Peak Oil

Rapier7 · July 2005

<div class="IPBDescription">And the collapse of Civilization</div> No, I'm not scaremongering nor am I one of those apocalyptic cult freaks.

<a href='http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/' target='_blank'>http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/</a>

If you've heard of peak oil, read it again, if you haven't, read it for the first time.

This single website has more or less refuted every possible argument you can come up with regarding the upcoming oil crisis.

And just think about how oil dependent we are.

I've read about peak oil before, but I haven't bothered to read it in depth. Now I have, and it truly is frightening.

Please, give it a read, pass it on to your friends, make sure you tell as many people as you can in a calm, rational demeanor so that they will take you seriously.

2_of_Eight · July 2005

Well, first of all, there've been at least 2 threads about peak oil before... <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78650&hl=oil+crisis' target='_blank'>here</a>'s one of them, and I can't find the other one.

So anyway, my thoughts: I doubt, praying that I'm right, that the damage by the oil crash will not be as extensive as predicted. A crisis happening due to oil running out is not for debate, in my opinion - there's no question about it, it's going to happen. You simply can't keep on using a finite resource. However, what's up for debate is the extent of the damage caused by this, and how we can prevent as much of it as possible. Ways of preventing it are many, although the technologies for them are not fully developed yet (hydrogen cars, new sources of energy, renewable sources [not efficient]).

Byeka · July 2005

I just did my economics ISU on this very topic last semester. It's a rather long read on my thoughts, so I'll leave it as an attachment to sum up my thoughts about it.

lolfighter · July 2005

There have always been doomsday prophets. So far they have all been wrong, as far as I can tell. Why should I give a **** about them now?

The whole point to this is that oil is seen as a completely irreplacable resource upon which human survival hinges. A so staggeringly short-sighted conclusion that I cannot be bothered to credit it. We've survived without oil for aeons, we'll survive without oil for aeons yet.

Rapier7 · July 2005

lolfighter, this isn't the end of humanity. This is the end of industrialized society.

So many things we've taken granted for: suburbs, supermarkets, electricity, cheap transportation, cheap food, cheap anything, that's all going to go down the gutter unless we try and cope now.

I can tell you right now that being exposed to what industrialized society offers and reading on how feudal life functioned, I would be the first to tell you that I'd be devastated.

Edit:

Why don't you READ the article first before dismissing it as Doomsday ****?

lolfighter · July 2005

I DID read the article. It's just not credible. It's doomsday prophetism.

reasa · July 2005

I'm as big a fan of Doomsday prophecies as the next guy, but I really don't think Peak Oil is going to be as bad as some people make it out to be.

It seems every time I pick up a copy of Discover or look around on certain forums I notice people are making renewable energy out of just about anything.

I assure you once oil is no longer a viable source of energy, someone, most likely the oil companies (or smaller sub divisions "remotely" linked to the oil companies) well have a ready substitute, be it hydrogen gas, or chicken grease.

My biggest worry would be for the military, not civilian areas being affected the worst.
Of course they’ll still have plenty of oil long after we stop using it.

2_of_Eight · July 2005

Before you start discreding the article, I suggest at least reading it with an open mind. Yes, prophets have been wrong in the past, and that may give you some comfort in not listening to predictions now. But before, they were based on the behavior of glass spheres, fire, random card orderings, and the like. Now, they are based on the scientific research of respected scientists and lawyers. Hmm.

2_of_Eight · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jul 22 2005, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> My biggest worry would be for the military, not civilian areas being affected the worst.
Of course they’ll still have plenty of oil long after we stop using it. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Can you explain why you are more concerned about the operation of machines and soldiers more than the lives of people who the aforementioned group try to kill?

[edit]
Hello "edit" button. I've missed you...

aeroripper · July 2005

It is an issue, it won't be the end of the world, life will go on.

EDIT: i read the article, life sucks

Cxwf · July 2005

Nuclear power solves everything. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Rapier7 · July 2005

None of you idiots seem to have read the article. You're spouting fallacies already refuted in the page.

Try reading for a second, and recognize how dire of a situation we are in.

reasa · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (2 of Eight @ Jul 22 2005, 05:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Can you explain why you are more concerned about the operation of machines and soldiers more than the lives of people who the aforementioned group try to kill? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Last I checked it wasn't the policy of the United States military to kill civilians so you might want to watch your subtle accusations.

I simply meant that it is far easier to power a tiny car for personal transportation on alternative fuel sources then something like a tank, jet, ship, or helicopter.

If a large portion of the US military suddenly became defunct due to a major oil shortage, I guarantee you the consequences would be much more dire then Joe Johnson having to walk to work for once in his life.

But like I said our reserve stockpiles are reserved for the military first, and with good reason, so hopefully they’ll have plenty of time to prepare less oil-dependent machines of war. Most likely nuclear will be their method of choice and I think for a time this will be the same in the civilian sector also.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>None of you idiots seem to have read the article. You're spouting fallacies already refuted in the page.

Try reading for a second, and recognize how dire of a situation we are in.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

To be honest I'm more worried about illegal immigration, and you never took my sources on that very seriously based upon where they came from so why should I listen to something that starts off like this: <i>"Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon."</i>

Thank you Mr. stark raving mad half clothed street vendor, I'll keep that in mind...here’s a nickel now stop looking at my daughter....

Rapier7 · July 2005

Well considering all the sources cited in that website range from Republican congressmen, the world's top investment bankers, the world's top financial analysts, **** Cheney, the world's scientists....and not just some crackpot website with a vendetta...

aeroripper · July 2005

Rapier7 has a point. Although this is a worst case scenario IMO it is credible enough to think critically about the situation. This isn't some conspiracy theorists random newspaper article or a sentence from a obscure classified file taken out of context and warped to fit their own world view... it seems to have been well thought out and well documented with respectable members of their fields commenting on it.

I mean, how much more credible would it have to be to believe that these things could (not necessarily exactly as stated) happen?

Would it help if a couple of guys wrote it and said they were inspired by god? Then i'm positive a lot more people would believe it.

NGE · July 2005

Nessescity is the mother of all innovation.

Don't doubt humanity's resourcefulness yet. With the absence of oil leaves a niche for a new power source.

Who ever finds it will be rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams. I'm not worried in the slightest about peak oil.

NumbersNotFound · July 2005

It's funny how people can say that the evil oil companies will do anything in their power to stiifle new power sources, but what happens if we run out of oil?

Just see how fast Exxon finds a new magical power source that they can charge people for.

Rapier7 · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NumbersNotFound @ Jul 22 2005, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's funny how people can say that the evil oil companies will do anything in their power to stiifle new power sources, but what happens if we run out of oil?

Just see how fast Exxon finds a new magical power source that they can charge people for. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

On a related note, even if solar, wind, and other green alternatives could replace oil, we still wouldn't escape the evil clutches of so called "Big Oil." The biggest maker of solar panels is British Petroleum with Shell not too far behind. Similarly, the second biggest maker of wind turbines is General Electric, who obtained their wind turbine business from that stalwart of corporate social responsibility, Enron. As these examples illustrate, the notion that "Big Oil is scared of the immerging renewable energy market!" is silly. "Big Oil" already owns the renewable energy market.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and production, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;
April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;
December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;
October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;
November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;
September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;
February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;
March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;
April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;
July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;
April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;
June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;
July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal

While many people believe talk of a global oil shortage is simply a conspiracy by "Big Oil" to drive up the prices and create "artificial scarcity," the rash of mergers listed above tells a different story. Mergers and acquisitions are the corporate world's version of cannibalism. When any industry begins to contract/collapse, the larger and more powerful companies will cannibalize/seize the assets of the smaller, weaker companies. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Right, this is a conspiracy of Big Oil all right.

Seriously, READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON THIS. YOU GUYS ARE JUST SPOUTING CRAP THAT'S REFUTED IN THE DAMN WEBSITE.

Christ. People are stupid.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nessescity is the mother of all innovation.

Don't doubt humanity's resourcefulness yet. With the absence of oil leaves a niche for a new power source.

Who ever finds it will be rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams. I'm not worried in the slightest about peak oil.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Edit:

Damnit, man. Read the article. They explore every single alternative avenue of power generation and they tell us exactly how and why it won't work. Read, read, read.

Then you have to explain a few things:

If we do find this awesome thing, how are we going to find the cash and OIL to implement it?

NGE · July 2005

I won't go into detail, but if you think this article is the athority on new power sources then... let me just say no.

Who knows what the next power source will be? All I am saying is that there will be one.

Rapier7 · July 2005

Sigh....why don't you idiots READ the article? NO seriously, I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"Can't We Just Explore More for Oil?"
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Refuted, read the article.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Refuted, read the article.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"If the Environmentalists Would Get Out
of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Refuted, read the article.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"Won't the Market and the Laws of
Supply and Demand Address This?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Refuted, read the article.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"What About All the Various Alternatives
to Oil? Can't We Find Replacements?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"What About Green Alternatives like
Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"What About the Hydrogen Economy?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"What About Nuclear Energy?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
"What About Using Coal
to Make Synthetic Oil?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"Can't We Use a Combination of
the Alternatives to Replace Oil?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"What About Amazing New Technologies Such As Thermal Depolymerization, Solar Nanotech, Space Based Solar Arrays, and other 'Energy-Miracles'?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"What About Hybrids and
Super Fuel Efficient Cars?"

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"What About Large-Scale Efforts at Conserving Energy or Becoming More Energy Efficient?"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Pretty comprehensive list, isn't it? All refuted, read the article.

The only thing they didn't cover was fusion, but I think it was partially addressed in the hydrogen source.

Seriously, please read the article before you make those claims.

Better yet, I'll do it for you. Present a specific argument and I'll show you exactly where in the article it's refuted.

NumbersNotFound · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Jul 23 2005, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Seriously, READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON THIS. YOU GUYS ARE JUST SPOUTING CRAP THAT'S REFUTED IN THE DAMN WEBSITE.

Christ. People are stupid.

Damnit, man. Read the article. <b>They explore every single alternative avenue of power generation and they tell us exactly how and why it won't work.</b> Read, read, read.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
First of all, insulting people is a great way to get people to read your link. Plus it's a great way to show that you're not scaremongering.

Plus, not EVERY possible alternative has been refuted. That's like saying that the size of the universe has been pegged to the inch.

myrigth · July 2005

You kids worry too much.

reasa · July 2005

OK Rapier7, then honestly why not ask a moderator to lock this topic after your first post, clearly every possible argument for and against everything has already been confirmed or refuted in this amazing article of yours.

I guess we're doomed. I'll go kill my pets in ritualistic style and proceed to slit my wrists and run around screaming at the neighbor kids that we're all going to die when the oil runs out!

illuminex · July 2005

A year ago, I was obsessed with Peak Oil, having read that very website through and through. As time went on, I realized that he was right on most of his points, but in all seriousness, necessity is the mother of invention.

He points out that oil is used for everything, which is true. However, once we begin to change more and more things away from oil, that means that demand for oil will begin to drop.

And also Russian scientists began to postulate back in the 1950's that oil is actually created through natural processes in the earth's core. They noticed that some of their wells were actually being topped off over time, and that changed their whole outlook on oil.

Back in the 1970's, American oil companies told Vietnam that their country was little barren of any oil. The Russians came in a few years later and told them the exact opposite. Now Vietnam has some of Asia's most thriving oil fields and wells.

Avatar_of_War · July 2005

I wouldn't be worried about it. Either the oil companies or the government will develope new tech that can replace oil or they won't and we'll be screwed or have a lower standard of living.

Short of working on that new technology, there isn't much the average person can do, so why worry about it?

Sandstorm · July 2005

There are tons of ways that society can "end", including far more immediate ways. Oil was only discovered during the 1800s, so we can, at least, live a life as good as they did, right?

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Jul 23 2005, 07:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> A year ago, I was obsessed with Peak Oil, having read that very website through and through. As time went on, I realized that he was right on most of his points, but in all seriousness, necessity is the mother of invention.

He points out that oil is used for everything, which is true. However, once we begin to change more and more things away from oil, that means that demand for oil will begin to drop.

And also Russian scientists began to postulate back in the 1950's that oil is actually created through natural processes in the earth's core. They noticed that some of their wells were actually being topped off over time, and that changed their whole outlook on oil.

Back in the 1970's, American oil companies told Vietnam that their country was little barren of any oil. The Russians came in a few years later and told them the exact opposite. Now Vietnam has some of Asia's most thriving oil fields and wells. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I concur. While I don't know much about the replenishment of oil sources by natural processes and have my doubt that the process is going to be visible within a reasonable amount of time, I an convinced that alternatives will eventually take over.

While I am no blind prophet of alternative energy at large, I know that there are viable alternative technologies, which are cheap, reliable and technologically sophisticated enough to propel everybody's car.

My favorite would be hydrogen fuel. The technology could be deployed at any time you want. All that is holding it back is the oil lobby. Why I am so certain of this you ask?

Because it's propelling submarines which are currently being taken in service.
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/' target='_blank'>http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/</a>
A new technology being introduced in armed service is a surefire indication that the technology is ready to hit the market full scale.

With this technology you can propel a vehicle as well as heat your home, basically with water and without any wastes of any kind.

Will the peak oil event make the market crash? Sure. Will it cause wars for the last know reserves of oil? almost sure. Will it end society? Doubtful.

Soylent_green · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sandstorm @ Jul 23 2005, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> There are tons of ways that society can "end", including far more immediate ways. Oil was only discovered during the 1800s, so we can, at least, live a life as good as they did, right?  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
We can't quickly go back to their way of life; for one there are many more people in much higher density and not nearly enough horses and cattle.

Cxwf · July 2005

*looks at Hydrogen powered sub*

Hey! Neat! Obviously they've managed to develop fuel cell tech well beyond the tech mentioned in the Peak Oil article. Unfortunately its still not a solution, for the simple reason that Hydrogen is more correctly referred to as an energy <i>storage medium</i> than an energy <i>source</i>. It'll move the electricity from the power plant to your car just fine, but it can't run the power plant.

I still maintain nuclear power will save us all, especially if we put more research into fusion.

lolfighter · July 2005

I'll cut you a deal, Rapier7: Stop telling me to read the article. Why do you think I'm calling it doomsday prophetism if not because I've already read it?
So stop telling me to read the article. I could re-read it until I was blue in the head, and I'd still call it doomsday prophetism. Stop telling me to read it so I can stop telling you that it's doomsday prophetism. It'll save us both a lot of effort.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hey! Neat! Obviously they've managed to develop fuel cell tech well beyond the tech mentioned in the Peak Oil article. Unfortunately its still not a solution, for the simple reason that Hydrogen is more correctly referred to as an energy storage medium than an energy source. It'll move the electricity from the power plant to your car just fine, but it can't run the power plant.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Indeed. It is however able to allow a cruise for aproximately 2 weeks without external sources whatsoever at 5 knots! thats quite good !
Also note that the type 214 eveloped for has a newly developed fuel cell that raises output to 120kW per module compared to the 50kW of the "old" system. This developmet has been made during the construction and sea testing process of type 212, means in less that 2 years! Don't tell me that technology does not have potential....

Also, this system is per se a hybrid unit and hydrogen propulstion is almost always used in combination with other alternative or conventional fuel fuel sources.

In case of the submarine, the battery drive is used for fast underwater travel, while the fuel cell can be used to recharge the batterys while submerged.
A similar aproach is viable for automobiles and such vehicles are already in post prototype state.
<a href='http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm</a>
<a href='http://www.cms.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0,,0-5-8787-1-9769-1-0-1-0-0-0-428-7166-0-0-0-0-0-0-0,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cms.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0...0-0-0-0,00.html</a>

There are also other german car manufaturers ready for serial production. All they are waiting for is a fuel shortage and suddenly the hydrogen fuel stations will pop up like mushroom.

Another good example is this.
<a href='http://www.ivi.fraunhofer.de/frames/german/projects/ger_mvs_autotram.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ivi.fraunhofer.de/frames/german...s_autotram.html</a>

Unfortunately I haven't found a english source on this because it's quite new.
Basically this is a public transportation system. It is a reffering to cable cars, however, it is more a shuttle-bus than a train.
However, it is completely running with a hydrogen fuel cell while peak energy is provided by a double-mass flywheel which is producing the nessesary energy spikes when traveling uphills for example. No kidding. It works!

Just some examples of how such technologies are residing tin the shadows while we burn our fuel.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I still maintain nuclear power will save us all, especially if we put more research into fusion.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Fusion energy is viable since decades, however it years until finally someone descided to make the next step and build a next generation test reactor ....
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3239806.stm</a>

It's nothing more that a matter of what is cheaper. Since the European population is much more senstive towards environmental issues, an alternative for nuclear power is of more consequence to us than to the US government.

Also I might give a comment to Rapier7s source.

To sum it up, the article states that every industry is dependent on fussile fuels because each production process at some point includes the use of fossile fuels even if only because of the masinery powerd by fossile fuel.

My question is then, what hinders us to replace those equuipment with alternative fuel sources?
Let us take agriculture, as there has been laid the most emphasis in the article on it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

1. Pesticides are made from oil;

2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is
made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years
after oil peaks;

3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
constructed and powered using oil;

4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are
manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across
oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on
electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or
coal;

5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Lets make it short. Do you know that the agricultural sector of all industrial nations is highly inefficient, as it produces large surplus quantities?
Those surplus quantities would drive the prices to the bottom and so, in order to prevent falling food prices and the negative effects for the farmers related to them, all major industrial nations do:

A: Prevent third world nations from selling their agricultural products on our markets by additional taxes.

B: pay our own farmers money so they can lower their production without income losses. So basically, we pay farmers so they produce less, so they can earn more money because of higher prices, for which we pay them money.... or somesuch.... You see where I am hinting at?

I case the food prices would rise drastically and the production quatities would decrease, maybe the agricultural sector would become a healthy economy regulated by fair competition again ...

Besides, the US are not commonly known for using their energy sparingly... There can be done quite much at low cost to reduse overall energy consumtion. All it would require would be some sensibility for the problem. Quite like with emmision reduction issues ....

Peak Oil

Comments