of output from slowly output recently (wells dont turn on and off the same as taps).

in this last senario, i think electricity is likely to ease as consumers pull back and industrial output drops.
most things will be effected financially from change of demand (like what we have seen).
eg.
- demand on commodities drop from industrial slow down
- commerce will wain from consumer drop in spending.
- consumers will run out of credit and jobs
- and the key to doom will be under this hurting position, oil is still costly (if its cheap we will dig ourselves again and it will repeat).
as when it does remain high it equals stagflation

each country will see this happen at different times and in different ways.
- net importers before exporters
- countries with high debt will fall faster

food i think will hold out as it takes so little oil in the maths of industry and general transport and it will remain a priority.
climate change may have stronger effects. though simons has a point about countries seeing a run on petrol. if oil is brought into the spot light for being short, people will panic and stockpile. this could drain the pipes and make haulage a big issue.

very interesting; fairly complex[to me] scenarios u point to.

u seem to keep oil/energy central to u'r thinking.

u'r point that the US going down first; 'buys more time' makes sense. i think a similiar way of thinking is that serious collapse will bring down 'global' systems; not just one part like the USSR went down, & we helped enough to stabilize it as it broke up.

on second thought though i can't see the US sit by as our dollar goes down w/o us retaliating in some way; perhaps war which to some would solve a no. of problems at one time. & i don't mean a war against those weakening our dollar, but a war that puts us in a position of world leadership that mitigates our dollar losses. kicks the can down the road a ways too.

edit to add;
going back to the bailouts/nationalizing as mitigation/buying time.

a general way to 'firewall' electric, industrial agriculture, etc. from financial collapse would be centralizing power, & making mitigating decisions; so centralizing power seems inevitable, but there are quite a no. that are 'up in arms' about Obama as our leader.

so successful centralizing of power with reasonably mitigating decisions.
i have wished that Obama with his community organizing training would move some power back to our states. twill be hard to in crises.

Hmmmm ...

I'm moving away from the 'crash' scenarios. The physical economy will continue to erode as oil prices rise along with unemployment. It will take years to get to 30% unemployment. Some will thrive and the rest will suffer. The 'thrivers' will be scarce at times but they will never disappear. In this, I think Kunstler is incorrect.

The financial economy will continue to expand. It creates its own liquidity as it goes along. While a company like Citigroup will be functionally insolvent, it's stock will soar and other Citi derivatives will also increase in value. Those that aren't doing so well will be 'balanced' by greater onrushings of lending within the context of a massively expanding 'finance balance sheet'.

According the BIS's latest report, this balance sheet measures over 500 trillion (with a 't') dollars! That's a lot of risk worldwide, but keep in mind, an expansion of this scale makes it a bagatelle to absorb the total liabilities of the entire financial system, including unfunded and potential mandates, such as USA medicare and pension/welfare/social security programs. If the total US private and public debt equals $100 trillion, a finance balance sheet of $1 quadrillion would absorb it @ ten- times leverage. We are the world ... halfway to $1 quadrillion already!

Realistically, the emperor has no clothes, but if the naked emperor can pay off all that 'bad' debt, who cares?

I believe this is the means by which the debt overhang will be neutered. It won't be defaulted upon but absorbed in an orders of magnitude increase of 'good' finance economy debt. None if this will be called debt; rather swaps or some alphabet - soup anagram of 'STEVE', but debt is what it will be ...

The balance sheet expansion locks the finance system into a 'zero interest rate policy' as any increase - even a modest one - would be unpayably large. However, the Fed and other central banks can monetize debt service. All this can play along for quite awhile, keeping the bankers in cigars and private jets for some time to come.

That time being today, tomorrow will have to take care of itself.

We can only hope.

RC

Can monopoly save our world?

steve
maybe u'r type thinking in actions gets us past a second 'heart attack, ^ quite a ways down the road; but since trust is necessary for the game, & most see the emperor's tush i think the next big one unravels the global financial system. thanks for u'r thoughts.

yer well i think oil will be a big issue if we hit steep decline that once demand sinks off to the point that markets crank, and then we still are short on oil, it will mean that oil will stick at $200+ because markets will have to fight for the oil to meet the basics. and there just isnt enough to go around and continue to let global markets operate. enough of a supply drop to scare the public into starting a run on the gas.

whilst demand can bottom out at a point that markets can still operate, and governments can still bail them, AND the price of oil drops to sub $70 prices, then believe the market will have the cheap energy it needs that business can create margins that profit and people can afford. if oil holds above this then theres a big problem.

so i think while supply holds above 60mill barrels a day, that we will find a way of making this tick over. lower and then its gets hard to share it around. remember a small shortage sends prices into a spin. if its a world with 10% to 15% less oil, then i think effiency and suffering 3rd worlds wont be enough to buffer the developed economies that REQUIRE discretionary spending of the public.

if you can jump in your car and drive down to the shops and spend some spare cash, then markets will crash.

we will continue to bounce like we have until this decline cracks it too much.
also consider how much bailing out has been done already. governments are spent and need decades to recover. but times out they are going to face round two within 3 years (i think). the next bounce might be a might long one, and even if oil drops down cheap - the depression that would ensue an economy without bailouts would be so long that declining supply would catch up.

i agree, ofcourse the US wont sit down and let the dollar be replaced.
but if half the world secretly preps and then suddenly switches to euro. i dont know what the US can do about it.
i think any half baked attempt will prolly rally a run on the dollar and it will put the wheels in motion.

im not sure the world wants to see the US fail as it will definately sink everyone else as well. but i agree that its stupid that one country running incrediable debt is special child that can print money without getting in trouble. in this light its totally unfair that US gets this edge on everyone else. and if you knew that the other countries currency had been falling for a decade and will halve again on purpose to cut up a 30trillion dollar liability it cant afford - who wouldnt want to stop using it?

but what is the US going to do about it? it could raise interates to stabilize its value and destory its subprime all over again and uproot the bond market in the process. if it went to war, who would back them? and someone would have to give back their nobel prize. i think the only fight to keep it is that global markets will go into a spin as every insurer and debt bank would go belly up (again). so the US could use fear ..

yeah and i think to 'firewall' off those industries means that everyone cries foul as there will always been sections that are left out. that or the government has to own the companies which means huge cost of buying them back.

TARP has a plan to recoup its cost, how would firewalling on this scale?
have they done anything like this in the past?you cant give people power stamps

not to mention that china is on the list of ppl that want to shift.
if the US make a move, china could just not buy US debt which would also be a game ender.
china has a trillion or something tied up in US dollars, wonder how they will handle that..

How hard it is to understand that american military can't win a war. There is no war ever on foreign soil that american military had won. Even in wwii it was the soviets taking 75% of all and 80% of elite nazi troops and on the pacific front it was the nuclear bomb, not a conventional victory.

maybe they like stringing them out, so they can sell more missles to themselves...

Wait just a minute, there, buster. We 'merkuns wupped those upstarts down in Granada pretty darn good. They'll think twice before messin' 'round with us again, dad gum it!

And don't go whining about how this was a case of the largest military in the world taking on about the smallest. That is totally irregardless! We won 'em fair 'n' squar!

/sarcasm

(I'm a bit shocked that my spellchecker did not flag 'irregardless'!)

After allowing Taliban / Al Qaeda forces to seize your military headquarters for a day, do you think Pakistan needs more help from the U.S. than financial aid to beat those guys?

Mind Game
Year 30

This is a mind game on what might be at some point in the future. The further out the more difficult this becomes. As we extrapolate further the variables increase exponentially as the information pertaining ever diminishes.

While a good predictive mathematical model would be the ultimate goal, at this point the goal is to hash out the variables using what if possibilities to assist the creative process.

Looking 30 years ahead…

Energy is by far the most important input. The more we exhaust our raw material resources the more energy is need to maintain production. At present there are no realistic in time replacements for the energy derived from fossil fuels. Therefore, we will likely have far less available energy while needing so much more.

To make a good future forecast model we need a good estimate of total energy production. How much energy will we have to work with?

What is going to be rare and expensive that is cheap and common now? Liquid fuels for one will likely be hard to come by. Food and clean water will likely be much more expensive and in short supply. Housing, lots of dark damp cold dwellings but few warm dry homes. Clothing, lots of old worn out clothing but little new. Health care, will we find medical care with many of the durable tools but having few of the consumables.

What type(s) of monetary value exchange tools will be in use? Trust in fiat paper will likely have died an ungraceful death by then… Will it be gold, some other precious metals, barter …?

The population issue is by far the most vexing. The evidence so compelling it seems indisputable, the earth cannot support anywhere near our present much less expanding population.

Just how many of us humans can be supported sustainably is open to debate. I have seen estimates of between .5 to 2 billion. What becomes a sustainable population in 30 years depends not only on the size of the average person’s ecological footprint but on how much ecological damage happens between now and then.

Food production will likely be the primary determining factor unless some wild card factor has its way. Peak food will likely closely follow peak oil on a downward spiral. Food production however has numerous limiting factors that peak oil does not have and food production could well fall faster that oil production.

Along with increasingly limited energy related inputs, food production is limited by declining; water resources, productive soils, soil inputs, seed diversity, beneficial insects, wild food populations, ability to adapt infrastructure to changing conditions … and increasing; pollution, climate variability, pestilence …

The process of this population reduction, how the population reduction plays out will be a critical factor. This process is likely to be ugly.

So in 30 years what population levels might we be at?

Technologies, what level will the average person have access? Will we still have, still able to manufacture cell phones? Will the few have more advanced technology while most have much less…? Many raw materials will likely be in critical short supply and replacement parts may or may not be available. Our landfills may be the best source of these raw materials and replacement parts.

New technologies will they help or hurt. Some will likely help while others may well cause us much grief. Existing technologies will likely have negative/positive effects that we have yet to discover or are under/over estimated. We desperately need a vastly better electrical energy storage device, one that can be made with available resources in a benign manner, can this be done?

Technology in 30 years?

The average Joe has not a clue. Even those of us who have been thinking about this for years are overwhelmed. Can the average Joe be made aware of the coming paradigm change? How is this lack of awareness going to be overcome, can it be considering how commercial TV addicted the average person is.

The average person’s mindset is horribly sub optional if a stable, peaceful and sustainable world is our goal. Long term this changes or game over… Crash and burn looks to be a done deal the question is how hard will be the fall and the goal becomes how do we achieve the softest possible landing.

Any thoughts?

I've made many a subtle effort over the past couple of years to get in the ears of my fellow Joes and Janes in my immediate circle, about the basic math of exponential growth. Perhaps because we live in a country (Australia) where we haven't been hit as hard as others (yet?) that they all tend to continue on, BAU.

So there'll be no "paradigm change" here until it happens!

Regards, Matt B
Still living in mainstream

PS. We just had our first "Great Green Race" (40-odd V8s completing 1000km on E85 (ethanol from sugar cane)). Though the commentators admitted cars ran 30% lesser distance on a tank - compared to traditional blends - there was no mention of the EROI.

How "green" is E85? Can it be scaled up?

E85 has just enough green that the PR types can spin it into something it's not.

I have yet to see anything convincing that it can be scaled up to make a game changing difference, the main issue being EROEI.

If we do find a realistic BAU fossil fuel energy replacement it's going to be like Spindletop, obvious to the point that sharp pencils will not be needed to know that it's for real.

Likely true about paradigm change, sad because learning to play well with others would be in everyone's best interest.

Can we change without a plan.

A new way of thinking is all we need.

Humankind must have a goal.

For the necessary changes we really can believe in.

One person can make it happen.

Time is running out...

We are going to change with or without one. With a plan the outcome will hopefully be much better. The more I think about trying to model this the more overwhelming it seems to be. Modeling climate changes is child play compared to this. But at least if we have some contingencies based on what if's would be a big help.

Maybe in the 1960 all we needed was a change in thinking. Now it is still a must but not a only.

Goal: to live in a sustainable, healthy, egalitarian... way

Looks like living a win win life would be easy to believe in.

One person, yes. Can any one person be that person, I suspect not but you don't know if you don't try.

Time has run out, the boat is going down, we need to save what we can so hopefully we can rebuild and do it better next time, if there is...

I am looking for assistance in compilling Events that shaped Recent World History, particularly in the following areas Political, Energy, Technological, Climate, Population, General.

Following is a starter list, any & all suggestions or corrections are welcome!

1712 - British ironmonger Thomas Newcomen invents the first widely used steam engine, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and industrial scale use of coal.
1800 - World human population reaches one billion
1823 - Samuel Brown patented the first internal combustion engine to be applied industrially
1859 - Worlds First Commercial Oil well began producing, in the US.
1861 - American Civil War Began
1865 - American Civil War Ends
1868 - Louis Pasteur Discovery of the Germ theory of disease
1886 - Karl Benz unveils the Motorwagen, often regarded as the first true automobile.
1913 - The Federal Reserve is formed
1913 – Ford introduces the assembly line.
1914 – Start of World War I
1917 - Lenin's Russian Revolution
1918 – End of World War I
1919 – Treaty of Versailes to settle affairs after WW1
1927 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach one billion tonnes per year
1928 - Penicillin was discovery by Alexander Fleming. It was later developed as Medicine by Walter Florey
1929 – The Great Depression starts, Stock Market crash begins October 24
1930 – World human population reaches two billion
1939 - Start of World War II
1944 - The Bretton Woods agreement
1945 – End of World War II, U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
1946 - The baby boom begins
1948 - The rebirth of Israel as an independent nation
1949 - Proclamation of the People's Republic of China
1955 - US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses the infrared absorption of various gases & concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.
1957 - Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community
1960 – World human population reaches three billion.
1962 - October Cuban Missile Crisis
1963 - Assassination of John F. Kennedy
1965 - A US President's Advisory Committee panel warns that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern".
1968 – The Personal Computer (PC) was first advertised for commercial sale
1969 – Man lands on Moon
1969 - Woodstock – Summer of love, the end of innocence
1970 - Peak Oil in US
1973 - US decouples US$ from Gold..
1973 - First “Oil Shock”
1975 - World human population reaches four billion.
1975 - US scientist Wallace Broecker puts the term "global warming" into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.
1985 - The Antarctic ozone hole was discovered by British scientists Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey
1987 - World human population reaches five billion
1987 – Stock Market crash October 19.
1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed to collate and assess evidence on climate change.
1989 - Fall of Berlin Wall
1989 - UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher calls for a global treaty on climate change
1989 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach six billion tonnes per year.
1990 - IPCC produces 1st Report. It concludes that temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6C over the last century
1991 - End of the Soviet Union
1995 - IPCC 2nd Report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests "a discernible human influence" on the Earth's climate.
1998 - Strong El Nino conditions combine with global warming to produce the warmest year on record.
1999 – World human population reaches six billion.
2001 – 9/11
2001 - IPCC 3rd Report finds "new and stronger evidence" that humanity's emissions are the main cause of the warming seen in the second half of the 20th Century.
2005 - World Peak Oil (Effectively, according to me)
2006 - the Stern Review concludes that climate change could damage global GDP by up to 20% if left unchecked - but curbing it would cost about 1% of global GDP.
2006 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach eight billion tonnes per year.
2007 - IPCC 4th Report concludes it is more than 90% likely that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for modern-day climate change.
2007- Global Financial Crisis begins in October
2008 - The Keeling project at Mauna Loa shows that CO2 concentrations have risen from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380ppm in 2008.
2008 - Oil Price Peaked at $147 per barrel.
2009 - Barrack Obama elected - America's first black president
2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen
2050 - World population is projected to reach 9 Billion

1886 - Santa Clara CA judicial decision allowing corporations to have 'personhood'. A biggie.

For clarification, it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision (or a footnote in it anyway). Welcome to Denver, by the way!

1765 First working model of the Watt Steam Engine

1776 American Revolution

1793 Execution of Louis XVI

1837 Blacksmith John Deere makes a steel plow out of a discarded saw mill blade. Prairie soils that would stick to the cast iron plows slid right off the steel.

1909 Chemist Fritz Haber synthesizes ammonia

Events that shaped Recent History (Political, Energy, Technological, Climate, Population, General)

Thank you for you individual suggestions! Following is an updated list, which I again would welcome all relevant inputs.

Update
1712 - British ironmonger Thomas Newcomen invents the first widely used steam engine, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and industrial scale use of coal.
1775 - The first fully developed version of the Watt Steam engine goes into production
1776 - The American colonies sign the Declaration of Independence
1781 - The American Revolution ends, as the British surrendered at Yorktown on October 17
1798 - The Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus was first published
1800 - World human population reaches one billion
1823 - Samuel Brown patented the first internal combustion engine to be applied industrially
1859 - Worlds First Commercial Oil well began producing, in the US.
1859 - Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published November 24
1861 - American Civil War Began
1865 - American Civil War Ends
1868 - Louis Pasteur Discovery of the Germ theory of disease
1886 - Karl Benz unveils the Motorwagen, often regarded as the first true automobile.
1886 – US Supreme court decision in Santa Clara CA allowing corporations to have 'personhood'
1893 – New Zealand became the first country to grant Women the Right to Vote
1903 – Wright Bros first powered flight
1913 - The Federal Reserve is formed
1913 - Ford introduces the assembly line.
1914 - Start of World War I
1917 - Lenin's Russian Revolution

1918 - End of World War I
1919 - Treaty of Versailes to settle affairs after WW1
1927 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach one billion tonnes per year
1928 - Penicillin was discovery by Alexander Fleming. It was later developed as Medicine by Walter Florey
1929 - The Great Depression starts, Stock Market crash begins October 24
1930 - World human population reaches two billion
1939 - Start of World War II
1944 - The Bretton Woods agreement
1945 – End of World War II, U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
1946 - The baby boom begins
1948 - The rebirth of Israel as an independent nation
1949 - Proclamation of the People's Republic of China
1955 - US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses the infrared absorption of various gases & concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.
1957 - Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community
1960 – World human population reaches three billion.
1960 – The Oral Contraceptive Pill was approved for use
1962 - October Cuban Missile Crisis
1963 - Assassination of John F. Kennedy
1964 – Baby Boom starts to Decline
1965 - A US President's Advisory Committee panel warns that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern".

1968 – The Personal Computer (PC) was first advertised for commercial sale
1969 – Man lands on Moon
1969 - Woodstock – Summer of love, the end of innocence
1970 - Peak Oil in US
1973 - US decouples US$ from Gold..
1973 - First “Oil Shock”
1975 - World human population reaches four billion.
1975 - US scientist Wallace Broecker puts the term "global warming" into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.
1985 - The Antarctic ozone hole was discovered by British scientists Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey
1987 - World human population reaches five billion
1987 – Stock Market crash October 19.
1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed to collate and assess evidence on climate change.
1989 - Berlin Wall falls
1989 - UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher calls for a global treaty on climate change
1989 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach six billion tonnes per year.
1990 - IPCC produces 1st Report. It concludes that temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6C over the last century
1991 - End of the Soviet Union
1995 - IPCC 2nd Report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests "a discernible human influence" on the Earth's climate.
1998 - Strong El Nino conditions combine with global warming to produce the warmest year on record.
1999 – World human population reaches six billion.

2001 – 9/11
2001 - IPCC 3rd Report finds "new and stronger evidence" that humanity's emissions are the main cause of the warming seen in the second half of the 20th Century.
2005 - World Peak Oil (Effectively, according to me)
2006 - the Stern Review concludes that climate change could damage global GDP by up to 20% if left unchecked - but curbing it would cost about 1% of global GDP.
2006 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach eight billion tonnes per year.
2007 - IPCC 4th Report concludes it is more than 90% likely that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for modern-day climate change.
2007- Global Financial Crisis begins in October
2008 - The Keeling project at Mauna Loa shows that CO2 concentrations have risen from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380ppm in 2008.
2008 - Oil Price Peaked at $147 per barrel.
2009 - Barrack Obama elected - America's first black president
2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen
2050 - World population is projected to reach 9 Billion

Spindletop Jan 10, 1901
Ghawar 1948
Burgan 1938
...

You have to love the poetry of time...Malthus publishes just as world population reaches 1 billion, birth control pill just as it reaches 3 billion. :-)

RC

1963 Norman Borlaug starts "Green Revolution" when Mexico becomes net exporter of wheat
1980 Diamond VS. Chakrabarty: First case to legitimize life patents

As an aside:
There was a game we used to play when we were teens (I guess inspired by the Dr Who TV series) : If you had a time machine, and you had a gun, who would you go back and shoot and what effect would this have on the present?
(assuming you could defend your court case for shooting someone by explaining your reasons)

1789 US Constitution ratified
1848 Gold discovered in Calif, or, cuz I'm a Niner fan, 1849, Calif. Gold
Rush
1943 Hofmann discovers LSD

1920 - Congress ratifies the 19th Amendment prohibiting gender-based restrictions on voting. (Women in the US are FINALLY guaranteed the right to vote....this is a pretty major political event and most definitely has helped shape history)

Don't forget to integrate barret's contribututions above.

"1909 Chemist Fritz Haber synthesizes ammonia" was especially important.

1913 Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution ratified enabling Federal Income Tax.
This goes along with the Federal Reserve Act and was done to fleece the American people by forcing them to pay the interest to the federal reserve consortium criminals.

1905 Einstein's "miracle year"
1919 Eddington's eclipse photograph that purportedly proved General Relativity and changed Physics forever also brought the ideas mainstream and probably had a profound effect on the masses attitude contributing to the roaring twenties and the aftermath.

1905--
The greatest burst of though ever--

Here are a few more:

1783.09.19 - First hot air balloon flight (15 minutes, by Pilatre De Rozier) carrying a sheep, a duck, and a rooster

1783.11.21 - First manned hot air balloon flight (from center of Paris, 20 minutes) by 2 French brothers - Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier

1816 - "year without a summer"

1821 - First natural gas find - Fredonia, NY

1935 - The Wilderness Society is founded by Aldo Leopold, Benton MacKaye, Bob Marshall, & others

1956.03.07 - M. King Hubbert predicts US oil production peaks in 1965/6-1970/1 (150-200 Gb)

1957.10.04 - Sputnik

1959 - First picture of Earth from space taken by the U.S. satellite Explorer VI

1961 - Yuri Gagarin is first human in space

1965.05.10 - Kenneth Boulding introduces idea of "spaceship earth"

1968.12 - First proper image of Earth from space, seen as a complete sphere, was Apollo 8's famous photograph 'Earthrise'

1968 - Club of Rome founded by Aurelio Peccei

1972 - The Limits to Growth is published

1981 - Humans start using more oil than they find

1983.03.28 - Sally Ride becomes the first woman in space

1986.04 - Chernobyl nuclear disaster

1989 - M. King Hubbert dies

1989 - Exxon Valdez accident releases 11 million barrels of oil into Prince William Sound [check this]

2008.07.11 - Oil (WTI) hits $147.27/bbl

-- Philip B. / Washington, DC

Louis Pasteur was not the first to propose the Germ Theory. The concept of living causitive agents causing disease was proposed in an ancient text of Hinduism known as Atharaveda. One of the first references in Western literature to what is known as germ theory was in "On Agriculture" from 36 BCE. Pasteur developed the germ theory and did experiments which convincingly disproved the theory of spontaneous generation and supported germ theory.

His further research showed microorganisms were responsible for spoiling beverages such as milk and beer. Pasteur and Claude Bernard began tests of the process which was soon afterwards known as pasteurization on April 20th, 1862.

Pasteur then applied this line of thought concerning microorganisms to human and animal disease. He proposed that microorganisms infecting humans and animals caused disease. (Germ theory of disease - Disease arise from organisms outside the body. These microorganisms do not change, and anybody can be the victim of disease.) Antoine Bechamp, a contemporary of Pasteur, maintained the pleomorphic theory - that bacteria change form and are not the cause of, but the result of, disease, arising from tissues rather than a germ of constant form. This is also known as the cellular theory of disease. Claude Bernard who proposed the concept of homeostasis, or controlled stability of the internal environment of cells and tissues, also supported the idea that germs change in response to the body's terrain.
Current research concerning probiotics (beneficial microorganisms known to live on our skin and in our bodies) and the immune system(s) are adding new wrinkles to this debate.
It is said that Pasteur recanted the germ theory of disease on his deathbed. He is supposed to have said something akin to "Bernard was right. The germ is nothing. The terrain is everything." This is hotly contested and considered a possible urban legend.

In 1865, after reading a paper by Pasteur, Joseph Lister developed antiseptic surgery. He reasoned that if microorganisms caused infection then preventing them from entering the open wound during surgery would greatly reduce postoperative infection and morbidity. He introduced techniques such as hand washing prior to surgery and the use of sanitary tools and dressings.

I suggest...
1862 - Louis Pasteur with Claude Bernard developed the process of pateurization.
1862-1864 - Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease
1865 - Joseph Lister developed antiseptic surgery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Bechamp

http://www.healingourchildren.net/cause_of_disease.htm

http://www.whale.to/v/germ.htm

http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread9088.html

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/louis_pasteur.htm

http://www.acahf.org.au/articles/pasteur.htm

http://www.essortment.com/all/sirjosephliste_rcod.htm

I'd scratch Kennedy, only thing he ever really did was get assassinated. Otherwise he was a pretty poor president.

Add Crick, Watson and Wilkins. Although it won't mean a helluva lot in a few years when we go back to the dark ages.....

Scratch oil at $147.00. This will be meaningless in a few months.

I'd scratch Kennedy, only thing he ever really did was get assassinated.
==============

I think someone already did?

Okay, we will for the moment go a bit past the little omissions such as the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" in 1859 or the 1796 publication of the first "The Principles of Population" by Thomas Robert Malthus (oh look, an early bell curve!) because these were simply revolutions in ideas {albeit the revolutions in ideas that the whole premise of The Oil Drum are built upon})and instead go to the greatest omission, almost unimaginable how it could have been left out of a list so concerned with population: 1960, the first production of a reliable oral contraceptive, the birth control pill.

This may actually be one of the, if not THE greatest developments in human history. For the first time in the history of any species (plant or animal)on Earth,one species could consciously seperate the act of sex from the consequence of reproduction. When I am asked "are humans smarter than yeast?", I reply thusly: "When yeast can invent and use birth control, come back and ask me then."

RC

Crick and Watson and the lady who should have gotten credit -DNA , 1953 ???can't remember , will google.

EO Wilson,The siciobiology book 1975

Alas RC, after almost 50 years of use, the unintended consequences of sex hormones such as those used in the birth control pill are starting to be discovered. Sex hormones, as well as other pharmaceuticals, are being found in small but potentially significant levels in drinking water and wild streams throughout the US and the world.

http://www.alternet.org/water/80505/

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=10896

The birth control pill was also not the first reliable oral contraceptive in human history. Silphilum/silphion was well known to the Romans and the Greeks. A Cyrenian coin depicting the plant was circulating twenty five hundred years ago. However, the plant was harvested to extinction by the 2nd century CE due to high demand and a small growing range.

http://www.hipakistan.com/articles/art172.html

Firstly, I was not aware of Silphilum/silphion in Roman and Greek culture, very interesting, I want to study that more...

Secondly, the hormones in water...this could create an astounding unintended consequence...accidental birth control and dropping fertility rates in humans but also in other species...I have not seen research concerning the effect of human sex hormones on other species...someday it could be bigger news than Rachel Carson's work on pesticides in water...

RC

Water is 'full' of hormones and hormone like substances from animals and plastics.
Some hormones used in contraception are broken down more slowly than natural hormones but effects seem to be confined to a relatively small area around activated sludge plants which are not designed to remove them. BTW the pesticides Carson wrote about (mainly dioxin based pesticides) are still in the environment and the effects of them will not disappear as they are not broken down at all.

1946 --invention of the think tank

A few hints, and you should probably include the modern monetary system / Bank of England (1694).

A) British History Timeline
Play around - one can zoom and select different topics and more.

B) Innovations Timeline : http://www.ideafinder.com/history/timeline.htm

C) Depending on how much time you can spend - Wikipedia has this kind of service type in successive years (example here : 1876)..... like : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876 ... but keep in mind that Wikipedia is what it is - not complete so quality varies.

1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill

This ushered into the mainstream the ecology era and the start of the EPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

1969 Cuyahoga River Fire in Cleveland

Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays."[14]

--
Important because the mainstream conservative movement would have us go back to that time :)

Here's what I think would make for a good in house article:

The disparity between different viewpoints as to when peak oil occurred or when it will occur. In particular, I've noticed numerous articles linked to TOD that estimate peak oil occurring in 2030, yet most on TOD seem to have designated July 2008 as having been the date for Peak Oil. Now I realize like everyone else that the actual date for Peak oil may have passed or it may be in the future - we will not know with absolute assurance until more time has passed.

In any case, it makes for an interesting analysis as to why there are so many reporting on the topic of oil that kick the can down the line two more decades until we hit peak oil. Twenty two years (2008-2030) is a big chasm between estimates of peak oil. I'd love to know why there's such a big spread.

Earl -- I've had similar thoughts especially since I'm a petroleum geologist. I have a tendency to scoff at those who feel they have some accurate expectation of the geotechnical aspects. Your question raises the issue of the motivations behind the varying estimates. I don't necessarily ascribe any great conspiratorial effort behind either end of the spectrum. But perhaps some opinions are affected by economic expectations, which are used to bias the geotechnical expectations.

This leads to reflect on the old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there...etc. Assume for a moment that whenever PO actually occurs (I actually think more in terms of peak plateau) the demand for global crude is less then the supply available. Under those conditions PO is a non-event. Now lets look at the other extreme: PO is still many years away. In other words supplies are continuing to increase. But if demand, as a result of booming economies around the globe, pushes prices through the roof folks will quickly slide into panic. Now lets look at an even more extreme, and thus very unlikely situation, global demand decreases faster then production declines post PO. Again, PO becomes rather irrelevant.

Perhaps many folks are using their estimates of the timing of PO as a proxy for the economic troubles of a supply/production imbalance. Excess oil = no need to worry about PO...we're good for decades. Insufficient oil = OMG...Po has come and gone and we're doomed. When the predictors tend to focus more on the positive/negative economic aspects of a supply imbalance they use those factors to shade their technical assumptions used to predict PO timing. Today's supply exceeds demand so why discuss PO (note sarcastic grin). And if production capability, though always dropping, still exceeds demand for the next 20 years we'll still see no negative effects of PO even in 2030. Whether anyone here believes there's even a 1 in a 1000 chance of that happening it doesn't change the fact some will use such expectations to counter PO. Granted most cornucopians use increased oil discoveries and/or phenomenal expansion of the alts to ward off PO problems.

But I think you get my point: IMO many estimate their expectations of future economic conditions and reverse engineer a PO scenario to support those expectations.

Point well taken Rockman. I suppose it's easy to get caught up in presumptions of demand vs. declining supply, and at a certain point the presumptions start to solidify like concrete, when in reality they are just projections based on data that can change for a multitude of reasons. Just when you think something is taking shape, it changes - that's life.

No way to be certain about an exact date. Most likely, IMO, we are at a plateau of sorts, with the length of that plateau determined by new techinques at permeation and forcing. It seems to me that, and recent data from Pemex appears to support this thesis, the longer the plateau, the steeper the decline to follow. So, what we see now is a production plateau post peak, and IMO 2005 looks as good a date for the real 'peak', though briefly production exceeded that in 2008.

The real question seems to be, do we have a long emergency, or a long decline? Not a really stunning view to the future, but reality is what it is.

Peak Oil from a human perspective = when the amount of oil per person starts to drop.

That time is long gone.

z -- Your point about a "long emergency" got me thinking about perceptions. I'll use the HMS Titanic as a model. Steaming at high speed through the iceberg laden N. Atlantic wasn't an "emergency" in anyone's mind (aka the 1980's and oil was dirt cheap and no need to discuss PO). The reality: it was an emergency situation that had to be recognized and reacted to immediately but no one did. We see the iceberg ahead (price spikes over the last 25 years) but no panic. We'll shift course a little (alt credits and better CAFE standards). Besides, we're unsinkable (we are the most powerful nation, after all). We hit the iceberg (price spike of 2008). Damn...what a shock. But the captain (politicians and MSM) tell us the situation is under control and we should just party on. And the ship sales on (prices drop to under $40/bbl) and we are all sure our leaders were correct. See...they are popping corks on more champagne (new big DW GOM and Brazil fields discovered) PARTY ON!! But the holds have been filling with water all this time (depletion/ELP have not stopped). The bulkheads aren't high enough to contain the leak behind the watertight doors (new big fields can't replace the declining volumes). Now the ship begins to list (oil imbalance becomes a constant and progressive event). The captain tells us a few might not have seats on the lifeboats (a few might suffer but most will be OK. (No worries...just an occasion price spikes and short term economic decline). The truth emerges: many have no seats on the lifeboats but rescue ships on the way. It's a little scary but we have a plan to save you (we're from the gov't and are here to help you). The ship goes down and there are no rescue ships (PO has become a permanent problem and there are no quick fixes).

IMO it has never been a long emergency. But some had perceived it as being so while others saw no emergency at all. Regardless we were facing a sever immediate emergency at least the last 30 years ago. The fact that few recognized it doesn’t change the nature of the problem . And now to complete my mini-novel: how does TOD fit in? We’re the damage control officer desperately calling to the bridge to warn the captain of the danger. But, alas, the com system is damaged. Must be…they certainly wouldn’t ignore us, would they?

Good analogy. What struck me in the movie (Titanic - Cameron) that after hitting the burg lack of info distribution and lack of a plan to maximize survivability resulted in much worse outcome than necessary.

It seems like we are at the point that the boat is starting to list and everyone is standing around with their hands in there pockets. At this point the boats going down, accept it.

Goal is to insure best possible outcome. So the boat is going down, not enough life boats but we have a ship full of material and lots of manpower so lets get busy and build anything that will float long enough to give the Carpathia time to get here.

The goal for TOD is to get the goal of best possible outcome in the public view. IMHO that is.

If you read the books on Titanic, not the movie, the story's much more interesting. She didn't hit an ice berg head on but was scratched by one. She sank nonetheless though the combined effects of substandard steel having been worked in the structure (Ballard found lost of broken rivets) and a watertight subdivision design which was meant to save her in a head on collision and not in a smaller accident that opened up lost of small holes...
Links with PO: Using sub-standard measures against the another problem which is also deadly. So CCS is like the Titanic. Substandard measure (immature technology) against a very deadly crisis (Climate change is very serious) but not the one which is hitting us first.

Here is a link to an article that just came out on Science Daily. Previously only the last 800,000 years of climate had been catalogued from ice layers. However their team has taken this back to 20 million years ago! This is the latest information on global warming and it is shocking!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

One must wonder why our climate isn't as different as the past record shows when CO2 levels were as high as they are today. One explanation might be the increase in CO2 has occurred too fast for the thermal energy in the atmosphere to have altered the temperature of the oceans enough to cause such a big difference in temerature and sea level - something scientists call the thermal inertia, which takes 30-40 years to take full effect. So we have until 2039-2049 to find out what the level of CO2 in our atmosphere today will portend, which may be exactly what the above article is pointing to from the distant past. 5-10 degrees F higher and seas that are 120 feet higher!!!

Now there's some campfire talking points.

Pretty scary stuff to the sane.

It's no surprise when stupid people decide that some well-established body of science - like AGW - isn't true since they don't want it to be. However, you get bright people doing it too.

One thing that often strikes me when otherwise-intelligent people discount the odds of AGW and its consequences is assymetry of consequences vs gains. This goes to the human discount rate, and to anthropocentric hubris in general.

In other words, why the heck should smart people have to be "convinced" in order to acknowledge that the great preponderance of peer-reviewed science has established a high probability of very scary outcomes?

If we're talking about the end of the world as we have known it, as we certainly are, how can we not be struck by the incredibly incongruity of weighing several decades of human luxury and fecundity in the near-term against the survival of the rainforests, ocean ecosystems, biodiversity, and the climate we and our cohorts evolved for and depend on?

Yet the burden of proof is put on the earth, effectively. How can we be sure the world will change terribly? Good god, what if we curbed our economy and had fewer babies, and it turned out to be all for nothing? Why, then we'd be.... we'd be... well, still better off, but, but....

It would seem that if there was a one-percent chance of a breakdown of planetary life systems or drastic variation in climate, that should be sufficient to cause a hypothetical intelligent species to drastically curtail its activities and give the hairy eyeball to its own activities. After all, we have the better part of a billion years before the sun burns out, and "intelligent" humans could inhabit the earth for many millions of those years. We're potentially betting the lives of many or all humans who might live in that very long time if we hadn't mucked things up.

The odds are a lot worse than 1%.

It would seem that if there was a one-percent chance of a breakdown of planetary life systems or drastic variation in climate, that should be sufficient to cause a hypothetical intelligent species to drastically curtail its activities

One would think. What gets me is how long it takes those with the information to convince those that don't understand, that it's imperative to do something about it. It's like a train that is slowly gaining momentum, requiring time, energy and persistance like you can't believe to force it through the collective body of world politic to get any action. I'd really like to think in a few thousand years information like this can be better assimilated in a much shorter period of time.

If you want to spend an hour watching a really eye-opening (and very sad) documentary, try "The Last Beekeeper".

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/reel-impact/reel-impact-beekeeper-do...

The reality that we are having a terribly harmful effect on our environment hits you right between the eyes when you see the impacts of "modern" monoculture agriculture on beekeeping.

For those in the US, btw, this is currently available on Comcast on Demand.

Addendum: In 2007, 31% of honeybee colonies in the US died. Can anyone visualize the uproar there'd be if 31% of the dogs, or cows, or corn died in one year?

The discount rate idea, IMO, is the story here.

In 30 years, I will be 74, if not dead.

In 40 years, I will be 84, and in 40 years there is a lot higher probability that I will be dead.

Even my youngest (of Two [2]) children will be 47 30 years from now.

To young folks, 47 (or 57!) seems like an eternity away.

I would like humanity to pull together for the benefit of our progeny and the future of the Earth's ecosystems, but the vast majority of folks live and think only in the here and now.

Change that mindset, and you will change the course of humanity and the planet.

It can be changed by the same method that it was created.
The brainwashing by the media.
Good Luck.

The other method is the education system.

I would like humanity to pull together for the benefit of our progeny and the future of the Earth's ecosystems, but the vast majority of folks live and think only in the here and now. Change that mindset, and you will change the course of humanity and the planet.

I'd like to see the "here and now" mindset changed - I've seen it happen with a few individuals - but I'm afraid it's too locked in to change before the black swans stampede in this century. Perhaps thousands of years hence, though I wouldn't bet on it. There is simply no likely stepwise path for it to evolve, since individuals with a "here and now" focus generally do better in the short term.

Strictly speaking, self-awareness is an emergent defect in an animal brain, a threshold which is reached past a certain level of being able to abstract the real world and model it. Its existence in humans causes all sorts of interesting internal dissonance, which has led to bizarre and convoluted coping mechanisms which we value, but which are for the most part delusional. The "self aware" mind is effectively kept on a short leash.

I think it'd be easier to convince everyone to become left-handed.

Just for economy of comments I'll also respond to Porge below:

It can be changed by the same method that it was created.
The brainwashing by the media.
Good Luck.

Brainwashing is a good term, though it has a negative connotation. But really, does it per se describe a heinous activity, or is it more an observation of "what works" to get humans to modify behavior?

Humans in aggregate have a hard time changing their patterns through anything other than brainwashing. Those who figure they're pretty self-actualized will decry it, but it's what works. As an activist I've tried the "educate everyone" route and I've tried "brainwashing", and as big a shame as it seems, the latter works better.

By "brainwashing" I mean all avenues which do not involve a stepwise understanding of the real world through logic and observation. This would include rote memorization, offering of boilerplate belief systems, creation of attractive meme complexes... in other words, doing what works.

It certainly isn't just "the media" which does it, or even principally the media. The zeitgeist is constantly being reframed in minor ways, with waves propagating back and forth as attractive meme complexes virally compete for dominance within the context of the changing fitness landscape of human brainspace.

We can try to make our own waves, or we can opt out.

greenish

Are you saying that we are in a transitional dysfunctional mindset between self-aware and self-actualized.

Ha. Actually, my own mindset this morning is suspect, I didn't get much sleep last night. I'm probably being a bit loose with my verbage. But I like your statement, even though I should have put quotes around "self actualized" above.

I've done self-awareness work with brainy nonhuman critters and have thought about thinking a fair bit over the years. The odd perspective I inserted above is that rather than "self awareness" being a peak on the evolutionary fitness landscape, that strictly speaking it may be a near-inevitable pitfall, a short-circuit which causes all sorts of painful dissonance (and wacky software patches to resolve it) in humans. This has led to our current civilization and to what's "interesting" about being human, but it also makes us nearly basket cases when it comes to acting logically and collectively to inhabit accessible spacetime with our species in an optimal way.

This is such a interesting concept that humans may have to go thru a no-mans zone of "self-aware" but not yet "self-actualized" and this is what is causing us so much grief.

This is such a interesting concept that humans may have to go thru a no-mans zone of "self-aware" but not yet "self-actualized" and this is what is causing us so much grief.

I have no idea what "self-actualized" would consist of, but sure.

What we experience isn't the real world of course. The qualia we call blue, green and red don't actually exist. We see faces in the clouds and ubiquitous conspiracies (including those of imaginary beings) because it was evolutionarily advantageous to err greatly on the side of being paranoid. And the list of our cognitive errors, biases, and hardwired illusions is as long as your arm. So saying, it would be nice if our mental models of the real world actually corresponded reasonably well to the way it exists, and that could be one benchmark for self-actualization I suppose.

I'd also say that true self-actualization, were it to exist, might embrace one's species and world into the far future.

Many animals are proving to be self-aware as that term is now defined. None of them aside from humans seem to show obvious dysfunction from it, and it is probably the case that there are a number of thresholds to be crossed as the ability to model the outside world to an accurate analog is pursued.

This won't necessarily happen: "good enough" is what evolution works with, and evolution doesn't have a preferred direction. There's not much of a fossil record for chimps, but they've undergone more genetic changes since they split from our common anscestor than we have. Be funny if they evolved sentience and then evolved away from it again. We certainly could.

This is my vague notion of what "self-actualized" would mean...

Actually "self-actualized" would not be the word I would use. I know this is a word that has more than its share of odd ball connotations but I would use the word enlightenment. Simply put it means able to think for oneself which by default means able to think "below language".

Humans tend to think "in language" and get trapped into parrot think in strings of phrases that they are exposed to. So most people do not really think for themselves they just regurgitate the strings of phrases that they have accepted as true.

Maybe the reason animals do not fall into this trap is that they have much simpler forms of communication so they are not much effected by this.

Humans tend to think "in language" and get trapped into parrot think in strings of phrases that they are exposed to. So most people do not really think for themselves they just regurgitate the strings of phrases that they have accepted as true.

Maybe the reason animals do not fall into this trap is that they have much simpler forms of communication so they are not much effected by this.

I think you're probably right.

There seem to be a number of people on here besides me who have noted that they think primarily visually, which can be linked to aspergers-like brains.

Thinking about the world with words in a sort of linear-additive-syntactic way via internalized speech is probably ill-suited to framing valid questions about the universe. ("Who made the sky?") Other self-aware critters without such running narratives might simply not feel as much dissonance, or be as hung up on their own individuality. Who knows?

I wonder if this is why highly intelligent people have a propensity towards puns. Puns rarely seem to occur around ordinary people, but get a bunch of intelligent people together and prepare for an onslaught. There are some days when my brain is on another planet and I almost don't recognize the meaning of words... phrases and statements seem completely ambiguous. Yet on those days if you give me a problem to figure out - you can consider it done.

Some time ago I made the analysis that even 30% probability would justify drastic changes by homo sapiens. When one looks at other risks (full blown nuclear war by USA vs SU), we routinely run 1+% risks.

But who said we were intelligent ?

Best Hopes for Emerging Intelligence,

Alan

Now me, I am the same age as EdlinUser - and my dear wife calls me an optimist. So I know how people can look past, over, and refuse to see evidence that is right there, hitting them in the face so to speak. Even when the begin to notice what is going on, they think, "Hey! in 2039 I will be 97 years old... Why should I get all excited about AGW, or PO?"

The past few years, I have taken notice of my 9 grandchildren [on one hand, I am embarassed that I have been a part of the population growth. On the other hand, I love 'em all!]. What sort of monster just sits back and does not participate in the body politic when the stakes are so high? Black swan? No! I am trying to be a part of rescuing an ailing Earth, and the way I can do it, and try, is to educate and persuade others... the sad part being that it is difficult just with my close family members!

So, thanks TOD people. Your constant upgrade in knowledgebase drives the discussion, provides evidential basis in debate, and enables me to still look forward to a future that is different and difficult, but perhaps if we all work together is more than just barely survivable.

One must wonder why our climate isn't as different as the past record shows when CO2 levels were as high as they are today. One explanation might be the increase in CO2 has occurred too fast for the thermal energy in the atmosphere to have altered the temperature of the oceans enough to cause such a big difference in temerature and sea level - something scientists call the thermal inertia, which takes 30-40 years to take full effect.

Yup. This is why it's been determined that even if all carbon emissions stopped today, warming, ice melt and sea level rise would continue for a thousand years or more.

We're trying real hard to stop runaway global warming. The methane seeping out of the Arctic makes that very doubtful, imo.

Oh, that lag? 2C is pretty much locked in.

Cheers

"We're trying real hard to stop runaway global warming."

I have to assume this was ironic.

Two degrees is probably already with us, but being masked by aerosols.

the simplest argument to defend continued warming on average is the global energy imbalance; if each year the earth receives more energy than it emits, its going to warm up and cause some issues until it is resolved --
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm -- a good overview of current estimates of the global energy imballance -- about .7 w/m2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-Earths-energy-imbalance.html also)

At times I've been accused of being a pessimist WRT economic and climate considerations, but when the outlook is not rosy, how can you be realistic without being pessimistic?

OK, here's an upbeat notion to discuss.

The incredibly annoying 'Glad Game'

When I was a kid, and was angry or disappointed, my dad would ask me to play the "glad game" and come up with things I was glad about. For instance, if my bike was stolen, I at least could be glad my house hadn't burned down. If some other kid hit me, at least he didn't shoot me.

Frankly, it always p*ssed me off when my dad did that. The last thing you want to be told when you have a badly skinned knee is how much worse it could have been.

But it does come to mind now, because the situation the human race now finds itself in, once you take the time to understand it, seems like a nearly perfect storm of converging crises.

We have brains and an evolved culture which seem hell-bent on following a yeastlike growth trajectory.

That's normal enough for a species, but we evolved thumbs and tools in an oxygen atmosphere, and made fire our symbiote, part of our "extended phenotype" in Dawkins' terminology.

That that would have been bad enough if all we'd had were trees and plants to burn, but it just-so-happened by the perversity of the universe that there were huge amounts of fossil fuels accessible to make vast overshoot possible, causing us to overpopulate while dissipating a planet's worth of the most accessible mineral resources and messing up the natural capital we started with, including pretty much all other species.

And THAT would have been bad enough if we'd just needed enough food to live, but we were able to abstract our needs for dopamine hits in order to basically justify burning energy as fast as we could get flammable stuff out of the ground, grinding up netted sea life to raise the kittycat biomass, and creating markets for "medicines" made from endangered species.

That would have been bad enough, but due to basic laws of the universe, CO2 is a greenouse gas and the environment we and other extant major species evolved for is very sensitive to being perturbed by its increase.

THAT would have been bad enough, except that is also just-so-happened that at this moment in history, there are apparently huge amounts of frozen methane which may be a loaded climate trap, a positive feedback waiting to be tripped.

and THAT would be bad enough except our species is so delusional that the huge majority of it thinks that this is all part of some grand plan of invisible gods.

And of the very tiny percentage of humans who come to realize this, most are storing ammunition, trying to grow tomatos, or starting their own blogs.

So. How could it be worse? Humorous answers appreciated just as much as true ones, and answers which are humorous AND true are the best.

cute, perceptive game.

growth could have been slower; harder to 'see' the growth, & we'd destroy more getting there.

u know things are horrid when fast, hard collapse is the optimum solution!!!

We just had a freeze and the tomatoes not in cans just froze and if that's not bad enough, the administration will cut our Social Security and if that's not bad enough, we have no more commercial fertilizer and if that's not bad enough Obama just won the Peace Prize.

It should have been given to Clinton because he was always looking for piece (sorry, the RNC made me do it).

Meanwhile GW is in Dallas with a big grin, and a "Miss me yet?" bumper sticker.

You are right about one thing though. In my 76 years and I was awake most of the time, I have never seen so many Black Swans assembled on the horizon. Which one gets here first, second, ... tenth makes little difference because they are all expoential badness. Even during WWII there was pretty much a single focus and most everyone just got to work on the problem. Now there are so many opinions and most are lies or flat wrong that there is no focus, nor will there be as long as no one can trust our leaders.

Not very many people miss former President George W. Bush.

Manufacturers of killing machines may.

It could be worse. We could have 500 nukes in the air right.

The Nobel peace prize could be awarded to someone who expands wars. Naw, that would only happen in a bad satire.

Carla,

PLEASE post more often,you have made my day!

BRILLIANT!

I don't suppose you might have ever watched the old "I love Lucy" tv show?

The script writers managed to pile on in just the same hilarious fashion.

There is no peace through strength, but rather true strength is developed through peace.

E. M. Forster: "The Machine Stops", 1909

A cascade of problems, increasingly damaging, and then The Machine Stops.

I think we are there. At a certain point in the current collapse The Machine Stops. Everything goes local, travel too dangerous, Towns and small cities with fresh water and farmland will find a way to survive. Isolated groups of farms in the Ozarks, Adirondacks, upper Rockies, Smokies, etc. will survive. Everybody else in the US dies, disease, starvation, or murder. There will be no food going into big cities.

Years ago I thought the wind-down from peak oil would be painful, but do-able. This monster of debt created by Wall Street and international banks ensures that the machine will stop. Golden Goose and all that.

It's a terribly black outlook and I struggle to live with it every day. I get by to a large degree by reading some older posters here. (I'm a young 66) Darwinian, Lynford, and Airdale. Airdale, please, if you're out there: Your posts were so real and down to earth; please reconsider posting again.

The Lexington Herald-Leader had a story yesterday about the January ice storm -- the damage is still being cleared away:

Road crews in one western Kentucky county are continuing to clear debris 10 months after an ice storm devastated the state in January.
Crews in Daviess County have cleared the worst areas, but they're turning their attention to blockages in small waterways. Officials say Panther Creek had the worst blockages as the storm left 124 debris piles in county creeks, The Messenger-Inquirer in Owensboro reported.
"There were piles in Panther Creek that were 1,000 feet long and 20 feet high," said Allen Isbill, supervisor for the road department. Isbill said the job clearing all the county's creeks is "not even half done."

Yes, I thought of Airdale when I saw the item. Hope he's okay.

i got a house in Kentucky, found a home made solar heater, here: http://www.jrwhipple.com/sr/solheater.html

anybody made one? seen one? i am about to build this. I have fireplaces, just curious about heating the house without using the fireplace.

thanks

Read the comments about building a solar window heater in Practical Passive Solar Renovation - Part 1: Easy First Project, The Oil Drum, Feb. 11, 2009

How did I miss noticing this site all these years?
http://www.resalliance.org -- Resilience Alliance

Resilience: the capacity to absorb shocks to the system without losing the ability to function. Can whole societies become resilient in the face of traumatic change? In April 2008 natural and social scientists from around the world gathered in Stockholm, Sweden for a first-ever global conference applying lessons from nature's resilience to human societies in the throes of unprecedented transition. http://aworldofpossibilities.org/program/resilience-adaptation-and-trans...

Embracing uncertainty and valuing resiliency seems to be the key. I happened to catch the links on this very good radio program that I listen to occasionally. Coincidentally, I have been thinking a lot about reliability and resilience recently. http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/failure-is-complement-of-succes...

Over a year ago (maybe over two years, time seems to be very fluid for me at this point in life) I wrote several replies to articles on TOD stressing the idea of "Case Hardening" society.

The idea of this is very close to the resiliency idea. My point was that we should work in descending order of importance on "hardening" our command, control, coordination, cooperation and communication system (the 5 C's, so that we will have the ability to maintain technical and cultural cohesiveness. Then we would work toward diversity of energy supply, redundent storage for short term emergencies and price cushioning, mix of small scale local food growing with large scale agriculture, mix of local and regional banking and financial firms with national and global banks, mix of for profit banks with credit unions, mix of national health insurance (private or government, or best, mixed) with local health insurance coops...well, you get the picture. The idea is to case harden the system so the loss of any one one supplier or institution is isolated in its consequences to the rest of the system, or the loss of any type of fuel supply (gasoline, Diesel,natural gas or propane) will not stop the whole system, and thus re-adjustments can be made.

Diversity (real diversity) and redundency is key. This is why I am such a believer in Alan Drakes light rail system...not to replace all truck and car transport but as a co-system to be mixed with it.

Anyway, when I proposed the above ideas on TOD several years ago (I even started my own Yahoo group to try to gather a subset of TOD'ers and others to the idea) it went exactly nowhere, and was roundly ignored and/or dismissed.

Who knows, maybe the time has come to repeat the idea, given the recent fragility of big scale systems.

RC

At some point products will have to be made more reliably as well. Manufacturers will get away with the crappiest stuff if no one complains.

I have a couple of examples.

Yesterday, a stereo earbud wire of mine stopped conducting. You open up the insulation and you see that the wire is as fine as baby hair. Moreover, the insulation itself gets rock-hard and starts cracking if you use it for a few months. So these things don't last very long at all. Apparently people don't mind and they get a new pair.

Contrast that with what would happen if that occurred to a computer hard disk. Sorry, your data is lost because your disk disintegrated. People would not stand for that.

The point is that manufacturers could make earbud wire of a larger gauge and they could use a more resilient insulator (teflon perhaps?) at virtually no extra price. But no, they don't because they realize that consumers will just shrug their shoulders and buy the same crap over. And its not like you can get more expensive earbuds, as they still harden out and eventually break at the same rate. This is Built-In Obsolescence, as if they make it so it bio-degrades on purpose. I would be ashamed to work as an engineer for these companies. I would think that this attitude really has to change, and perhaps will as we go forward. I noticed the discussion of paper for record-keeping on a previous Drum-Beat. Everything will eventually go to pot, but we should probably try to do something about and develop a more resilient attitude while we can.

WHT,

My family has experienced a spate of failures of consumer electronics: IPOD (tried to fix it ourselves using a soldering iron and video instructions from the interwebs but failed); Maytag Neptune washing machine (succeeded replacing circuit boards, and belt, and motor from a web-based vendor, also with web-streaming video instructions...also used digital camera to photograph circuit boards to put the jumper wires back in the correct places; saved 1/2 the price of buying a new machine); Panasonic surround sound system has been cutting out for over a year anytime a sudden loud sound occurs during movies (tried to get some Interweb help but stuck on this one); Computer surround sound system just crapped out; several years ago had Mazda dealer replace the 626 instrument panel bad backlighting...that lasted about 1 1/2 years and the backlighting went out again...not gonna spend ~$400 ducks again.

We do a lot of research to comparison shop, but it is nearly impossible to predict product performance...and there are precious little consumer protections on the books or enforced if they do exist; they say to 'vote with your wallet' but when it seems that all companies make crap it is hard to implement any consumer strategy to punish or reward.

I have voted with my wallet on Sony and Honda after a fashion, and those bets have been solid.

Those are mostly examples of failures in complex pieces of equipment. That is to be expected to a certain degree. The possibilities of failure are combinatorially explosive in many of these systems.

What gets my goat is the simple system that is intentionally designed to fail. No way can a manufacturer make any money if they can't sell parts to replace the ones that fail. These things never fail immediately but the wear and tear is designed to kick in at some delayed time. It's like designing ticking time bombs. The bathtub curves of these components are heinous.

I have heard it said that auto engineers claim that designing a part that will last for 10 to 20 thousand miles and to design a part to last for 200,000+ is not so hard, but that designing a part that will last 60 to 80 thousand is quite difficult.

I think you mean to say, designing to a cumulative mileage, subject to cost constraints.

I really have no problem with that because a car actually takes a lot of punishment. It is the idiotic little things that shouldn't break that do. Take a pair of shoes, for example. If you think that shoes take any punishment...

There was a time when Made in USA was synonymous with quality products now it is synonymous with bad debt and mind rotting "entertainment" or is that propaganda.....no wait it is propatainment.
Today we import junk and pay for it with junk money.
The Junk culture as i have dubbed it.

We need a culture of Quality.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I recommended that as a read here about 2 months ago.

WHT,

I have floated the idea of a serviceability/durability standard here a couple of times but got almost no response.

We have such standards in place in many areas already-there are building codes, etc, that gaurantee(more or less) a certain level of quality and repairability.

Is there any real reason why we should not have some sort of universal quality code for nearly everything sold?

The potential savings in terms of energy and environment might well far outwiegh the costs of implementation, and if the public once understands the concept it will fly like an eagle politically.

I can think of dozens of things that I have paid five or ten dollars for that would have lasted anywhere from twice as long to practically forever if another dime's worth of quality had been built in at the factory.

Your ear bud is a perfect example.

It was weird that I was finishing up my analysis of the bathtub curve when I noticed that the sound went out on one of the ear buds.

RC,

I have wondered for years what plans may exist for a 'Continuity of Humanity'.

I think about this due to two inputs: The Foundation series of novels (fiction), and the entirely real U.S. Continuity of Government (CoG plans.

Things such as the seed vault in Svalbard intrigue my wonder whether there is a low-key, under-the-radar world government-scale coordinated effort to plan to for some small fraction of humanity to survive a global calamity.

Maybe you are just ahead of the curve. It is like the problem has yet to be fully defined and you are offering a solution. Just give the rest of us some time to catch up and keep plugging away on that solution.

WHT
Thanks for the links.
I listened to the radio pieces about their Stockholm conference and read the (long) 2006 ramble 'memoir' by ecology modeler CS 'Buzz' Holling and learned some interesting ideas.
What do you make of the mathematics? There seemed to be be a lot about "dispersion" and "search".
Some of 'Buzz' and colleagues' speculation on human structures also seemed of interest

... a “poverty trap” where a society flips out of an adaptive cycle at a large political scale in a way that progressively triggers similar collapses at ever-smaller scales. Structure (organizations and institutions) is destroyed in the process, leaving the society finally as independent families separately struggling for survival, having lost their portion of the society’s capital. Learning and self-help is minimal. We also posited a “rigidity trap”, where wealth was great, resilience high and internal connectedness strong. That is the kind of hierarchist trap that freezes the adaptive cycle by ejecting dissidents and minimizing learning.

Phil

I haven't really seen the math that they propose yet. As I said, I just stumbled on the site yesterday.

I tend to be more pragmatic about the math I do and if they start talking abstractly about chaos and chaotic systems, I may not want to follow that path. However, if somebody out there is talking about dispersion and search in the same way I am, I will be very interested. Hollings seems to talk sensibly about dispersion here:
http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf

Dispersion in the diversity of species leads to something called the Relative Abundance Distribution, which is a kind of Pareto law for the animal kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_abundance_distribution

Dispersion and search also accounts for how species can survive when one of their environments gets modified or trashed. I saw a study of how salamanders can move around a mix of drying pools and maintain a population quite readily through fast dispersive pathways. There is much "fat tail" statistical behavior mixed into those findings.

I have looked at this before but mainly to get insight on what kind of models they use. I also think they may be talking about it in terms of dispersive rather than centralized control of systems.

Thanks for the insight

Would somebody please tell me what's wrong with this, my standard song here?

1) there's gobs of energy- clean, lasts "forever" -in solarthermal, wind, geothermal.

2) We have lots of ways to capture this copious energy for us, right now, and people like me are thinking of lots of things that will do it better in the NEAR future-and do it fast. (and I am NOT advocating BAU!)

3) we can store and spread this energy by HVDC and hydrostorage. We know how to do it. Fact is, we are doing it- and have done it.

4) (fact for those who keep saying "but what we need is liquid fuel") Anything you need doing, you can do with electricity for starters- eg, electric cars (switch out the battery, don't waste time charging it). Electricity is pure available energy.

5) We can pay for this new energy infrastructure by diverting resources from crap we do today that costs hugely and does nothing worth doing- favorite examples, soda pop, fat cars. mansions, big bonuses to wall st. paper shufflers, on and on.

6) "We" means us. All of us, not just the fringe here on TOD.

7) We get "we" together with the same hook and line we get people to buy beer. Selling survival ought to be pretty easy.

8) and don't go on about "impossible". History shows It ain't. Nothing in the laws of nature says that. (The Greeks defeated the Persian invasion. They ("WE") had to give up Athens to do it. And then they used their heads- we have heads too.)

Maybe you don't get it.
"We" are humans, on the whole "we" are selfish, "we" are warlike, "we" are greedy, "we" are superstitious, "we" are self centered (narcissistic), "we" breed and "we" procrastinate.
You need to solve the problems of our human nature before your solutions will be even considered let alone adopted.

I honestly cannot see a mobilization of effort until it is forced upon us, by then of course we are on a downhill runaway bus with burnt out brakes.

There will always be deniers of the need for action, just as there are deniers of global warming and peak oil, and the deniers occupy the highest realms of authority. In my estimation and experience, ninety out of a hundred people don't accept the urgency for action on global warming. We are mostly influenced by the good stuff which tells us not to worry and be happy, they think an engineering, technological solution will present when it's really needed.

So it's easy to sit back and tell us what "we" can and should do but show me the money, show me how you will get the populace off their collective asses to accept a wholesale degradation of their living standard while we forgo our consumer lifestyles to build out the infrastructure you believe is doable.

We have to beat down the cornucopians with their "just buy a hybrid", "just build electric trains and windmills" because all that achieves is to reinforce the BAU and easy technical solution paradigm pervading the thinking of the vast majority.
There will be no easy technical solution.

If the engineering solutions by some miracle came to fruition, they will simply allow us to destroy what little "we" have left to bequeath. We could not possibly change our nature because we ran out of oil and found and alternative energy solution.

trauma is generally how we grow, & learn. headed there.

Thanks, guys, for the response. I usually get exactly nothing, not even a cussword.

Right, to a squirrel, everything is ok if there are nuts, to a hammer, everything is ok if there are sufficient nails, etc etc. To the legions of rock experts here, everything is ok if we can drill 5 miles down to get to that puddle of petroleum, or same thing sidewise to get to that gas.

And then the same people say "too expensive" when the solar people like me say everything is ok if we just use the sahara (ever fly over the sahara?- a blazing solar oven bigger than the entire USA!).

And then of course everybody, including me, say that we know how to fix the energy problem, but it is bad, bad, bad human propensities that screw everything up, particularly politicians and republicans (rightists, leftists, communists, pick your favorite). My favorite is the obese guy driving the obese car 100 meters between obese buildings full of flat-out junk- declaiming the while that solar, etc, is "too expensive". Yuck!

But, if we are gonna talk about energy, which seems to be the case here, usually, then for godssake, please let us give proper proportion to clean, real energy, right here, right now, and plenty of it. --See sahara, above.

Of course, we can also just relax and commit suicide by, as Woody Allen character said "by breathing next to a salesman".

wimbi
i've always read u'r posts to think of applying the practical - that works w/o much tech- on the smaller scales i think we might get cooperation enough to implement them, & protect them. that scale is i think at it's largest a village-like place; or the occasional 'green' warlord.

i've been thinking about u'r water storage via solar, wind, etc. & what we could be utilized from such a system. has to be inexpensive, & low tech; & not look like i[we] have much anyone would particularly want.

it's as greyzone, & u have said all along not a tech/mech/energy problem.

Wimbi,

Your observations strike a chord with me.

We the people celebrate the 'Modern Marvels' (Discovery Channel?) of the huge efforts (and costs) it takes to reach oil and gas in the most remote and inhospitable places (we worship the deep-sea oil platforms much as many worship the technological tour de force of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier); the efforts to mine the tar sands; the efforts to truck materials and equipment up the 'ice road' to extract minerals in the far Canadian north; and on, and on...

but: you are spot-on; the same people who worship the fossil-fuel extractive techno-achievements and approve of the vast sums of money spent on this 'one-pass-through' effort prattle on like scared scissies about the 'excessive' and 'untenable' costs to put PV on every rooftop and to build out wind farms and to equip every building with a ground-source heat pump, etc.

A couple of reasons here:

1) Entrenched, vested interests control the game

2) These interests fortify their control by successfully painting any 'alt-energy' approaches as 'big government', 'socialist', 'anti-free-market'; ''liberal', 'communist', 'fascist'; 'hare-brained', 'hippie', 'eco/enviro-nazi'; \anti-growth'; 'anti-American'; etc. etc.

Jingoism and sloganeering carry the day, since the entrenched interests know that most of the people are poorly educated and highly susceptible to propaganda.

Coal mining is a patriotic enterprise, while solar PV and energy conservation are fruit-cake ideas proposed by hair-shirt socialists out to destroy the American dream.

Not my opinion...this is the way it is.

ever fly over the sahara?- a blazing solar oven..

I agree with your sentiments but most alt technologies just do not generate any where near the energy densities you can get from FF. I am not attacking nor defending just stating.

You may have noticed that the Sahara is on another continent and that location matters hugely especially when we are talking power distribution.

If you think that alt's are equivalent then read some of the articles from HomePower.com (e.g. this months Off-Grid planning article) and see that nothing beats the grid at present.

I know I can find some studies that show some people can escape the rat-race but none of these are scalable to the billion or so people in developed countries. They are all niches that a few can hide in - they are not solutions.

This leaves you with a hard thing to sell - trying to sell people 'less' and DIY when most have jobs with no useful skills, which they hold mainly for the purposes of keeping payments on a mortgage you could have bought an island with in the previous generation (I include my own job/mortgage naturally).

I don't have the answers but suspect that this is a message no politician can sell. Time to find a niche then?

Excellent post Bandits! I agree completely. 90% fall into the cornucopian, don't bother me with negatives crowd. I get real frustrated with the fact that most people cannot handle information that has a negative slant. I didn't make this stuff up - it just happens to be stuff we need to look at so we don't have collapse, and it just happens to be negative. I've personally given up on trying to persuade cornucopians. I'ts just not possible. All you'll ever get back from them is "Don't worry, they'll figure something out. Some new technology will take care of it." They really think that way.

At this point I'm enjoying not saying anything, and just waiting for the SHTF to observe the look on their faces. That I will enjoy.

I agree with your premises, but there are three somewhat related things that I see as obstacles:

  • "least cost wins". It's not enough for an energy technology (e.g.) to be viable; it must be able to outcompete the current (fossil fueled) technologies. That's a very tall order, when the f.f. technologies don't have to factor in external costs;
  • Vested interests. Businesses whose survival and continued wellfare is tied in to fossil fuels have strong incentive and ample political and PR resources to defeat efforts to factor externalities into the cost of using fossil fuels;
  • Gullibility -- including our ability to gull ourselves into what is convient or comfortable to believe. This is what allows the political and PR efforts of the fossil fuel industries to be so successful.

Good luck fighting those. If you figure out how, please let us know.

Hey! Good responses. greg, I thank you for reminding me of what I am actually doing, instead of just yelling about fat people:

This is what I call the ink blot strategy- you make a little bit of a real success, and you hope it will osmose into the surroundings, If course this strategy is nothing new ( wish Obama would use it).

first, make a really good little water pump, runs on wood, solar, what have you. Cheap, silent, lasts forever (relative to me). No more complex than a lawnmower- actually, less complicated (I hate lawnmowers). Can be scaled to any size.

That thing pumps water up from a hole or up to a tower or a lake.

That water is ready to do work, provide heat or coolth any time day or night.

Makes a great success, people come out to steal all the clever ideas to put on their own buildings, Towers spring up like weeds. Billions (E9), or Trillions,( E12) of dollars flow from bug-eyed bankers. The energy problem is solved.

Next, what about population, greed, parochialism, duplicity, not to mention just plain stupidity? Up to you, I'm just a hillbilly tire iron guy and don't know nuthin' about them thangs.

Good comments. Generally, there are constraints on what will be done.

The primary set of constraints is what's thermodynamically, geologically, and biologically possible.

The secondary set of constraints is the aggregate probability of each increment of a stepwise sequence of necessary actions to attain any specific goal taking place within the context of a very chaotic human/earth system.

it's easy and tempting to only consider the first set of constraints. But the set of things which are not physically impossible has little relevance other than as a basic screening tool.

The second set of constraints can be productively worked with, but not in a reductionist way, so there are relatively few who do it, and even fewer who are motivated by the long-term interests of the species and planet.

wimbi

EROEI issues along with declining resources make any alternate energy BAU highly unlikely. I'm thinking that for any alt energy solution which could make BAU possible over the short term the EROEI needs to be better that say pre 1950 oil production which was in the ballbark of one unit of energy input gets you 100 units of energy output. Corn ethanol for example, if you figure all the long term input cost may well be negative.

Declining resources, Peak Everything - Heinberg, makes things even more problematic. This means that any alt energy infrastructure build out will require ever greater energy inputs which lowers the EROEI. Eventually you get to the point that all the energy the windmill produces will never replace the energy needed to make and maintain it.

All this goes back to planetary issues that limit human population numbers and ecological footprints.

Time is the enemy of a major infrastructure transition. The time constants have been analyzed and average almost 100 years for the complete build out of canals, railroads and highways. A highly recommended reference, with lots of mathematical models and graphs is: A. Grubler's "The Rise and Fall of Infrastructures".

The fastest infrastructure ever built in the US was streetcars, which are ignored by almost every researcher. The network took about 30 years from inception to peak, and was rapidly abandoned after automobiles became widely owned. The only way we can successfully bring back streetcars is to phase out cars by government decree. Perhaps eliminating the income tax below some upper income bracket and having a large gasoline tax would do the trick.

For prime movers of automobiles, at present only hybrids have any market penetration, with EV's on the way as. Unfortunately, it will take decades to turn over the fleet.

For alternate energy sources, nuclear is by far the most promising in terms of the market share. Wind is in its infancy, and will not make a significant penetration for decades.

Streetcars fast?

Compare that with liberty ships, landing craft, cannons, B-17's and all the other trappings of war during the big one. Months, not years.

Our problem is, as pointed out over and over above - we don't see the need. Like the little baboon having a happy time goofing around with his buddies as the leopard sneaks up on him.

We don't have decades, much less centuries.

So I am a doomer. But that doesn't stop me from having fun trying. Doomerism is depressing.

Maybe the little baboon has the best strategy anyhow, given the situation.

It's not the streetcars but the railways that will take time. And there will be massive redirection of traffic unless much of the work is done at night, like the critical interstate highway repairs in major cities.

The US would need over 100,000 streetcars. We have no factories to build them and few machines to make them with. It would take probably 4 years to get a factory up and running. If the factory turned out 40 streetcars a day, 250 days/yr it would take 10 years to build 100,000 streetcars.

Streetcars will require special electric motors, gears, controls and heavy castings for wheels, and also complex machinery to make the body.

We also need the capacity to build the special rails.

I hope someone in government has this on a Gantt chart, along with the correct lead times it will take for all the piecess of the process.

Wimbi, carefully consider the scale of your standard song.

1) there's gobs of energy- clean, lasts "forever" -in solarthermal, wind, geothermal.

Solar and wind might last 4 billion years, far short of forever. Because the lifetime of Earth's molten core may be even briefer, geothermal may be the first of the three run out.

3) we can store and spread this energy by HVDC and hydrostorage.

first, make a really good little water pump, runs on wood, solar, what have you. Cheap, silent, lasts forever (relative to me). Can be scaled to any size.

That thing pumps water up from a hole or up to a tower or a lake.

High voltage power lines were installed using diesel powered machines and are serviced using gasoline and diesel powered vehicles driving on asphalt roads (bitumen is made from crude oil) and over concrete & steel bridges. The infrastructure will have to change perhaps to something like Alan Drake's electric rail proposal. Your suggestion that a water pump for hydrostorage could run on wood does not seem to consider whether there are enough trees and transportation to supply that fuel. Someone has to build and pay for a tower. Water evaporates from a lake or pond. How much water would we have to pump to provide our current demand for electricity compared to how much we consume? Is there enough water? Pumped hydro storage can certainly provide some of the demand, but I am not convinced about all. The scale of the problem confounds the solutions.

4)... eg, electric cars (switch out the battery, don't waste time charging it).

Swapping batteries is not necessary for local travel. The energy density of a battery is much less than that of gasoline. Since the storage ability of a battery degrades with age, one could easily get stuck with a bad battery that yields a fraction of the range the driver expects. After 20 years of experience with lead-acid batteries in my PV system, I would never participate in a program to swap my batteries. How they are treated greatly affects their durability and thus their cost. The cost of the batteries and their durability and thus whether they are affordable is currently unknown. Battery swapping would probably render self-serve stations obsolete requiring many new attendants for an increased fee. The battery in a Tesla Roadster uses coolant that presumably would have to be flushed to swap it. Have you calculated how many batteries and how much space they would occupy to supply the daily customers? When I go to a gasoline station, there are usually several other cars (say 5), and a fill up usually takes about 10 minutes. Over 12 hours the station may service 360 vehicles. The Tesla Roadster's battery weights 450 kg and is about the size of a storage trunk (say 3 feet by 2 feet). If the width of the isle to access the batteries is a minimum of 4 feet and the spacing between batteries is .5 feet, 360 batteries would occupy 7,560 square feet or a square with edges 87 feet long. Current gasoline stations do not have enough space for these batteries plus the customer's cars and convenience store. The current needed to recharge these batteries simultaneously would be measured in kiloamperes exceeding the power delivered by the current electrical service. Infrastructure would have to be built.

8) and don't go on about "impossible". History shows It ain't. Nothing in the laws of nature says that.

History does not prove that what was, always will be. A legitimate analysis of possible solutions to resource constraints needs to rise above the use of faulty logic.

Wow! A real response in detail. I am flattered, thanks ever so much. As I said, I was getting depressed. Me, a cornucopian? Astounding!

So, here we go.

1 I put "forever" in quotes, meaning "just as good as". People won't last as long.

2) pumped water evaporates, wood is not enough, infrastructure is made of petroleum. Wont suffice to meet present demands. Sure, so compared to what? We will get whatever we're gonna get from something; what'll it be? I vote for wind, solar, HVDC and hydrostorage, all of which we know about, no need for guesses, we have examples to measure. Other people vote for slurping oil to the last drop, and burning coal, uranium, thorium and the kitchen table. I like solar, since I happen to be familiar with it.

I also very much like Alan Drake, who seems to be one of the sanest and best informed of this bunch. He knows a lot about rail, and I like rail. I am old enough to remember the thrill of getting on a real train to take me from Chattanooga to visit Grammie in Chicago- fast, comfortable, safe, relaxing, fun to run around in.

3) Swapping batteries. Funny how many people are offended by this simple-minded idea, used everywhere for flashlights, portable drills and on and on. Why not for cars- if and when needed. Anyhow, I don't need to fight this battle, others have seized the banner and are moving with it.

4) History. Take your pick, plenty of examples of damfool behavior, and plenty examples of heroism, and anything you want to name. I referred to examples of people getting up off their ass and doing something about "it". It being what was gonna eat, burn, destroy, enslave, drown, starve--them unless they got off their ass and did something.

Summary. Thanks for the comments. I am a doomer -- believe in my rational soul that H. sapiens has had it. I am also hardwired for hardware and so I just keep doing it regardless of the black hopelessness of it all.

Now, back to the baboonery.

Cheers.

Written by wimbi:
We will get whatever we're gonna get from something; what'll it be? I vote for wind, solar, HVDC and hydrostorage, all of which we know about, no need for guesses, we have examples to measure. Other people vote for slurping oil to the last drop, and burning coal, uranium, thorium and the kitchen table. I like solar, since I happen to be familiar with it.

I think intermittent power sources can provide between 20% and 40% of U.S. electric needs and advocate expanding them to that range. I do not think the current electric storage technologies (pumped hydro, long distance power lines & overbuilding the power sources) can scale up to meet the current demand, but since they can provide a significant fraction, we should develop them to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and make the electric grid more resilient. We should build out all of the renewable sources, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind and hydroelectric, while reducing consumption, improving efficiency and reducing population. To complete the conversion we will need a technological breakthrough in electricity storage, nuclear fusion or a radical reduction in electric power consumption. The economic ability and desire to convert proactively are more difficult to overcome than the technological challenges. Bob Shaw's question nags away: Are people smarter than yeast?

Thanks, BT for the reply,

I of course know that almost nothing will meet current demand when we really get sliding down that slippery slope. But I am also totally convinced that "current demand" is absurdly too much, from simple common sense and observations of the gross wastefulness of what I see around me. And so I think rational demand could pretty easily be met with solar/wind etc.- with what we know right now- not some miracle we have to invent.

Example of waste. I used to give engineering lectures in a too-hot room. Hot even in deep winter. So? We opened the window! There was no way to cut down the heat input. So I taped some computer paper (the kind we had then with tracks on the edges) over the hot water heaters in the room. That did it. We could close the window. That was about 40 years ago.

Recently, I happened to go back to that room. Still too hot, still the same paper over the pipe!
Says something for the quality of the paper, and the tape, but not anything complementary about the people.

As for the question. The answer is inescapable. No, we are NOT smarter than yeast.

So? -Doom. Have fun, y'all.

Need some help!

I'm searching for an ancient civilization that didn't collapse after it supply chains became too long?

Any suggestion is welcome.

Could we be the first......

Have you read Jared Diamond's 'Guns Germs and Steel' and 'Collapse'? I suspect you will find your answers there.

What about the Roman Empire? It operated for hundreds of years from Scotland to Egypt didn't it?

Nick.

Thanks for your reply,

Rome(the centre of the roman empire) had 1.000.000 inhabitants at it's peak. It collapsed to 20.000 inhabitants before it started to grow again.

I'm searching for an ancient civilization that didn't collapse after it supply chains became too long?

  • india
  • china
  • japan

?

yer chinese empire is 4000 years old and still going.

Hmmm open tread let's take advantage.

thought:

Modern medicare helps people to live as healthy as possible.

Modern madicare is a means to inflate our gdp.

Socialized healthcare is a means to increase the damage to society during population collapse because increasing amounts of resources will be diverted to saving everyone.

Consider the Connection to:
The Big Picture
Going in a NEGATIVE (-) or POSITIVE (+) Direction
(-)___R___(+) Direction?
The choice is ours.
Our economy, health, & planet R N D balance!!!
Search 4 me:
CTC123GREEN

General post here to see if there might be more interest in something like this and possibly if the staff at TOD would be interested in putting the prestige of this site behind such an effort.

A couple of days ago in response to the posts about the Energy Export Data browser at http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/ I had made an off the cuff comment about maybe putting up a billboard about the consequences of Peak Oil in a strategic location that would attract MSM attention.

Over the weekend I received the following private email I have only removed the personal information for obvious reasons though I did receive permission to post the message.

Hi Fred-

I am a long time reader of TOD (although I don't post) and I noticed your suggestion of a energy reality related billboard in a prominent location, paid for by donations from TOD readers. Being one such, I am volunteering both money and time to get this done, if there is any interest. I'll pledge a hundred bucks; and it may be possible to get a billboard for free or cheap right now, if a sympathetic owner can be found. I'd be willing to dig into that; I have a long history of activism and got pretty good at putting things together on very little money. People might get real interested in a discussion about what the billboard will actually say. That would be worthwhile all by itself: what is the most effective thing that can be done with that billboard?
Seems to me that the first requirement is to get one some someplace that will compel attention from a reluctant media........

Anyway, I think it's an excellent idea, and with the right placement and message could actually do some good. Please let me know if you'd like me to send a check?

Is anyone else interested in doing something like this? If so please contact me at the email address listed on my profile. BTW I be willing to do the graphics for the billboard and contribute money as well.

Billboards aren't a bad idea, particularly if you can spin off a national news story from a single strategic billboard placement, which I'd recommend.

But at the point enough people feel there's a rationale for pushing the message harder, it's not that expensive to buy full-page ads in select national newspapers at the nonprofit rate - at least it didn't used to be, and I think papers are hungrier for revenue now than they were 15 years ago.

Indeed, a single full-page placement in a major paper can often spin off stories about the ad being placed. The low-hanging fruit is still hanging there.

Of course, design and message are important, but you can get a lot of information onto a full page.

A large electronic billboard located in a spot subject to traffic jams on a major freeway!

Today -the top quarter reads -countries that have peaked

And the bottom three quarters changes from country to country , plus the year, about every ten seconds or so.

Tomorrow-net exports across the top-and the bottom flashes the barrels per day for a given country for each year for last twenty years and changes colors and flashes IMPORTER for the following year.

Change countries every ten minutes or so.
Day after tomorrow-daily consumption , world wide, by the year , starting in 1900.

A single billboard kept lit up for a year might change the course of history-remember the horseshoe nail and the war that was lost as a consequence.

A very good idea.
Run it of course with PV and batteries.
It would probably need to be high and not easily accessible. Commuter traffic would get to see a new part every day.
I would love to be watching humankind from afar just to see what happens when the lightbulb of realization illuminates.

I agree and would contribute.

Me too. Like the idea.

Good idea. I would volunteer to work on the content part of the project.

The rub will likely be getting official TOD approval because of some infighting between the staff about the direction TOD should be heading.

Rye,I will chip in a hundred bucks myself.

I don't see any particular reason this would have to be an OFFICIAL project of TOD -but it sure would help if some up and running organization would handle the money-it would save a lot of regulatory headaches.It wold probably be best for some other organization to do the actual work-the staff of this site are donating enough time as it is.

Greenish knows a lot about this kind of thing-maybe he will offer some suggestions as to getting started.

Surely... just figure out who's doing what, what the goal is and isn't, and let me know, I'll be happy to advise.

And your remark about it not having to be "official" is a good point. There's really nothing much keeping individuals from attempting large things and succeeding reasonably often. It can be easier than succeeding from within a large famous organization.

Layers of organizational complexity are best avoided. I'm qualified by virtue of having made every conceivable mistake at least once, and keeping track.

Ok, so we need someone to head up and facilitate the project. I have somewhat limited social skills especially when dealing with people that have win/lose agendas. I have a natural talent of finding and pushing the most tender of buttons. I do not even have to try it just happens...

Woke up to the first snow of the season. Our young horses were quite frisky this morning kicking and bucking...

Just a personal story from the weekend. Too bad I missed ASPO. I couldn't make the trip, and our Transition initiative had a weekend long training class; lots of great ideas and organizing for Transition.

And then I bought a new car Sunday evening. The irony isn't lost on me. The old Miata was just way too impractical with its limited trunk space, and I traded it in for a practical sedan. As Kunstler said, it may be the last car I buy in my life, and hey, it's as safe an "investment" as anyplace else I can stash my dollars.

Comments please on:

The Global Oil Depletion Report: Launched 08.10.09
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion

UKERC’s report is the first study to take an independent, thorough and systematic review of the evidence and arguments in the ‘peak oil’ debate. It addresses the following question: What evidence is there to support the proposition that the global supply of ‘conventional oil’ will be constrained by physical depletion before 2030?

From the Exec Summary:
1. The mechanisms leading to a ‘peaking’ of conventional oil production are well
understood and provide identifiable constraints on its future supply at both the regional
and global level.

2. Despite large uncertainties in the available data, sufficient information is available to
allow the status and risk of global oil depletion to be adequately assessed.

3. There is potential for improving consensus on important and long-standing
controversies such as the source and magnitude of ‘reserves growth’.
...approximately 3 mb/d of new capacity must be added each year, simply to maintain production at
current levels - equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia coming on stream every three years...
...more than two thirds of current crude oil production capacity may need to be replaced by 2030, simply to prevent production
from falling. At best, this is likely to prove extremely challenging.

Technical Report 7:

...This implies that a peak of conventional oil production before 2030 is very likely, and a peak before 2020 is probable. To reach a different conclusion, it would be necessary to argue for either a significantly larger global URR and/or a more rapid post-peak decline rate (which has implications of its own). However, there are a number of caveats to this conclusion, including the following: ... etc.

--
Well worth a read. Solid middle ground, in my view. Robust enough to use for policy; with enough information and clear assumptions to let the nervous and concerned ones among us feel that there is reasonable support for the view that sometime well before 2020 it is fair to be very afraid.

Nigel

Events that shaped Recent History (Political, Energy, Technological, Climate, Population, General)

I am still looking for 20 more, please???

Update
1712 - British ironmonger Thomas Newcomen invents the first widely used steam engine, paving the way for the Industrial Revolution and industrial scale use of coal.
1775 - The first fully developed version of the Watt Steam engine goes into production
1776 - The American colonies sign the Declaration of Independence
1781 - The American Revolution ends, as the British surrendered at Yorktown on October 17
1798 - The Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus was first published
1800 - World human population reaches one billion
1823 - Samuel Brown patented the first internal combustion engine to be applied industrially
1859 - Worlds First Commercial Oil well began producing, in the US.
1859 - Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published November 24
1861 - American Civil War Began
1864 - Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease
1865 - American Civil War Ends
1886 - Karl Benz unveils the Motorwagen, often regarded as the first true automobile.
1886 – US Supreme court decision in Santa Clara CA allowing corporations to have 'personhood'
1893 – New Zealand became the first country to grant Women the Right to Vote
1895 - Marconi receives the first Radio signal
1903 – Wright Bros first powered flight
1905 – Albert Einstein's annus mirabilis, within a few months, Einstein wrote a series of papers, including E=MC2 that would transform the way we see the universe
1909 - Chemist Fritz Haber first synthesized ammonia, which has since been used to fertilize world food production.
1913 - The US Federal Reserve is formed

1913 - Ford introduces the assembly line.
1914 - World War I Starts
1917 - Lenin's Russian Revolution
1918 - World War I Ends
1919 - Treaty of Versailes to settle affairs after WW1
1927 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach one billion tonnes per year
1928 - Penicillin was discovery by Alexander Fleming. It was later developed as Medicine by Walter Florey
1929 - The Great Depression starts, Stock Market crash begins October 24
1930 - World human population reaches two billion
1938 – Burgan, the world’s 2nd largest Oilfield was discovered. Production Peaked in 2005.
1939 - World War II Starts
1944 - The Bretton Woods agreement
1945 – World War II Ends, U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
1946 – THE BABY BOOM begins
1948 - Israel is reborn, as an independent nation
1948 – Ghawar, the world’s largest Oilfield was discovered. Production Peaked in 2005.
1949 - People's Republic of China is Proclaimed
1955 - US researcher Gilbert Plass analyses infrared absorption of various gases & concludes that doubling CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures by 3-4C.
1956 - M. King Hubbert predicts Peak oil production
1957 - Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community

1960 – World human population reaches three billion.
1960 – The Oral Contraceptive Pill was approved for use
1962 - October Cuban Missile Crisis
1963 - Assassination of John F. Kennedy
1964 - THE BABY BOOM starts to Decline
1965 - A US President's Advisory Committee panel warns that the greenhouse effect is a matter of "real concern".
1968 – The Personal Computer (PC) was first advertised for commercial sale
1969 – Man lands on Moon
1969 - Woodstock – Summer of love, the end of innocence
1970 - Peak Oil in US
1972 – The Club of Rome publish The Limits to Growth
1973 - US decouples US$ from Gold..
1973 - First “Oil Shock”
1975 - World human population reaches four billion.
1975 - US scientist Wallace Broecker puts the term "global warming" into the public domain in the title of a scientific paper.
1981 - Humans start using more oil than they find
1985 - The Antarctic ozone hole was discovered by British scientists Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey
1986 – Disaster strikes at the nuclear facility at Chernobyl
1987 - World human population reaches five billion
1987 – Stock Market crash October 19.
1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed to collate and assess evidence on climate change.

1989 - Berlin Wall falls
1989 - UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher calls for a global treaty on climate change
1989 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach six billion tonnes per year.
1990 - IPCC produces 1st Report. It concludes that temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6C over the last century
1991 - Soviet Union Collapses
1995 - IPCC 2nd Report concludes that the balance of evidence suggests "a discernible human influence" on the Earth's climate.
1998 - Strong El Nino conditions combine with global warming to produce the warmest year on record.
1999 – World human population reaches six billion.
2001 – 9/11
2001 - IPCC 3rd Report finds "new and stronger evidence" that humanity's emissions are the main cause of the warming seen in the second half of the 20th Century.
2005 - World Peak Oil (Effectively, according to me)
2006 - the Stern Review concludes that climate change could damage global GDP by up to 20% if left unchecked - but curbing it would cost about 1% of global GDP.
2006 - Carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry reach eight billion tonnes per year.
2007 - IPCC 4th Report concludes it is more than 90% likely that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for modern-day climate change.
2007- Global Financial Crisis begins in October
2008 - The Keeling project at Mauna Loa shows that CO2 concentrations have risen from 315 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to 380ppm in 2008.
2008 - Oil Price Peaked at $147 per barrel.
2009 - Barrack Obama inaugurated - America's first black president
2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen
2050 - World population is projected to reach 9 Billion

Dynamite and the Maxim gun shaped it like nothing else.

Am I not seeing something? You gotta have the computer in there several times- initial use, PC, etc. changed everything.

2011 - World population is projected to reach 7 Billion

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/12/world.population/index.html