Post: #76

(01-02-2019 12:46 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  Instead of being dismissive, maybe we could study a bit more how they managed to become so resilient.

They're not resilient, though. They're basically a welfare state who leans on the victim card while begging for handouts. The more they suffer the more they are pitied and propped up with charity. There's really no incentive on their part to make something out of their situation because they are seen as the world's martyrs.

You can't count on charity in a future of lifeboat ethics. You have to prove to other countries that you have something to trade with them in exchange for what you can't produce. If you're just a leech you're gonna get your lifeline pulled. There are already several "deadwood" failed states out there. North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmarr. Places like that which are nothing but resource sinks are going to be first to go under, and of course, they won't go quietly into that good night, in which case the migration situation will become epidemic and very bloody.

Post: #77

(01-02-2019 11:06 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 09:35 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

Africa? Rich soils? Um, Sahara desert anyone? Plus Africa is going to be one of the worst hit from global warming, with Australia not far behind. I know China is trying to convert Africa into its breadbasket but it ain't gonna work, at least not for long.

(01-02-2019 09:19 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  what do you do if, after all, you need more working-age people?

In the short-run, robots.

A future society of fewer and fewer young people due to demographic shift where the lights stay on is ROBOTS.

Japan is already planning for that, for instance, although also fighting tooth and nail to goose the birth rates (which I don't think they should do).

You are right. Although I would be referring to Sub-Saharan Africa.

Post: #78

(01-02-2019 10:06 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 12:46 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  Instead of being dismissive, maybe we could study a bit more how they managed to become so resilient.

They're not resilient, though. They're basically a welfare state who leans on the victim card while begging for handouts. The more they suffer the more they are pitied and propped up with charity. There's really no incentive on their part to make something out of their situation because they are seen as the world's martyrs.

You can't count on charity in a future of lifeboat ethics. You have to prove to other countries that you have something to trade with them in exchange for what you can't produce. If you're just a leech you're gonna get your lifeline pulled. There are already several "deadwood" failed states out there. North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmarr. Places like that which are nothing but resource sinks are going to be first to go under, and of course, they won't go quietly into that good night, in which case the migration situation will become epidemic and very bloody.

Even if they get money from donors, they still manage to share them in such a way as to provide for everyone. They may not be so resilient as Cuba in the years between the end of USSR and the advent of Chavez, but still they have low corruption (compare that to Ukraine, for example). On the other hand, Israel is getting huge sums of donor money too, but the quality of life has been going down there for an average citizen.
I think about Hezbollah especially as a kind of modern Sparta.

In general, I think that states organized in a socialist-like, communal way - Cuba, some islam-based states (not all), former USSR, are a bit more resilient than the purely capitalist ones. I think this point was made by Dymitry Orlov in his writings on USSR collapse. In the former communist states, one of the things people are missing is the sense of community, of being together. Maybe it will appear in the West when its people will realize that they cannot improve their lives anymore, too, but it will be a long way till this become official. In Switzerland 77% voted against basic income.
In general, I would be wary a bit of this capitalist, Hobbesian mindset of bellum omnium contra omnes (everyone with everyone war), unless of course we trade. This is anthropology upon which capitalism is based, and is a bit grim, I would say.
In spite of Adam Smith and its holy Grail of trade, I do not think that the future will be based purely on trade; I expect more of barter exchange with your allies only. Due to expected general pauperization of population, I also think that providing utilities for very small fee, as it was in USSR, is the only option if we want to avoid some radical, violent scenario. Nevertheless, the current Western trend of utilities privatisation is exactly the opposite to what is needed.
Therefore, my recurring doubt is: do the powers that be know? do they want it?
My impression is that at some point earlier the resource problem was treated seriosuly (Carter presidency, for example), but then that stopped altogether. I do not understand that.

BTW, Venezuela has a lot to trade - its oil. I take Venezuela downfall after Chavez to be a result of constant meddling of USA, which obviously enforces its Monroe Doctrine. It is also an example that states based on resources only are not very resilient, in fact, just compare Venezuela with Cuba. Arab oil monarchies next? Obviously Arab oil is US oil....

Post: #79

A pretty good article explaining why diesel shortages mean that the peak oil has indeed arrived. It also explains new taxes on diesel, taxes which gave rise to the ongoing protests in France.


https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-...g-for-you/


This last observation is quite relevant because if, as you can guess, the industry is cracking less heavy fuel oil to ensure that the production of diesel does not go down too much, the rapid fall of heavy fuel oil will quickly drag down the diesel production. In fact, the graph shows that, after falling in 2015 and 2016, in 2017, it was possible to stabilize the production of all fuel oils, but it is also seen that in recent months there was a quite rapid fall.
Surely, in this shortage, we can start noting the absence of some 2.5 Mb/d of conventional oil (more versatile for refining and therefore more suitable for the production of fuel oil), as we were told by the International Energy Agency in his last annual report. This explains the urgency to get rid of the diesel that has lately shaken the chancelleries of Europe: they hide behind real environmental problems (which have always troubled diesel, but which were always given less than a hoot) to try to make a quick adaptation to a situation of scarcity. A shortage that can be brutal, since no prevention was performed for a situation that has long been seen coming.


With regard to the fact that the demand for diesel does not increase [so this is our real goal now (!), mind you, not economic "growth". Kaligula], prices have a considerable influence: this is how shortages are regulated in a market economy. And, as for the environmental reasons, the production of heavy gas oil has been dropping from 2007, when there was not as much regulatory interest as there seems to be now. There is one aspect of the new regulations that I think is interesting to highlight here: from 2020 onwards, all ships will have to use fuel with a lower sulfur content. Since, typically, the large freighters use very heavy fuel oils, that requirement, they say, makes one fear that a shortage of diesel will occur. In fact, from what we have discussed in this post, what seems to be happening is that heavy fuel oils are declining very fast and ships will have no choice but to switch to diesel. That this is going to cause problems of diesel shortage is more than evident. It is an imminent problem, even more than the peaks in oil prices that, according to what the IEA announces, will appear by 2025.


That is why, dear reader, when you are told that the taxes on your diesel car will be raised in a brutal way, now you know why. Because it is preferred to adjust these imbalances with a mechanism that seems to be a market (although this is actually less free and more adjusted) rather than telling the truth. The fact is that, from now on, what can be expected is a real persecution against cars with an internal combustion engine (gasoline will be next, a few years after diesel).

Post: #80

Our leaders do seem to plan for a lack of diesel soon, this is true.
Fuel (diesel) heating is heavily pushed out to be replaced by either heatpumps or wood-based boilers (mostly pellets).

Not whether this is justified or not .. who knows.
And of course they won't tell us why or what, what would it cost them really ?
It would certainly help with acceptance issues.

Post: #81

(01-13-2019 11:04 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Our leaders do seem to plan for a lack of diesel soon, this is true.
Fuel (diesel) heating is heavily pushed out to be replaced by either heatpumps or wood-based boilers (mostly pellets).

Not whether this is justified or not .. who knows.
And of course they won't tell us why or what, what would it cost them really ?
It would certainly help with acceptance issues.

It is an interesting question why they do not want to tell why. I do not suppose a real panic would follow.... But certainly, the current economic system would be disgraced forever, with no growth promise anymore. The elites may have been invested into it too much...

But why they believe people will take the global warming, but not the peak oil?!

The obvious answer would be that the peak oil reality is too scary, and certainly real - so no place for social constructionism like in the case of global warming. Nevertheless, isn't the entire point of the global warming to SCARE us into accepting more or less the same things which would be viable under peak oil conditions, renewables etc? The peak oil would also scare us, but would scare us in a more credible way... And imagine what could do a global peak oil campaign on the magnitude of the global warming campaign, not just a few books and a few private webpages here and there....

Whatever the peak oil proves, it is certainly the fact that there is some kind of a global control room, a place where the things are decided, like global warming - yes, peak oil - no. The question is where this room is located and who are the people sitting inside. I do not suppose it is Davos yearly meeting, or UN (However, the staff of UN is, strangely, greatly skewed towards the West, which provides the majority of UN stuff. Surely UN is a great conveyor of the newest musings of global "elites". ).

Post: #82

https://dizgpp7sc1t8t.cloudfront.net/wp-...png?x65756

Post: #83

(01-13-2019 11:14 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  It is an interesting question why they do not want to tell why.

I find this entire line of thought bogus. There is no "they do not want to tell". There is only denial up and down the chain. Everyone from the POTUS to your next-door-neighbor. The information is all out there but people don't want to accept it because it means absorbing guilt and making heavy sacrifices.

Think back to the election of 2008. Think of Palin chanting "drill, baby, drill". That is the only politically acceptable response to any sort of resource shortfall. And that's exactly what happened. The frackers drilled and kicked the can down the road.
People will only consume less when shortages and price pressure demands it and not a moment sooner.

Post: #84

I've abstained from posting on this thread because it's so thoroughly infected with dumb normie notions of peak oil and global warming, notions boosted by low-info low-rep posters who are ill-equipped to filter globalist manipulation.

Look at the link posted above by Kaligula, this one:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-...g-for-you/

this resilience.org site here is a religious website, the religion being the Cult of Gaia, where humanity is evil and must be forced to deindustrialize for its own sake, lest the planet burn, and where people are made to feel guilty for using hydrocarbons like oil, gas and coal, which have brought incredible wealth and comfort to humanity.

The cult of gaia is part and parcel of the globohomo leftie agenda, ensnaring the majority of non-STEM over-educated millennials and hippie boomers in blue states. It's pathetic to see that kind of disinfo being relayed on this board.

Peak Oil has been proven to be false, proven oil reserves have shot up and ACTUALLY DOUBLED in the 00s:





One of the main reasons global warming is being pushed so hard is PRECISELY because hydrocarbons have been proven to be a nearly inexhaustible energy resource, providing cheap energy for at least the next two centuries, which is plenty of time to transition to real, viable new high-tech energy sources. Oil is the second most plentiful liquid on earth after water, and we've barely scraped the surface in terms of accessible deposits.

Peak Oil/Global Warming are an ideological mean to artificially throttle the use of cheap energy sources and keep the middle classes poor through direct and indirect taxation schemes. It's really that simple.

Post: #85

Everyone sees the world through their own lens. It's true that there are lefties with a heavy axe to grind behind what's left of the peak-oil movement who are probably doing a disservice by overplaying the chicken-little act. But guess what, you have a huge axe you're grinding as well. The planet doesn't give a rat's ass about ideological biases. Deny, seek out boogeymen to crucify, or whatever, but things are gonna shake out the way they shake out. It's true that peak oil as it was sold to the public 10 years ago was invalidated. That does not mean that it should be completely disregarded and don't even get me started on global warming. All of this tribal "your group is just out to get my group!" bullshit is why nothing can be done at a macro scale when it comes to how we use energy and care for the planet.

Post: #86

People want to be hopeful. Not without reason the notion of "hopium" was created.
"O Bi, O Ba" is an interesting film about the end of civilization once made in Poland. Being partly inspired by the Mouse Utopia experiment (there is an allusion to it in the film), the plot revolves around the problem how the initially purely sociotechnical, manipulative legend about "the Ark" spins out of control, and gradually starts to be a central element of life in the closed community of nuclear war surivors. The Ark is a hopium.

For all of you fans of "Mad Max" and "Water World", something on the subject from the other side of the Iron Curtain (with English subtitles):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQYRpUyRLbo

PS. Since there is no subtitle for that: the speakers are constantly droning "The Ark does not exist, The Ark does not exist, The Ark does not exist".

Post: #87

(01-13-2019 01:14 PM)rockoman Wrote:  https://dizgpp7sc1t8t.cloudfront.net/wp-...png?x65756

Oil finds have dropped by 80% in the past 5 years? Wow, peak oil must be really close! I bet the price of oil is skyrocketing as smart and wealthy buyers stockpile and horde it in preparation for a future where it's worth more than gold. Let me go look at the historical prices to make sure, though!

Price in January 2012: 101$ a barrel.
Price in January 2019: 52$ a barrel.

So what's up with that?

Post: #88

Well, oil prices don't exactly follow the law of supply and demand if you didn't notice

Post: #89

The whole reason it's called "law" is because everything follows it.

Post: #90

(01-13-2019 04:46 PM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Well, oil prices don't exactly follow the law of supply and demand if you didn't notice

If oil were 300$ a barrel now, would you be telling me that it wasn't evidence of peak oil because oil prices don't follow the law of supply and demand?

Post: #91

(01-13-2019 01:59 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Everyone sees the world through their own lens. It's true that there are lefties with a heavy axe to grind behind what's left of the peak-oil movement who are probably doing a disservice by overplaying the chicken-little act. But guess what, you have a huge axe you're grinding as well. The planet doesn't give a rat's ass about ideological biases. Deny, seek out boogeymen to crucify, or whatever, but things are gonna shake out the way they shake out. It's true that peak oil as it was sold to the public 10 years ago was invalidated. That does not mean that it should be completely disregarded and don't even get me started on global warming. All of this tribal "your group is just out to get my group!" bullshit is why nothing can be done at a macro scale when it comes to how we use energy and care for the planet.

I think peak oil means literally that, the peak of oil production, and from what I remember, this prediction was basically correct.

They aren't saying we will run out of oil, but that financially we will reach the place where the EROI (energy return on investment) will be too high to make oil worth getting from the ground.

The point is, you used to be able to puncture the ground and oil would gush out for years. High EROI. For every unit of energy you spent you got hundreds in return.

It isn't like that now. The tar sands, shale, fracking business is extremely low EROI, and the only thing that keeps it going is low interest rates for oil companies, who have to keep borrowing and digging new wells as these tap out really fast.

When these economic conditions change, it will be good night Irene.

I think it is about as realistic to think that the U.S. is now energy independent for decades to come as it to think that Trump really has any chance of repairing our FUBARed economy.

Both narratives are in place to keep the little people happy while the elites suck all the assets of the U.S. and plan their moves to New Zealand.

(And the places where they frack, for example, aren't even new discoveries, but places where in the past it didn't make sense to seek oil because it was so easy other places.)

(By the way, not an expert talking here, but if you check out Kunstler on Peak Oil, and Shale Oil and fracking, you will find he has written a lot; so has Chris Martenson. I am pretty sure I got what I know from one of these two, and apologize that I don't have references at hand.)

So, the idea is, discovery of oil reaches a peak and then declines, and it was said that this happened in the '70's.

In the seventies, President Carter was made fun of because he said that we would lose our oil independence, and would have to find other sources of energy. If he was wrong, how come there haven't been any new discoveries of the old school cheap oil in the U.S.?

Remember, at the time, we didn't know that we would get all our oil from the Saudis, we were used to energy independence. We got oil from the Middle East, but had plenty of our own too.

So, we have the low EROI oil ashore, and have to go way offshore to find any new oil.

This is what the peak oil guys were saying.

As for the prices, I don't know anything about that so won't begin to have an opinion.

I don't know where 911 got those charts, and if they make the distinction between high and low EROI oil discoveries. And I sympathize with his view that all this is manipulated by the elites to mess with the rest of us.

They always do that. The real question is: Is this a big scam they cooked up, or is this a true situation that they have co-opted for their own manipulations?

Either way, you or I will start to pay higher prices or won't get any oil based fuel at all and the elites will have whatever they need.

Edit: Here's a good article on the insane world of shale oil. It might well be that the reason for low oil prices is that the furious pace of accessing slim supplies subsidized by foolish loans.

https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/1147...on-decline

Quote:The US began its love affair with oil by going after the conventional reservoirs that sat atop ancient marine shale basins where 400 million years' worth of ancient sunlight was stored in the form of deposited plankton and algae.

Those conventional reservoirs eventually were all found and tapped. Everyone in the oil space agrees that the biggest of them have all been discovered and there are very few conventional finds left.

What the shale "revolution" (or "retirement party" as Art Berman more accurately calls it), did was to drill straight into the source rocks themselves. Which require much more energy and cost to coax oil from.

What’s left after the source rocks? Nothing, that’s what. There are no “pre-source” rocks to drill into next.

We’re scraping away at the literal bottom of the geologic barrel, pretending as if that were all perfectly normal and sustainable. It’s neither.

Post: #92

SamuelBRoberts

--------------

Oil finds have dropped by 80% in the past 5 years? Wow, peak oil must be really close! I bet the price of oil is skyrocketing as smart and wealthy buyers stockpile and horde it in preparation for a future where it's worth more than gold. Let me go look at the historical prices to make sure, though!

Price in January 2012: 101$ a barrel.
Price in January 2019: 52$ a barrel.

---------

The production curve globally lags the discovery curve by several decades.

Post: #93

The following shows discovery and production of conventional oil up to 2002. Discovery peaked in the 60s and has declined up to the present day - continuing it's decline after 2002. Nothing in the last 17 years has changed the basic picture.

Post: #94

Of course in the last few years we have seen explosive growth in biofuels and of course fracking. These methods are expensive in terms of the energy required to produce the energy (EROI). Fracking, biofuels, drilling for oil beneath the ocean bed - These are all the kinds of things that you do when you are not finding much of the easy stuff any more.

Post: #95

(01-13-2019 06:33 PM)rockoman Wrote:  Of course in the last few years we have seen explosive growth in biofuels and of course fracking. These methods are expensive in terms of the energy required to produce the energy (EROI). Fracking, biofuels, drilling for oil beneath the ocean bed - These are all the kinds of things that you do when you are not finding much of the easy stuff any more.

I was hoping this board had some stud UT, A&M or Alberta petroleum engineers or industry insiders who would have intervened to obliterate the complete nonsense in this thread. I guess I'll have to do the work myself.


Here's your fracking EROI picture. It's such a basic industry feature, the fact that you guys aren't even aware of this basic shale cost trend shows that you're limiting your information scope to narrow alarmist sources. Time to take off your blinders:

Quote:Falling Cost of U.S. Shale Oil Production

In shale oil fields from Texas to North Dakota, production costs have roughly halved since 2014, when Saudi Arabia turned toward maintaining OPEC’s market share in an attempt to drive higher-cost shale producers out of the market. But, instead of killing the U.S. shale oil industry, the price war that ensued made shale oil a stronger rival. For example, in Dunn County, North Dakota, there are about 2,000 square miles where the cost to produce Bakken shale oil is $15 a barrel, which is about the same as Iran’s cost, and a little higher than that of Iraq. Dunn County produces about a fifth of the daily production in the state—about 200,000 barrels of oil a day. Improved technology and drilling techniques have boosted efficiency for the entire state and U.S. oil industry. On average, the breakeven cost per barrel to produce Bakken shale oil at the wellhead has fallen to $29.44 a barrel in 2016 from $59.03 a barrel in 2014.

The costs are going to keep dropping with the introduction of new technology and extraction processes that will be implemented in years and decades to come.

Peak oil my foot:



And here's the picture in Canada:

Quote:The Alberta Energy Regulator estimates that the province has 50 billion cubic metres (310,000 MMbbl) of ultimately recoverable bitumen resources. At the 2014 production rate of 366,300 cubic metres per day (2.3 Mbbl/d), they would last for about 375 years. The AER projects that bitumen production will increase to 641,800 cubic metres per day (4.0 Mbbl/d) by 2024, but at that rate they would still last for about 213 years.[45]:3-10 – 3-26 Because of the enormous size of the known oil sands deposits, economic, labor, environmental, and government policy considerations are the constraints on production rather than finding new deposits.

In addition, the Alberta Energy Regulator has recently identified over 67 billion cubic metres (420 Gbbl) of unconventional shale oil resources in the province.[45]:4-3 This volume is larger than the province's oil sands resources, and if developed would give Canada the largest crude oil reserves in the world.

Canadian_oil_production_1950_to_2030

It's debatable whether Canada has the largest oil reserves, because the US might have surpassed it recently:

Quote:U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves
By Per Magnus Nysveen

OSLO, NORWAY–The United States now holds the world’s largest recoverable oil reserve base–more than Saudi Arabia or Russia–thanks to the development of unconventional resource plays.

Ranking nations by the most likely estimate for existing fields, discoveries and as-of-yet undiscovered fields (proved, probable. possible and undiscovered), the United States is at the top of the list with 264 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, followed by Russia with 256 billion, Saudi Arabia with 212 billion, Canada with 167 billion, Iran with 143 billion, and Brazil with 120 billion (Table 1).

Basically the real picture of the oil industry is that the world has been moving from the 2P/2PC column closer to the 2PCX column, with new technology unlocking reserves and constantly reducing production costs.


We in Canada should be living like Gulf state fat cats, with natural resources and oil subsidizing income taxes and top-notch public services. We should have a national wealth fund bigger than Norway's instead of the Rothschild bankster public debt. The middle class should be thriving and expanding, instead we are getting squeezed out with self-imposed pipeline hurdles promoted by retarded useful idiot environmentalists brainwashed by decades of deceitful propaganda spun by the likes of David Suzuki through taxpayer-funded mass media. And shitheads like Trudeau are here to make sure they keep us in complete self-imposed economic serfdom through the artificial throttling of our national resources in coordination with the usury monetary system.

Post: #96

(01-13-2019 05:22 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  They aren't saying we will run out of oil, but that financially we will reach the place where the EROI (energy return on investment) will be too high to make oil worth getting from the ground.

They're saying it, but not proving it, at least not proving such a scenario will play out so swiftly.

(01-13-2019 05:22 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  Both narratives are in place to keep the little people happy while the elites suck all the assets of the U.S. and plan their moves to New Zealand.

IMHO, the tinfoil hat narrative is just another fictional narrative people clutch at because it helps them make sense of things. Evil boogeymen provide more comfort than tragedy of the commons.

The only thing people should be looking for is cold hard reliable data, not "this guy in the bilderberger group is planning to rocket off to mars after he poisons the water supply. I know because I read it somwhere on the internet."

(01-13-2019 05:22 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  if you check out Kunstler on Peak Oil, and Shale Oil and fracking, you will find he has written a lot

He also wrote about Year 2K doomsday. Be careful not to turn your brain off and offload your critical thinking to any one chosen prophet.

(01-13-2019 05:22 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  This is what the peak oil guys were saying.

No, they all but wrote off the capability of shale to do what it has done. That's why The Oil Drum shut down and ASPO disbanded. Their analysis was way too biased. The places you go for information are just the remnants singing more or less the same tune, to largely empty seats.

You're really not getting an accurate picture if all you read are peak oil articles from peak oil bloggers. They will always be predicting doom right around the corner.

Don't get me wrong, there's a problem. But I don't think it's going to manifest itself as rapidly or as severely as these sites say.

By all means keep reading those articles and stew in stress hormones 24/7 if that's what floats your boat, but there are more productive things to do with your time.

Post: #97

It is possible that due to the uncoventional oil in USA, Canada, Venezuela, the situation in Americas is much better than in Europe and Asia.
Respectively, the American ASPO died, whereas the European chapters mostly still go on. The Oil Drum was mostly American, too.
But however good the American situation, it does not seem to be so good as to allow a diesel export to Europe.

https://aspofrance.org/

https://aspofrance.org/sites-aspo/

In Europe the situation is rather dire, as together with growing Asia, we are essentially dependent upon MENA when it comes to oil, and Russia, when it comes to gas. Well, we have already had 4 resource wars here: Irag, Libya, Syria (I tend to believe Syria war was mainly about a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe), Yemen (a kind of ironic, really, when you realize that depleting Saudis are trying to conquer new oil in Yemen). 4 wars in just 20 years - it does remind me about Balkan wars prior to WWI.
Moreover, from the economy point of view, China is a problem for USA, but from the resources point of view, China is a problem for Europe, as we are competing for the same pie.

Post: #98

(01-13-2019 05:12 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 04:46 PM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  Well, oil prices don't exactly follow the law of supply and demand if you didn't notice

If oil were 300$ a barrel now, would you be telling me that it wasn't evidence of peak oil because oil prices don't follow the law of supply and demand?

Ok first I don't have an opinion on peak oil.
I am not saying things based on any agenda I want to push, just on what I witnessed.

So regarding price, it is just a listed price.
It tells you nothing about actual availability.

The last 5 years there were several times were there was no oil available on the market at all - several industries here had to stop working because of it - that's not conspiracy or propaganda, that's real people I know who were temporarily jobless.
Yet the price of oils did not skyrocket towards infinity, despite what supply and demand economics say they should have done.

This is what I meant, nothing else.

Post: #99

(01-13-2019 01:32 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:14 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  It is an interesting question why they do not want to tell why.

I find this entire line of thought bogus. There is no "they do not want to tell". There is only denial up and down the chain. Everyone from the POTUS to your next-door-neighbor. The information is all out there but people don't want to accept it because it means absorbing guilt and making heavy sacrifices.

Think back to the election of 2008. Think of Palin chanting "drill, baby, drill". That is the only politically acceptable response to any sort of resource shortfall. And that's exactly what happened. The frackers drilled and kicked the can down the road.
People will only consume less when shortages and price pressure demands it and not a moment sooner.

So why it is not like that when it comes to the global warming? It would be easy to deny, "Just seasonal fluctuations, no evidence of man-nature causation at all".

Post: #100

(01-14-2019 05:03 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  So why it is not like that when it comes to the global warming? It would be easy to deny, "Just seasonal fluctuations, no evidence of man-nature causation at all".

Not sure what you're trying to say here. There's no shortage of global warming denial. What do you think the vast majority of members here feel about it?

When it comes to peak oil, people's worries about oil supplies fluctuate based on price. The price hasn't been dangerously high since 2008, hence worries are low.

In both cases the issues of limits to growth are embedded in the public consciousness (especially in entertainment, see Avatar, Thanos, the plot of Aquaman, etc...), but it's still in the back of people's minds as they go on with their daily lives as normal.

It's sort of like a smoker knowing smoking causes cancer but choosing to smoke anyway. Modern life is just too comfortable and future consequences too easy to discount.

Heck, look at the other thread about how many americans live paycheck to paycheck. People tend to live in the now and don't plan for the future. We're not adapted to tackle these sorts of problems.