For Jiggs: Are we running out of resources?
03-16-2011
, 03:27 PM
03-16-2011
, 03:51 PM
03-16-2011
, 04:00 PM
03-16-2011
, 04:24 PM
03-16-2011
, 05:03 PM
03-16-2011
, 05:21 PM
03-16-2011
, 07:15 PM
03-16-2011
, 07:41 PM
03-16-2011
, 07:57 PM
The planet could not support the six billion plus people that exist today without first the commercialisation of coal, then of oil and, more recently, gas. These energy sources have been necessary for the unprecedented population growth that has occurred over the last three hundred years. It is reasonable to assume that unless current energy resource production is increased and new resources are exploited, the population will no longer grow. And if energy resources decline (e.g. a peak in production is reached), then we may see a decline in population.http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48677But that "doesn't mean it caused" population growth.
At first you say it "seems" oil production followed population growth, not the other way around. Odd.
Then you concede oil's role in the global food conveyor belt.
Then you question oil's role in medical advances, including vaccines.
Eight ways that modern medicine is oil dependent
Essentially, you're doing all the work, but you just won't put the puck in the empty net. It's right there for you, but you won't submit to the ultimate assertion made by your debate opponent.
Is it that difficult for you, or do you find that such a concession hampers your market cornucopia platform somehow?
Abundant fossil fuels, especially light crude oil, is why we are where we are -- an empire. Why is that so difficult to admit?
The Interrelationship between Population Growth and Energy Resources
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 03-16-2011 at 08:11 PM.
03-16-2011
, 08:09 PM
Quote:
Unbelievable semantics.
At first you say it "seems" oil production followed population growth, not the other way around.
Then you concede oil's role in the global food conveyor belt.
Then you question oil's role in medical advances, including vaccines.
Eight ways that modern medicine is oil dependent
Essentially, you're doing all the work, but you just won't put the puck in the empty net. It's right there for you, but you won't submit to the ultimate assertion made by your debate opponent.
Is it that difficult for you, or do you find that such a concession hampers your market cornucopia platform somehow?
Abundant fossil fuels, especially light crude oil, is why we are where we are -- an empire. Why is that so difficult to admit?
The Interrelationship between Population Growth and Energy Resources
At first you say it "seems" oil production followed population growth, not the other way around.
Then you concede oil's role in the global food conveyor belt.
Then you question oil's role in medical advances, including vaccines.
Eight ways that modern medicine is oil dependent
Essentially, you're doing all the work, but you just won't put the puck in the empty net. It's right there for you, but you won't submit to the ultimate assertion made by your debate opponent.
Is it that difficult for you, or do you find that such a concession hampers your market cornucopia platform somehow?
Abundant fossil fuels, especially light crude oil, is why we are where we are -- an empire. Why is that so difficult to admit?
The Interrelationship between Population Growth and Energy Resources
Because you don't read my posts?
Do you think that population was limited in growth due to energy in the past? I'd be surprised if this was the case. It actually seems to have the opposite of being true, where population rates are decreasing where there is more wealth. Children move from being an asset needed for life to being a liability, therefore people have fewer.
Birth rates have declined in the last century in many nations. It is infant mortality and life expectancy changes that have caused this.
Of course energy is involved in everything, though. I'm not saying it's not involved at all, this would be silly (another example of a JiggsCasey Strawman).
But in your world, everything, no matter how largely or little involved it is, comes back to peak oil. Hell, my dog farting would probably be attributed to peak oil. I guess because I gave her salmon skins yesterday and the salmon was transported on a truck which used oil, it means oil caused her to fart and make it smell bad. But when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?
03-16-2011
, 08:16 PM
03-16-2011
, 08:19 PM
03-17-2011
, 03:22 AM
Quote:
Shocking. ... A renowned Austrian School of economics disciple is granted a video platform to spew half-truth, asserting that market solution makes resource depletion moot -- the latter of which is a condition he doesn't really deny, instead merely insists it won't be a problem because "that's how it's always been." :rocker:
Horwitz wouldn't last 2 min. at a debate podium across from anyone of the caliber of a Howard Kunstler, Jeff Rubin, or Richard Heinberg on the topic of energy. This is a man who actually says with a straight face:
He uses two examples in his presentation, one largely irrelevant (copper), and the other willfully mis-characterized (U.S. oil reserves).
The copper claim was valid, until you remember that copper isn't burned and can almost always be recycled. Further, the global economy isn't utterly based upon copper.
Then he attempted to pass off a sourceless "fact" that U.S. reserves have "grown" to over 1 trillion barrels. Presumably, he's trying to conflate heavy unconventional, technically recoverable oil-burnt-from-rock with light, sweet crude (a popular new tactic). It's light crude that has always returned 20-100 units for every 1 unit expended, a ratio which our empire is built upon. Apples to oranges much, Mr. Horwitz? How about just sourcing your graphic rather than pretend your viewing audience all just obediently laps this nonsense up? Or just be honest by admitting that the majority of that "reserve growth" is stuff that returns a paltry 3:1 ratio, at best.
This goofiness is really no different than how the establishment mis-represented and ostracized the findings of the world famous "Limits to Growth" report from the 1970s as put forth by some "crazies" at MIT.
"Look! Growth continued! Peak didn't happen, so you're wrong!" ...
Unfortunately, anyone who's ever actually read "Limits to Growth" knows the Club of Rome wasn't wrong at all, as it predicted a peak of world fossil fuel energy production for the first decade of THIS century (which looks quite accurate)... Not the 1980s, as LtG's desperate detractors tried to spin.
Cassandra's curse: how "The Limits to Growth" was demonized
Free marketeers are hard-wired to pump this ruse and pretend global oil depletion isn't real, or isn't a real problem, despite all the symptoms unfolding around the world as we speak. They're pathological about it, even. This is why they're essentially enemies of mankind.
They'll remain this way until events get so ominous that even a trade war begins, and even then they'll just switch to something else equally ridiculous that attempts to pin it all on some new isolated demon of the week (communists, terror, leftists, enrivos, etc. etc.). Perhaps we'll find out soon when the Chinese start their Treasury-bill sell-off. These Friedmanites will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to cave on an issue they've been denying will ever come to fruition. They have far too much invested in the argument at this point. They do this because the reality of resource depletion completely undermines their "consume-everything" flat earth utopia.
Technology and innovation are clearly factors that have thus-far mitigated resource depletion to varying degrees. No one denies that. The point is that this supply-demand gap grows with each passing year. You not only need to make up for dying existing capacity, but you also have to make up for exponential demand growth (see Chindia). As Dr. Albert Bartlett reminds us, every ten years, you need to find and provide as much new fossil fuel energy than has been used in all of history before said decade. Technology will not sustain that level of growth. It is WAY behind that 10-year hockey stick, and nothing is even remotely ready to take its place. There is no substitute for light crude, and there won't be any time soon.
Whenever a person trots out a new story about technological advances in regards to energy production, and feigns the "ha ha! see?" tactic ... always be skeptical. Ask him how long before said process is expected to be commercially viable and produced on a mass scale? If the source doesn't cover that aspect, it's obvious why. The answer is quite usually "decades." ... Sure, we can look to 2050 and insist technological advances will allow for 75% recovery rates and that reserve growth will soar! Whether or not that's even accurate, it's still assuming that the necessary investment will even be there in this new era of perpetual recession, and that the average consumer can even afford the new price point for the product at all.
I'm having the same back and forth on another forum with a poster who insists fission technology is the answer to everything. Essentially mini star creation, fission is the "technology of the future,"... and always will be. It was the silly basis behind Stone's "Wall Street 2." Any fluffy story you read on fission technology, if it talks about time frame at all, admits it's 30+ years from fruition for producing even a small fraction of mankind's energy needs, ... provided the necessary annual billions upon billions of dollars are poured into it all along the way.
Meanwhile, peak is here now. Nevermind 2050.
Look what is happening in the world. Are we still pretending all these nations are imploding because of a liquidity crisis and food inflation due to our mortgage bubble? LOL.
100% correct. This is as much about time as it is about dwindling supply and rising demand.
There is no margin for error anymore. That's because there is no elasticity in oil production anymore due to dying capacity up against soaring demand. Even the perception of minor supply disruption has the markets in a panic. Claims of spare capacity easing fears have died out. Even the Saudis can't guarantee pumping more when needed. They used to come to the world's rescue (see Suez, Iran v. Iraq, Gulf Wars, etc.). They can't any more.
Of course, as oil prices rise, so do food prices -- another symptom that flat-earthers deny is happening, or is a real problem. Never mind, of course that:
*The price of corn has doubled over the last six months.
*The price of wheat has more than doubled over the past year.
*The price of soybeans is up about 50% since last June.
*The price of cotton has more than doubled over the past year.
*The commodity price of orange juice has doubled since 2009.
*The price of sugar is the highest it has been in 30 years.
Horwitz happy analysis doesn't seem to cover the food/oil price symbiosis. But, turning to the proper page of the Chicago School handbook, handed out to all loyal followers, the food crisis must just be a result of Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter and that "liberal" mortgage policy here in America. Nothing deeper.
Horwitz wouldn't last 2 min. at a debate podium across from anyone of the caliber of a Howard Kunstler, Jeff Rubin, or Richard Heinberg on the topic of energy. This is a man who actually says with a straight face:
"Government can only spend what it takes from the private sector one way or another, either through taxation, borrowing, or the redistribution effects of inflation. For every dollar that government spends, there is one less dollar being spent somewhere else in the economy..."So you can see his Straussian rhetorical fairly clearly.
He uses two examples in his presentation, one largely irrelevant (copper), and the other willfully mis-characterized (U.S. oil reserves).
The copper claim was valid, until you remember that copper isn't burned and can almost always be recycled. Further, the global economy isn't utterly based upon copper.
Then he attempted to pass off a sourceless "fact" that U.S. reserves have "grown" to over 1 trillion barrels. Presumably, he's trying to conflate heavy unconventional, technically recoverable oil-burnt-from-rock with light, sweet crude (a popular new tactic). It's light crude that has always returned 20-100 units for every 1 unit expended, a ratio which our empire is built upon. Apples to oranges much, Mr. Horwitz? How about just sourcing your graphic rather than pretend your viewing audience all just obediently laps this nonsense up? Or just be honest by admitting that the majority of that "reserve growth" is stuff that returns a paltry 3:1 ratio, at best.
This goofiness is really no different than how the establishment mis-represented and ostracized the findings of the world famous "Limits to Growth" report from the 1970s as put forth by some "crazies" at MIT.
"Look! Growth continued! Peak didn't happen, so you're wrong!" ...
Unfortunately, anyone who's ever actually read "Limits to Growth" knows the Club of Rome wasn't wrong at all, as it predicted a peak of world fossil fuel energy production for the first decade of THIS century (which looks quite accurate)... Not the 1980s, as LtG's desperate detractors tried to spin.
Cassandra's curse: how "The Limits to Growth" was demonized
Free marketeers are hard-wired to pump this ruse and pretend global oil depletion isn't real, or isn't a real problem, despite all the symptoms unfolding around the world as we speak. They're pathological about it, even. This is why they're essentially enemies of mankind.
They'll remain this way until events get so ominous that even a trade war begins, and even then they'll just switch to something else equally ridiculous that attempts to pin it all on some new isolated demon of the week (communists, terror, leftists, enrivos, etc. etc.). Perhaps we'll find out soon when the Chinese start their Treasury-bill sell-off. These Friedmanites will do whatever they have to do to avoid having to cave on an issue they've been denying will ever come to fruition. They have far too much invested in the argument at this point. They do this because the reality of resource depletion completely undermines their "consume-everything" flat earth utopia.
Technology and innovation are clearly factors that have thus-far mitigated resource depletion to varying degrees. No one denies that. The point is that this supply-demand gap grows with each passing year. You not only need to make up for dying existing capacity, but you also have to make up for exponential demand growth (see Chindia). As Dr. Albert Bartlett reminds us, every ten years, you need to find and provide as much new fossil fuel energy than has been used in all of history before said decade. Technology will not sustain that level of growth. It is WAY behind that 10-year hockey stick, and nothing is even remotely ready to take its place. There is no substitute for light crude, and there won't be any time soon.
Whenever a person trots out a new story about technological advances in regards to energy production, and feigns the "ha ha! see?" tactic ... always be skeptical. Ask him how long before said process is expected to be commercially viable and produced on a mass scale? If the source doesn't cover that aspect, it's obvious why. The answer is quite usually "decades." ... Sure, we can look to 2050 and insist technological advances will allow for 75% recovery rates and that reserve growth will soar! Whether or not that's even accurate, it's still assuming that the necessary investment will even be there in this new era of perpetual recession, and that the average consumer can even afford the new price point for the product at all.
I'm having the same back and forth on another forum with a poster who insists fission technology is the answer to everything. Essentially mini star creation, fission is the "technology of the future,"... and always will be. It was the silly basis behind Stone's "Wall Street 2." Any fluffy story you read on fission technology, if it talks about time frame at all, admits it's 30+ years from fruition for producing even a small fraction of mankind's energy needs, ... provided the necessary annual billions upon billions of dollars are poured into it all along the way.
Meanwhile, peak is here now. Nevermind 2050.
Look what is happening in the world. Are we still pretending all these nations are imploding because of a liquidity crisis and food inflation due to our mortgage bubble? LOL.
100% correct. This is as much about time as it is about dwindling supply and rising demand.
There is no margin for error anymore. That's because there is no elasticity in oil production anymore due to dying capacity up against soaring demand. Even the perception of minor supply disruption has the markets in a panic. Claims of spare capacity easing fears have died out. Even the Saudis can't guarantee pumping more when needed. They used to come to the world's rescue (see Suez, Iran v. Iraq, Gulf Wars, etc.). They can't any more.
Of course, as oil prices rise, so do food prices -- another symptom that flat-earthers deny is happening, or is a real problem. Never mind, of course that:
*The price of corn has doubled over the last six months.
*The price of wheat has more than doubled over the past year.
*The price of soybeans is up about 50% since last June.
*The price of cotton has more than doubled over the past year.
*The commodity price of orange juice has doubled since 2009.
*The price of sugar is the highest it has been in 30 years.
Horwitz happy analysis doesn't seem to cover the food/oil price symbiosis. But, turning to the proper page of the Chicago School handbook, handed out to all loyal followers, the food crisis must just be a result of Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter and that "liberal" mortgage policy here in America. Nothing deeper.
where is OP? i know he's been on the forums in the days since I finally was allowed to enter a thread here that was, oddly, a direct challenge to me.
Nielsio? did you have a follow up to Horowitz' brilliant piece?
03-17-2011
, 11:17 PM
03-18-2011
, 12:10 AM
