While the central role of the mortgage crisis in this whole economic tumble we're taking can't be disputed, there's a school of thought that says it wasn't the only, and perhaps not even the main cause. Peak Oil, that postulated point at which we reach maximum oil supply beyond which there is permanent decline gets fingered as the elephant in the room. And when you consider the larger context over the past few years - Oil prices topping 160 USD at one point, food riots due to critical shortages, power outages all over the place, it certainly does seem ... ominous.

So what are your thoughts?

Mina.

Some Reading:

http://www.alternet.org/story/32077/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174888

I attribute it to several factors, oil not being one of them.

Why not oil, because speculation drove up the price more than anything. Now suddenly we have a huge surplus. Was there a real shortage, no. Even the oil barons overseas said supply was getting close, but that prices were inflated and they could produce more if needed. If it was a serious supply problem the big oil companies in this country would not be raking in their highest profits.

So what did it?
Obviously bad financing, but also the corporations of the world have been pillaging the planet for a long time and things are coming to a head. Everything to make a buck. Corporations used to focus on long term sustainability, today it is get all you can and get out. How many companies have been nailed lately for cooking the books? 

The worry about tomorrow later attitude has been quite prevalent. Well tomorrow is here, time to pay up.


I'll stop before I write a 500 page rant on what went wrong and who is to blame.

"Change" the world has limited resources and an excess of people. Political change needs to come about to insure survival. We need to bring back morals and not by religion.

It's really the perfect storm.  A lot of little things came together at the same time to create some major systems failures.  These major failures will create a synergy so that the total effect of all these things, at once, taken as a whole, is going to be pretty revolutionary.

But, at the bottom line, are some pretty hard and real facts, that, though a lot of people think they can ignore them, or shrug them off - largely out of a less than perfect understanding - the leaders of governments and business do know the numbers, understand the numbers, and realize the final result.

We run the world on a source of energy that is finite.  Sooner or later we run out.  A question of when, not if.  Use of this source is increasing on a global scale. 

And, many systems just got too big.  There is a level of stability for any system.  In finance I just think the numbers grew too huge, the pace too fast and it spun out of control.

Quote from: Leslie Ann on December 30, 2008, 05:26:28 PMI'll stop before I write a 500 page rant on what went wrong and who is to blame.

Oh yeah. I think we'd all sign that rant and turn it into a "shoot the bastards" petition ... too bad we'd probably have to shoot ourselves too.

As Tekla says, it really is all coming to a head at the same time. I do think we're at Peak Oil now or will be very soon, and that current surplusses are simply because of severely depressed demand, but yeah, it's definitely not the only thing. The staple food shortages that are only gonna get worse, conspicuous consumerism and economic slavery and massive waste, living in credit economies, and of course like Leslie points out, literally only thinking ahead to the next stock dividend or election - all of it's crashing down at the same time. It's like in any system - one or two changes can be absorbed and the system adjusts, but add enough variables and the system goes into wild fluctuation looking for a new equilibrium.

So next question: Where do you see that new equilibrium settling? Look into the future and make a 5 or 10 year prediction, if you're feeling brave.

Mina.

QuoteThe staple food shortages that are only gonna get worse, conspicuous consumerism and economic slavery and massive waste, living in credit economies, and of course like Leslie points out, literally only thinking ahead to the next stock dividend or election - all of it's crashing down at the same time.

Do not leave out not enough clean water.

I think when it all sorts out you'll be looking at a smaller world, one less sprawling, and one with lots of stuff grown on a more local scale, and a lot more things made by hand.

Worry a lot about distribution, of food, of medicine, of chemicals for treating water.

Quote from: tekla on December 31, 2008, 09:44:17 AM
I think when it all sorts out you'll be looking at a smaller world, one less sprawling, and one with lots of stuff grown on a more local scale, and a lot more things made by hand.

Worry a lot about distribution, of food, of medicine, of chemicals for treating water.

I wonder if that day will be the true end of the 20th century. 

I think in the long run the 20th Century is more of an abstract than a sustainable reality.  The 19th Century will be a better model, if we can only keep it from slipping back further than that.

Quote from: tekla on December 31, 2008, 10:11:22 AM
I think in the long run the 20th Century is more of an abstract than a sustainable reality.  The 19th Century will be a better model, if we can only keep it from slipping back further than that.

I think it probably will slip back past that, if only for a while, simply because of all the conflict we can expect between 7 billion people, should everything come apart. The 19th century's average world population was about 1.5 billion, and I would argue that the only reason we managed to make it past Thomas Malthus' predicted population maximum was because of the invention of modern agriculture, which is fundamentally based on petroleum fertilizers. We don't even need a peak oil event for that to fall apart - all we need is for systems to break down for even a short period - credit, transportation, that sort of thing, and people will start fighting.

Mina.

As you guys pointed out, there are many factors in the mix.  And there are many opinions as to which factor is the motor on the current crisis.

I like the analogy of a 'balloon animal' balloon -- the long cylindrical balloons that look like a summer sausage when inflated.  You never completely fill them, because you need to be able to squeeze parts of it down to twist it into various shapes--


When you squeeze one inflated part, another part is forced to expand -- sometimes far away from where you squeeze.

The analogy here (as I see it, anyway  ) is that one of the factors in this crisis is being denied/overlooked/ignored, but the effect of that factor is referred to another part of the system.

Answer this question:  What would happen if all fossil-fuel input suddenly stopped cold-turkey?  What would happen to finance?  What would happen to communication?  What would happen to medicine?  What would happen to the 7-billion people alive today?

I just recently re-read "Friday", by Robert Heinlein.  We need the energy collection/storage/distribution system he postulated in that book (the 'Shipstone'), and we need it now!

The socio-political milieu he described is also chillingly similar to recent events.

All in all, I think the story is very prescient.

Karen

P.S., the main character, Friday Jones (or Marjorie Baldwin,) is an 'artificial person' or AP, whose genetic heritage was created by gene-splicing, including desired traits and excluding gene-borne deficiencies.  She is an enhanced human.  But APs are discriminated against, and she must be careful to hide her AP-ness or suffer bigotry and prejudice at the hands of 'natural' people.  Sound familiar?

Quote from: Karen on January 01, 2009, 01:41:16 PMI just recently re-read "Friday", by Robert Heinlein.  We need the energy collection/storage/distribution system he postulated in that book (the 'Shipstone'), and we need it now!

James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Hypothesis (that the planet is basically an interconnected system, almost like a living organism, with us the component parts) recently wrote a follow-up book, The Revenge of Gaia where he compares what's happening to the climate now to the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. The earth's temperature spiked by about 6 degrees over 20,000 years, making pretty-much everywhere except the arctic and antarctic circles unlivable for that period - There are fossilised crocodiles in the arctic circle from then.

Anyway, the point I was getting at is that he sees the only realistic chance we have of surviving this, civilization intact, is massive adoption of nuclear power - not to cut our carbon footprint, but to simply have the energy needed to maintain a livable habitat in what he says is an absolute certainty. The closest thing we have to "Shipstone", sadly.

QuoteShe is an enhanced human.  But APs are discriminated against, and she must be careful to hide her AP-ness or suffer bigotry and prejudice at the hands of 'natural' people.  Sound familiar?

I'm so feeling that highlighted section. It's difficult to be perfect. I'm sure we can all relate.

Mina.

Quoteis massive adoption of nuclear power

The thing that no one talks about is the massive amount of clean water it takes to cool nuclear power. As it stands today plants are closed down during hot simmer periods due to over heating rivers. There simply is not enough water to have nuclear power provide all the energy needs.

They kind of have a little storage/disposal problem too.

For some thoughts on the subject ... See:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0115.shtml

http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/05/10/yucca_mountain/index2.html

http://www.desertspace.org/warning_sign/uwsGallery.html

It's a contraction.
It is not a contraction.

What was the question?

~Alyssa. 

QuoteIt's a contraction.
It is not a contraction.

What was the question?

~Alyssa. 

Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 01, 2009, 11:27:40 PM
It's a contraction.
It is not a contraction.

What was the question?

~Alyssa. 

Obviously a contradiction then.

As to the problems with nuclear, I agree, they are legion, but realistically it's the only real alternative we have to fossil fuels at the moment. Renewable energy takes alot of energy up front to put down the infrastructure, and are quite inadequate in terms of the amount of energy they actually provide.

Yeah, it's a hell of a puzzler we and our children are facing. 

Mina.

Electric cars whose batteries are charged entirely by coal-fired power plants have the same carbon footprint as hybrids. There are many "wedges" available. The oil bubble won't pop; it'll slowly deflate. We'll be fine. I think.

Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=52626.msg326344#msg326344 date=1230886455
Obviously a contradiction then.

Or perhaps a contra'ction.

QuoteRenewable energy takes alot of energy up front to put down the infrastructure, and are quite inadequate in terms of the amount of energy they actually provide.

Not to mention the maintenance and life span. Many Renewable projects consume just as much energy being constructed and maintained over their life as they generate.

A nuke plant takes ten years to build. McCain wanted to build 100 that would take working on ten at a time for 100 years. It would take 1000 to go all nuke and electric cars. At 8 billion each that is 8 trillion almost equal the the national debt now. Plus they only last 50 years.