Our 'What Should I Do?' guide has steps to cook, see & stay warm in times of power outage
17 Questions To Ask Next Time Someone Tells You The Economy Is Getting Better (David B.)
If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?
Davos, in the Style of Occupy Wall Street (jdargis)
“This system is all about maximizing profits — maximizing profits just so you can keep going,” she added, as other members of the Occupy group, part of the global movement that has sprung up under that name, nodded in agreement.
Latin America Looks at West’s Fiscal Crises, and Sees Its Own Past (jdargis)
In 2011, Latin America’s unemployment rate fell to a 21-year low of 6.8 percent, compared with 8.5 percent in the United States and nearly 10 percent in Europe. While economic growth has slowed in some countries, it is still booming in others. Panama, whose canal is choked to capacity, registered economic growth of 10.5 percent in the first nine months of 2011. Argentina’s economy expanded 9.3 percent in the third quarter.
Don't Be A Wall Street Patsy (David B.)
Now, it’s the mutual fund manager’s fault. That way the broker can’t be blamed if your account loses money.
Instead, your broker can tell you, “Don’t fire me, let’s fire the mutual fund manager and let’s find you a better fund to invest in. But, no matter what happens, we need to buy and hold and not try and time the market.”
Greece Inches Toward Deal in Talks With Its Creditors (jdargis)
The latest progress comes at a tense time for Greece. Officials from the three institutions that are keeping the near-bankrupt nation financially afloat — the European Commission, the monetary fund and the European Central Bank — are demanding another round of spending cuts and reforms to justify a release of as much as 30 billion euros ($39 billion) in the months ahead.
Everything You Know About Peak Oil Is Wrong (cmartenson)
Over the intervening years, the threat of “peak oil” has stayed with us—the date when global petroleum production was to reach its supposed maximum, afterward and evermore to decline as dwindling reserves were tapped out. And the exhaustion of the world’s oil reserves was just the start. A host of other critical natural resources, from phosphorus to uranium, have been declared peaking or already peaked.
Energy Tax Breaks Proposed, Despite Waning Support for Subsidies (jdargis)
“Most of the folks I think recognize that this is not a Solyndra effort here,” said Representative David G. Reichert, Republican of Washington, who introduced a bill to extend a renewable tax credit last year. Solyndra was financed under a now-expired program, part of the 2009 stimulus package, that provided government loan guarantees for clean-energy projects, some of which administration officials expected to be risky.
Lone Wolf Commands a Following (jdargis)
Once widespread across much of the country, gray wolves were nearly extinct in the contiguous United States by the early 20th century, killed by government trappers, ranchers and hunters. In 1974, the gray wolf was listed as endangered under the newly established Endangered Species Act. Then in 1995 and 1996 wildlife officials released 66 Canadian wolves into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho, an area that is now home to nearly 1,700 wolves.
Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to dd@PeakProsperity.com. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."
wolves may seem 'cuddly' to many
they are a real threat to us and have killed some of my livestock and our children MUST go armed if they are out around the farm
we have livestock guardian dogs (Mastiff & Great Pyrs), lock up our livestock and know all the well intentioned environmental sayings about wolves
but of all the predators in the eco system we live in (griz & black bear, mtn lions) wolves are the most aggressive and cause the most harm to livestock
I'm confused! Chris has presented some very compeling information on the depletion of various strategic resourses. The numbers in this article are very optimistic. What's up. Are we comparing apples and oranges? Does someone have better data than the other? Or is someone lying? Help! This is a very important issue.
I recognize the issue of peak oil, verses peak cheap oil, verses peak cheap export oi blurs the oil argumentl, but some of this data on copper and phosphate etc. is very contrary to what Chris has presented. Who is correct?
HELP!
Chris,
Thanks for posting this contrarian (to members of this site) article. I don't know about others, but the ability to at least consider alternative points of view makes me more confidant in this community. I'd like to think that we are not simply selectively repeating the things that we'd like to (or fear to) believe but are honestly considering the whole picture. Heck, I hope that the EEEs are all wrong and I am delusional about this. Rationally though, I have to accept that infinite growth on a finite planet is a pipe dream.
I notice that the article uses the standard "at current production levels" as the caveat for everything, sidesteps the lack of increased oil production for 6+ years despite growing demand, fails to link mining with energy or declining ore grades, and doesn't even consider EROEI.
For more of the reality is just plain inconvenient argument I recommend reading (link) this Forbes article on EROEI. Which after stating:
"The problem with this is that while the math and physics of ERoEI is just fine, indisputable even, it’s just not a very useful conceit except in certain very limited situations."
It then goes on to equate the wasteful energetics involved in wheat growing (conveniently ignoring petroleum inputs) using a steady energy source (sunlight; at least for billions of years) and a renewable resource (water) as somehow meaning that peak oil isn't real and isn't important even if it is real...
Nimsdf,
The point of articles like this are to confuse you. Some are intentionally misleading, others are just based on wishful thinking. They do not 'lie', they just selectively represent the facts that support the conclusions that they want you to reach. Think of the defense lawyer in a trial. Even if the lawyer knows the client is guilty he/she will not say that. They will instead tell you (the jury) all of the reasons why you should disbelieve or doubt the prosector's evidence and witness testimony. They don't need to prove innocence, just make sure you can't conclude guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Unfortunately, unless a person is well versed in the materials being discussed, they often end up deciding who they trust more instead of evaluating the actual evidence. One way you can arm yourself in these sorts of debates is to look for modifying conditioning elements of statements. Notice that the article didn't say that there are no limits to oil or other resources. In the article, for example, they use something like 'if present consumption rates continue' when we/they know that those rates are increasing exponentially. If you want to really understand what exponential growth means start here.
Note, another common tactic is selective misquotation of a supposedly important piece of counter evidence (in this case the Limits to Growth). How many of us ever go back to read the cited material and see if they've correctly cited the intent of the materials?
Hope this helps.
When you hold strong views on a issue its important to continually listen to opposing arguments or you risk becoming a zealot blindly following a faith. Im more interested to read the economic optimists and peak oil critics, just occasionally they make some good points (even daniel yergin). When you familiar with the subject and you apply a critical eye to everything you read you can spot the sloppy reasoning and misleading statistics from both camps.
"Start with oil. In 1971, the Limits to Growth team forecast that the world’s supply would run out 10 years from today."
This Charles Kenny fellow started losing me when he wrote the above...... the CoR said NOTHING OF THE SORT! All the charts they produced had no numbers or timelines....
Now, look at the chart I fiddled with..... it's a standard "Peak Oil" chart, readily available all over the internet. Now, imagine we didn't have the politically motivated oil shocks of the 70's and 80's..... that being the case, all that oil I've coloured bright blue would not have been "saved" by the conservation measures taken at the time to try and keep the show running. It's not an unsbstantial amount of oil either... AND had that scenario occurred, ALL that oil would have had to come from the right hand side of the Hubbert curve, and we would already be in serious shortages mode by now.
Now look at the red line I drew (yes it's wobbly!). Look at how steeply it rises before the first oil shock. Had that shock not occurred, would it have kept on going skywards, until PO hit us? AND would it have hit us before 2000? It's all speculation of course, but my point is that in 1972, the CoR had no way of knowing that the Arab embargo would occur. So they were perfectly entitled to think PO might occur ~2000...
Mike
In 1972, the LTG study arrived in a world that had known more than two decades of unabated growth after the end of the Second World War. It was a time of optimism and faith in technological progress that, perhaps, had never been so strong in the history of humankind. With nuclear power on the rise, with no hint that mineral resources were scarce, with population growing fast, it seemed that the limits to growth, if such a thing existed, were so far away in the future that there was no reason to worry. In any case, even if these limits were closer than generally believed, didn't we have technology to save us? With nuclear energy on the rise, a car in every garage, the Moon just conquered in 1968, the world seemed to be all set for a shiny future. Against that general feeling, the results of LTG were a shock.
There is a legend lingering around the LTG report that says that it was laughed off as an obvious quackery immediately after it was published. It is not true. The study was debated and criticized, as it is normal for a new theory or idea. But it raised enormous interest and millions of copies were sold. Evidently, despite the general optimism of the time, the study had given visibility to a feeling that wasn't often expressed but that was in everybody's minds. Can we really grow forever? And if we can't, for how long can growth last? The LTG study provided an answer to these questions; not a pleasant one, but an answer nevertheless.
The LTG study had everything that was needed to become a major advance in science. It came from a prestigious institution, the MIT; it was sponsored by a group of brilliant and influential intellectuals, the Club of Rome; it used the most modern and advanced computation techniques and, finally, the events that were taking place a few years after publication, the great oil crisis of the 1970s, seemed to confirm the vision of the authors. Yet, the study failed in generating a robust current of academic research and, a couple of decades after the publication, the general opinion about it had completely changed. Far from being considered the scientific revolution of the century, in the 1990s LTG had become everyone's laughing stock. Little more than the rumination of a group of eccentric (and probably slightly feebleminded) professors who had really thought that the end of the world was near. In short, Chicken Little with a computer.
The reversal of fortunes of LTG was gradual and involved a debate that lasted for decades. At first, critics reacted with little more than a series of statements of disbelief which carried little weight. There were a few early papers carrying more in-depth criticism, notably by William Nordhaus (1973) and by a group of researchers of the university of Sussex that went under the name of the "Sussex Group" (Cole 1973). Both studies raised a number of interesting points but failed in their attempt of demonstrating that the LTG study was flawed in its basic assumptions.
Already these early papers by Nordhaus and by the Sussex group showed an acrimonious streak that became common in the debate from the side of the critics. Political criticism, personal attacks and insults against the LTG authors, and in general a rather rude attitude. For instance, the editor of the journal that had published Nordhaus' 1973 paper refused to published Forrester's response to it. With time, the debate veered more and more on the political side. In 1997, the Italian economist Giorgio Nebbia, noted that the reaction against the LTG study had arrived from at least four different fronts. One was from those who saw the book as a threat to the growth of their businesses and industries. A second set was that of professional economists, who saw LTG as a threat to their dominance in advising on economic matters. The Catholic world provided further ammunition for the critics, being piqued at the suggestion that overpopulation was one of the major causes of the problems. Then, the political left in the Western World saw the LTG study as a scam of the ruling class, designed to trick workers into believing that the proletarian paradise was not a practical goal. And this by Nebbia is a clearly incomplete list; forgetting religious fundamentalists, the political right, the believers in infinite growth, politicians seeking for easy solutions to all problems and many others.
All together, these groups formed a formidable coalition that guaranteed a strong reaction against LTG. This reaction eventually succeeded in demolishing the study in the eyes of the majority of the public and of specialists at the same time. This demolition was greatly helped by a factor that initially had bolstered the credibility of the study: the world oil crisis of the 1970s
"Start with oil. In 1971, the Limits to Growth team forecast that the world’s supply would run out 10 years from today. And yet according to renowned oil analyst Daniel Yergin, technology advances and new discoveries have allowed oil reserves worldwide to keep growing. For every barrel of oil produced in the world from 2007 to 2009, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added. The World Energy Council reports that global proven recoverable reserves of natural gas liquids and crude oil amounted to 1.2 trillion barrels in 2010. That’s enough to last another 38 years at current usage. Add in shale oil, and that’s an additional 4.8 trillion barrels, or a century and a half’s worth of supply at present usage rates. Tar sands, including some huge Canadian deposits, add perhaps 6 trillion barrels more."
Yergin may well be right that 1.6 barrels were added for every barrel extracted.... but they were NOT CONVENTIONAL OIL barrels! And besides, how can anyone think that natural gas liquidsallowing the show to continue for just 38 years is good enough? Do we crash then?
And shale oil could never be produced fast enough to allow business as usual.... shale oil wouldn't last a century and a half, they'd last several centuries!
I totally agree with Mark, the point of articles like this is to confuse you....
Unless you are REALLY proficient with all the data on this stuff, it's very very easy to be confused.
Mike
"Limits to Growth suggested the world would be on the verge of complete economic collapse around about now" is a COMPLETE LIE! I bet this guy hasn't even read the book, and is merely quoting all the people who misrepresented everything the CoR produced.
How are these bastards even allowed to publish this crap...!
Really really riles me....
Mike
Chris,
Thanks for posting this contrarian (to members of this site) article. I don't know about others, but the ability to at least consider alternative points of view makes me more confidant in this community. I'd like to think that we are not simply selectively repeating the things that we'd like to (or fear to) believe but are honestly considering the whole picture. Heck, I hope that the EEEs are all wrong and I am delusional about this. Rationally though, I have to accept that infinite growth on a finite planet is a pipe dream.
I notice that the article uses the standard "at current production levels" as the caveat for everything, sidesteps the lack of increased oil production for 6+ years despite growing demand, fails to link mining with energy or declining ore grades, and doesn't even consider EROEI.
For more of the reality is just plain inconvenient argument I recommend reading (link) this Forbes article on EROEI. Which after stating:
"The problem with this is that while the math and physics of ERoEI is just fine, indisputable even, it’s just not a very useful conceit except in certain very limited situations."
It then goes on to equate the wasteful energetics involved in wheat growing (conveniently ignoring petroleum inputs) using a steady energy source (sunlight; at least for billions of years) and a renewable resource (water) as somehow meaning that peak oil isn't real and isn't important even if it is real...
The Forbes article points out that it takes about 35 times as much sunlight to evaporate the water that eventually falls as rain to water the wheat as the calories contained in the wheat. Yes, but the sun just happily evaporates the water anyway to fall as rain and we just have to plant the wheat in some field in a place with sufficient rainfall. The sun is not dependent on the wheat to evaporate the water like oil reservoirs are dependent on previously produced oil required to extract the new oil. A more comparable example would be burning the wheat to evaporate the water needed to rain back down on the wheat. Unless the wheat can get by on less water than would be evaporated by burning all of it, it's game over.
Here's another quote from the article: "And it is pretty silly to use more of one form of energy to produce less of that same form of energy." That's exactly what we're doing with oil. Burning oil to mine iron ore, transport and refine it, fashion it into pipes or heavy equipment, transport the heavy equipment to the site, etc. The truth is actually even more challenging. Unless we can produce a given amount of oil by using only 10 or 20% as much oil, we will not be able to maintain our society anywhere near it's present level of complexity. The author either was incapable or unwilling to think through the problem enough to see the obvious fallacy in his argument or he's got an agenda that involves something other than telling the truth.
Thank you Dr. M for providing a link to this article. Although the title obviously is wrong the article presents a view that is overlooked by those of us with romantic thoughts about going back to old technology and who want to abandon conveniences and luxuries we now enjoy, which to a large extent can continue with new technology and new politics. Maybe the main point is (this is consistent with Dr. Martenson's thesis and teaching!) a. we will never run out of anything, b. things get more costly and thus rarer as we use up the most concentrated forms. Look at it via this extreme example, even now we purify water from the ocean and are left with ALL ELEMENTS including gold, phosphorus etc that can be purified if we have enough time and brains to do so. Plants already exist that naturally concentrate a number of interesting elements even now. This is the main reason why I am so unhappy to see people on this site focus on going back to old fashioned technology, technology which often causes much pollution and in most cases is associated with human (labor) misery.
Of course, we will never run out of oil, because the remaining oil will be too difficult to extract and we will make oil which will be too precious to waste in an SUV. Instead the REAL advances likely will be found in engineering (small efficient vehicles and politics (legal environment to encourage or allow them)), where we learn to do more with less. How come there are no articles about the foolishness of powering a 3000 pound car to carry a 170 pound person 20 miles to buy a loaf of bread when the SAME FREEDOM and LUXERY can be had by powering a 250 pound vehicle (albeit slower perhaps) to carry the 170 pound person for 5 times less energy. In the latter situation we can seriously ponder MAKING the oil or electricity in sufficient quanties (admittedly engineering required). Years ago the Japanese addressed this problem by creating a new class of car "K car" that cost half as much to buy much cheaper to license, weighs about 1/4 as much (5-10 times less than an SUV yet usually carries 4 or more) and have maximum 25 hp. This was done to SAVE gas and increase efficiency years ago. Our politicians had a chance to do this with the electric car (glorified golf cart) legislation which allows an extremely efficient convenient freedom-based transportation but only on roads with maximum 30 MPH. The car companies were threatened by this and squashed it. We could slash gasoline by 3 or 4 fold if we created a new legal class of vehicle I am just mentioning this K car concept as an example..
I read the Limits to Growth when I was in college and believed then that growth in the world economy would soon stop based on the Club of Rome's analysis that relied on OLD TECHNOLOGY. Consumption-of-materials "growth" this time likely really will stop. But we should not give up following our dreams and aspirations for a better life using technology. It is fun to ride a high tech low friction bike, or a motorcycle, or a tiny car with high efficiency. Those who live in a country with extremely efficient mass transportation (Japan) dream about having a tiny car for the freedom it represents. That dream will always exist and can be met, even at low energy/material consumption. And we can and already do make oil denovo: and this gets better all the time: making new oil likely will never get more difficult. It is all a matter of engineering machines and engineering the politics to get us off the SUV/over eating/over consuming treadmill and give good alternatives a chance to grow. I think that many criticisms of the article are off base. We can do much more with resources than it seems if we can think outside the box. I am looking forward to using solar electric energy for summer air conditioning for example. At 50cents a watt for purchase of the hardware I may even use solar electric for electric clothes drying (albeit only when the sun is shining). We can have a luxurious life style even without cheap fossil fuel and cheap minerals. Please dont be so negative and please dont put faith in crappy 50 year old technology as a savior (making clothes for others by hand, growing food for others using a hoe and a rake, making eyeglasses by hand, making vehicles by hand, etc). The Club of Rome's prediction failed because TECHNOLOGY can literally do wonders. Many posters on this website (and an administrator) make the same mistake as the Club of Rome. Think outside the box. The past is a trap.
For every barrel of oil produced in the world from 2007 to 2009, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added.
From Everything you knew about Peak Oil etc.
That is a new number to me.
I shall run it past the Boys and Girls over at the Oil Drum. If I don't get kicked off for being a Troll.
those of us with romantic thoughts about going back to old technology and who want to abandon conveniences and luxuries we now enjoy
Hi Mirv....... is this aimed at me by any chance? Because if you need to know, I do not believe in going back to candles and twelve kids per woman.
We must, and will, have to change the way we do everything, but old technology doesn't fit in my future plans, we need to get a whole more clever about how we do things......
Really, human labour is a misery? Don't YOU work? I started work in 1969 in a drawing office, and I stayed ten years. THAT was misery.... we are in the end masters of our own destinies. So many people are slaves to debt, and so many people live in misery now I find it hard to understand what you really mean here....
See..... I think the problem is in BUYING the bread.... I made delicious bread in my wood stove today. No packaging, no effort, no waste, and it was energy neutral.... baking bread is technology thousands of years old. What's your problem?
Cars don't make you happy. It's all in your head, Cars enslave you......
You're confusing "technology" with "fossil fuels" Look at this...:
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html
I agree about the bike... in fact, we should keep oil just to make bike tyres! "Represents" is the key word here.... cars keep you so poor, fuel, tyres, services, insurance, taxes, depreciation, etc etc etc..... I recently spent six years without a car, and never felt richer!
The Club of Rome's predictions have not failed, they are bang on target..... do you remember what they were...? The CoR predicted that within a period of 100 years from whence they wrote their report (1972), civilisation would collapse. Here we are, exactly 40% of the way through this century, and my gut feeling is that they were actually optimistic! I think TSWHTF well before 2050!
I just don't understand why anyone thinks living more simply is so bad...
Mike
For every barrel of oil produced in the world from 2007 to 2009, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added.
From Everything you knew about Peak Oil etc.
That is a new number to me.
I shall run it past the Boys and Girls over at the Oil Drum. If I don't get kicked off for being a Troll.
Arthur, this may be wrong too, and I'd like to know what you discover, but I think what Yergin means here is that for every barrel of CONVENTIONAL OIL that is being produced, 1.6 barrels of new UNCONVENTIONAL OIL were added.....
BIG DIFFERENCE...... the former has an ERoEI of at least 20:1, the latter lucky to reach 4 or 5:1
But I agree, I thought we were already in depletion mode.... Yergin may also be stretching the truth here by including biofuels and calling them "oil".
Mike
Wow. Good rich analysus of the unfolding of events around the LtG. DtMatrrix.
However I refuse to be too agreeable.
The Limits to Growth had two flaws
Do not think that I have defected to the Light side, but these two factors will deflect our anticipated trajectory. But first World Government must emerge from the chaos. Then we will straighten up and fly level.
I aim to get my grandchildren to the starting gates.
The Club of Rome's predictions have not failed, they are bang on target..... do you remember what they were...? The CoR predicted that within a period of 100 years from whence they wrote their report (1972), civilisation would collapse. Here we are, exactly 40% of the way through this century, and my gut feeling is that they were actually optimistic! I think TSWHTF well before 2050!
I have to agree.
Ernest
Arthur and Mike,
The other point is that the statement is "1.6 barrels of new reserves were added" which, even if it pertains to conventional oil says nothing about whether these are 'proven' reserves. Reserves just means that they think they know where some oil is that may be possible to extract. As I understand it, reserves = 'proven'+ 'probable'+ 'possible' oil. All of these numbers are a bit squishy as EROEI and price, combined with hard knowledge after actually drilling can change them. Unfortunately, the actual numbers have somewhat shaky confidence as both companies and countries have good reason to overstate their proven reserves.
Recall, also how in 2004, Shell had to announce a 20% reduction in the 'proven' oil and gas reserves....
Overall this is more muddying of the waters. Many of those 'new reserves' are never going to be developed because they are too small. too far and too difficult to access. Of those that will be accessed only a percentage will be pumpable oil. Any that is accessed will take a long time to com on line.
Mark
Good response. I also agree that it is good to have contrarian points of view on here. Thank god for the commentaries that usually follow, so we can draw our own conclusions though.
Arthur, I love sience fiction too......
"2001 A Space Odyssey" is my all time favourite film.
Mike
Arthur, I've discussed space travel with others. I think it's a pipedream, even though I think it would be great if it happened. Unfortunately, the nearest habitable planet is an unknowable distance away and certainly many generations worth of travel, at least. We don't know if humans can survive that long without the web of nature, of which we're a part. Space mining is a possibility but that would just allow other rare resources to be depleted and our environment to worsen. But, after 50 years of space adventures we seem to be no closer to the stars.
Cold fusion? Nah. I seem to recall its being a few months away early last year. It is always going to be in the future. Even if it weren't a huge new source of cheap energy would just allow the environment to deteriorate further and wouldn't stop some other critical resource from being the bottleneck.
Technology is not going to save us, other than appropriate technology when living lightly on our only known habitat.
Limits to Growth has been validated in at least two recent studies, and several recent articles. The journalist who wrote the article linked to did not do his homework there and has simply gone along with the conventional "wisdom".
Below is the chart that really shows what's going on. Since we're in 2012 now, we are in a block roughly equal in size to the area bounded by "A-B-F-E" (and where in "BFE" are we gonna find it?!?) if we plan on meeting oil needs in this new decade of 2010 to 2020.
Source: http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett.html
I suspect the themes of exponential growth, and high-grading of remaining resources, will continue to rear their ugly heads into the rosy picture.
Poet
I think Chris cleverly posted this article so that this community of users would use their collective rationale and conviction to debunk it in the comments. I accept.
or
to post comments
Join the discussion