Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Life after the oil crash

PATRICK WHITE

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:17 PM EDT 11/03/08

The apocalypse is coming – it's time to recycle your manure and get a socially responsible vasectomy. That's how you live oil-free ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Uh Oh!

    "Peak Oil" was a concept that was for years declared to be a myth by some... just like Global Warming was.

    Why is it getting play in the MSM now?

    Guess it really is time to go nuclear, eh?
  2. Rocky Blanco from Kavs, Canada writes: For an example of what happens to an oil dependent society that runs out of oil, people should look at Cuba. When the Soviet Union pulled out, Cuban oil supply shut off more abruptly than anything that is likely to happen in North America. Worsening the shock, Cuba lost substantial foreign aid and 90% of its foreign trade at the same time. They called it the "Special Period" and it was tough and people went hungry but nobody starved. They replaced all their tractors with oxen, their busses with horse-drawn carriages, and their fertilizer-dependent farms with state-of-the-art organic farms. It wasn't fun, but nobody had to barricade themselves into caves guarded by machine guns. We should send an army of researchers over there to see how they did it. It could be a dress rehearsal for our own not-too-distant future.
  3. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Another piece of advice so your neurons stay sharp: don't waste your time reading the globe and mail garbage.
  4. Sadie Coulter from Rochester, United States writes: It's kind of funny how you say "don't buy an apartment." Instead, live somewhere that makes you totally reliant on a car and uses much more oil. Solve the problem by causing it? Are you really going to walk to your suburban amenities and your job? I have been in both, and a house without water is no better than an apartment without it. Personally (and you can't tell me you didn't think of this), I don't want to be in a house when my heat goes off, when I could be in a much smaller apartment huddling with my friends and building-mates.

    (I have also lived in an eight story apartment building without an elevator, though, so maybe I'm just confused about what I'm supposed to be able to deal with?)
  5. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: Was it last year that Chevron took out ads in New York talking about Peak Oil? Major players in the industry ($) talk about it openly (Matthew Simmons et al) and geologists have been warning of this for years. Saudi Arabia never increases output. All clues to no avail. Until people quite literally can no longer drive, nothing will hit home.

    We should not be subjugating the limited earth to our continuous unlimited whims. Are we smarter than yeast? Perhaps then we'll re-direct our energies to less oil and to more information.

    Information is afterall unlimited. Knowledge will be the new unlimited economy. There will be enough to do, enough jobs in alternative energy and new urban design away from the dead suburbia for everyone.

    Even though this article tries to discredit doomers, they are generally very well educated and worried. I have been reading and watching documentaries on this (End of Suburbia) for a while. Yes, you do hit a doomer phase, but then you realize community is the greatest tool of civilization. You head for the hills and forget a can opener, you're SOL. haha

    Besides, we need each other. Doctors, carpenters, engineers, we are all specialists. That's the strength and power of community.

    So then, we need to retool. Honestly the greatest opportunities will be from those who realize that smaller more local communities will work out just fine. People will have meaningful lives with a purpose again.

    Check out http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/ for an educated foreign policy response to Peak Oil. Unfortunately it will come only when you are unable to drive. Only then will people finally listen and stop the jokes.
  6. Carl White from Canada writes: I doubt it will be so sharp. The natural reaction to spiraling prices would be contractions in demand, which would cause prices to normalize again at a new level.

    It just points, however, to the need to get moving on the alternatives.
  7. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: I believe that houses will be the new centres of energy, as they can be retrofitted to being self sufficient and even make more power than they can use. I recall a Popular Mechanics issue of a competition held every year in the US in Washington DC where universities compete to make the most efficient homes ever. Even enough to power an electic car for hundreds of miles. Quite impressive. I wish we had that here.

    Solutions exist. Apartments however present a problem, as they need cheap abundant energy to be liveable. Houses as well can help themselves by at least pointing towards the sun (southwest is best apparently). Our urban design relies on cheap energy. With some new and old tech though, homes can do quite well. (Ground heat pumps, passive solar, solar tech, efficient windows, water heater replacements etc etc)
  8. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes, I think contraction of demand will make suburbia quite unliveable. Given the tight finances of most people, demand destruction due to high gas prices will eventually end the love affair with cars as it surpasses their ability to pay. There are no stores in walking distance, no clinics or jobs. Everything is only accessible by car. Take the car out of the picture, and what kind of a picture are we left with?

    We're moving back from what was a quaint oil globalization to a renewed localization. The sooner our bubble bursts and we realize what's going on, the better.
  9. Carl White from Canada writes: "walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes, I think contraction of demand will make suburbia quite unliveable. Given the tight finances of most people, demand destruction due to high gas prices will eventually end the love affair with cars as it surpasses their ability to pay. There are no stores in walking distance, no clinics or jobs. Everything is only accessible by car. Take the car out of the picture, and what kind of a picture are we left with?"

    There are two contractions in consumption. First, where will demand contract? Wherever gas can least be afforded. The brutal truth is that it's the developing countries that will be hit hardest first.

    Secondly, there is certainly much room for people to modify their habits to reduce the consumption of gasoline before giving up their cars. Fewer unnecessary trips and carpooling are two examples of this. Fewer trucks crisscrossing the continent with loads of effectively frivolous items.

    Thirdly, bicycles, scooters and the like can come into increasing play. It most certainly is possible to reach stores from the typical suburban environment without a car; it just takes longer and requires more effort. And in those places where the stores are too far away, well, new ones will pop up that are closer.
  10. Laura Young from Toronto, Canada writes: I am astounded that our media refuses to print the whole story on where our politicians and beauracracy are even at this time taking our country's energy future. It's a big story and one that we deserve to know, for the purpose of planning our lives and investments. If you simply google "hydrogen future" or "hydrogen economy" you will see that the US Dept of Energy decided a few years ago that hydrogen will replace oil. The situation became like JFK declaring in the 60's that "we will go to the moon before the decade is out" when there was actually no scientfic ability to get to the moon. They just made it happen. Same thing for their plans for hydrogen at this time. Billions of dollars have been put into research. The International Energy Agency has brokered deals between oil and car companies and governments to make hydrogen the new international standard to replace big oil. That's why oil companies are not afraid to declare the end of oil. They are being supported to carry on into the future with hydrogen. US dept of energy plan:http://www.h2net.org.uk/PDFs/RN_2/US%20Hydrogen%20Prog_mod.pdf Check out Canada's involvement. We have a federal "Hydrogen Economy Portal" connected into all of this: http://www.hydrogeneconomy.gc.ca/news_e.html It is not an alternative. It is the future, according to world gov'ts. The GTA Hydrogen Village is an offshoot of our hydrogen economy portal, and they created the ZENN car. You know, the one that we can spend our tax money to research and develop, yet the profits must go to the American conglomerates involved in this hydrogen future? McGuinty must be aware of the hydrogen future. Hence his support for the Bruce Power Plant firing up and joining forces with the University of Waterloo to announce recently a "breakthrough hydrogen economy study". Are our gov'ts being hush hush in the media to protect the investment opportunities of our business elite who hold American investments?
  11. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Carl White from Canada writes: "The natural reaction to spiraling prices would be contractions in demand, which would cause prices to normalize again at a new level."

    Yes, and it will eventually price many out of the markets -- not just transportation fuels in third world countries, but all markets with significant fuel inputs, such as agri-food and big box supply chains.

    Fuel exporters will initially gain additional revenues, bolstering their internal economies and driving export volumes down.

    I am surprised the article did not mention this resource: http://www.theoildrum.com
  12. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: And Canada remains the only nation globally to be hobbled by a trade agreement -- NAFTA -- which requires it to provide a specific percentage of its fuel to another nation, the USA, regardless of Canadian requirements.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/40035.html
  13. Laura Young from Toronto, Canada writes: Interesting side point - The USA plans to land a manned mission on the moon by 2020, and to mine hydrogen from the moon to enable eventual human settlement. Not for science. Habitats for miners, the disabled who benefit from a weightless environment, and other settlers will "expand earth's economic sphere". http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon.html The International Energy Agency has produced a few white papers that speak of hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe except for on earth. Our atmosphere protects us from solar winds that carry hydrogen molecules carried by solar wind which constantly hits other planets and is trapped in ice crystals. Craters hold ice, and ice holds hydrogen. NASA is big on hydrogen. Hydrogen mining in space gives them a reason to stay in existence and gain massive gov't funding. They see themselves as the true pioneers, and now it's time to "open up space to the shopkeepers and settlers". They've formed many commercial partnerships. Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace, and others hope to win Google's NASA funded Lunar X Prize. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ The only hitch for North America in all this is China. A recent intelligence report presented to the US congress outlines China's drive to mimick the US in planning for their energy future, which means making hydrogen and lunar landing by 2020 a priority. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf When China recently sent out a probe to the moon, they targeted the Shackleton crater for soil samples. Why? As Bruce Campbell, geophysicist at the Smithsonian Institution says, "if we can get hydrogen and oxygen from the soil, we can use the gases for fuel and water..." http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2008/02/19/sci_lunar_eclipse.ART_ART_02-19-08_B4_2M9BNJT.html?sid=101
  14. Nom De Plume from Canada writes: Wow ! OK that's it - our asset allocation model is immediately being changed to 50% cash and 50% canned goods. I didn't realize that there was an international conspiracy here. Now I know what Paul Simon meant when he wrote about "lasers in the jungle somewhere". I don't know how I had been so sold on the concept of economic fundamentalism - you know, the idea that markets will adjust for things like scarcity of supply. I thought $100 oil was encouraging more extreme exploration based on technological advances leading to large new discoveries like the recent find offshore Brazil (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/09/america/LA-FIN-Brazil-Oil.php)
    Maybe this big discovery is just propoganda. Also the fact that something like 75% of original oil in place remains in the ground in many older resevoirs and newer technologies like CO2 injection or waterflood that make sense at $100 oil are probably also just lies being spread by the forces of the dark side. I'm sure glad I read the papers, otherwise I wouldn't be prepared for the coming doomsday scenario. I wonder if all these canned beans I'm planning to buy might end up being a source of life saving methane for my new age co-op. Maybe people will end up huddling together and lighting their farts on fire for warmth. I know it sounds far fetched, but hey.. Peak Oil is coming folks, and things just won't be the same ever again. So get ready for it now before it's too late.
    Well, have to go now.
  15. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Nom De Plume from Canada writes: "I thought $100 oil was encouraging more extreme exploration based on technological advances leading to large new discoveries like the recent find offshore Brazil"

    That huge Brazilian find may feed the equivalent of global demand for, what, two or three weeks?

    The problem with the downside of Hubbert's Curve is that the next barrel retrieved always costs progressively more than the barrel consumed to retrieve it, aka the Red Queen's race or receding horizons or EROEI.
  16. Nom De Plume from Victoria, Canada writes: As you probably know Hugh, whale oil was used for lighting lamps before the advent of mineral oil (petroleum) exploitation and electricity and that resource became very scarce and expensive as whale populations declined. The reason Rockefeller was a billionaire before the turn of the last century (in the late 1800's) is because the replacement fuel petroleum was made available through technological advances like the drill bit designed by Howard Hughes' dad at the Hughes Tool Company (he also became fabulously well to do). These innovations were driven by ecomomics. Whale oil became increasingly expensive, and the economic focus on replacement fuels led to alternatives being developed. Adapt or perish is the basic rule here, for all living creatures. That law will continue to apply to both evolutionary biology and human economic society. Fortunately we humans are rather bright, and as long as economic fundamentals are allowed to drive progress (capitalism remains the system of choice), we shall adapt and advance. There's plenty of oil and gas left in the earth, it's just going to cost more to get at it as we probe deeper and develop systems to recover much of what we left behind when oil was $2 BBL. And in time as we deplete that resource and the economics change, we will again innovate to capture energy for our use. After all, the entire universe is made up of energy stored in matter, so it's a reasonable assumption that we will continue to find ways to harness that energy for our own purposes. Our imaginations are the only source of limitations.
  17. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Nom De Plume: Whale oil may have been an important factor in European economies, but it wasn't the basis for food or any other production to the extent that it fossil fuels are for more than 6 billion people today.

    As you say, "Adapt or perish is the basic rule here, for all living creatures." We should also acknowledge there is a long continuum of hurt between those two alternatives.
  18. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Nom De Plume from Victoria, Canada writes: "Our imaginations are the only source of limitations."

    You are suggesting, then, that we can eliminate time and finite resources as considerations?
  19. Nom De Plume from Victoria, Canada writes: It's true petroleum has become more fundamentally important to human society than whale oil ever was. My point was that economics will eventually drive adaptation through innovation, both to fully exploit existing reserves or develop new sources of energy. There are still vast coal reserves on earth, and new technologies enable us to extract petroleum from those "heaviest" of oil sources (check out what Sasoil is doing in South Africa). The oil sands in Alberta contain more oil than Saudi Arabia, but production cocts are much higher. Of course these methods of production are expensive, but at $100 BBL it makes sense and exploration risk is nil, unlike conventional petroleum E&P. We know we have the resource. The numbers just have to make sense. I'm not saying there will not be potentially disruptive adjustments as the supply/demand situation seeks a balance. I am saying that technological innovation is being driven by the economic equation, and that necessity is likely to remain the mother of invention as we adapt to these challenges here on our little water planet that orbits the sun, that is one of billions of suns in our little barred spiral galaxy we call the milky way, that is, in turn one of untold billions of galaxies turning in space in this as yet fully explored universe.
  20. John E from Canada writes: Rocky Blanco from Kavs, Canada writes: For an example of what happens to an oil dependent society that runs out of oil, people should look at Cuba.

    If Cuba can make it, I dont see any problem either.

    But it's gonna take a very resolute government to pull it off. And all political parties will have to share similar tough and unpopular goals, or people will just vote for one party after another.

    What would be amusing to see is when hard times come and resources are scarce, people will start showing their "primitive behavior", ie: fighting over the last drop of water and the last piece of meat on the shelf. It would be more blatant in an "entitlement" society like ours.
  21. Nom De Plume from Victoria, Canada writes: John E - Cuba is only short of resources because it chooses to be. And we will only be short of energy if we choose to be. Which is unlikely. We have the "know how" to transition to a hydrogen based economy if as and when we deplete the many existing alternatives. It's all just a matter of dollars and sense. As long as economics determine the outcomes and people are free to try to make money reacting to market conditions, there will be innovation. Don't expect some terrible train wreck of civilisation based on the fact that we humans are "one trick ponys". We are not.
  22. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: How will hydrogen fertilize our fields or contribute to pharmaceuticals? Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a carrier. Our electrical grids are already near capacity, and we expect them to feed our hydrogen "batteries" as well? The power on those grids is based more than 50% on the burning of depleting fossils fuels -- what will replace those primary resources? Hydrogen?
  23. John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: David Suzuki, the champion of the environmental movement, chose to sire five children when simple mathematics (not climate models etc) told us that there would soon be too many people for the earth to sustain. Scolding everyone else to be responsible when there are five little Suzukis pooping on the planet is hypocritical beyond words.
  24. Brian Anderson from Toronto, Canada writes: So Chevron put an ad in a newspaper...? So what; they were just legitimizing a price spike with full compliance from the public. Advertisements, especially full page ones, are very expensive and they don't have to be truthful. The oil companies are not to be trusted. It was they who raked in enormous profit in the mid 70s during the so-called crisis. Is anyone old enough to remember mile-long line-ups at the pumps? And what were Exxon's profits a couple of years ago when oil began to increase in price? $40 billion? That profit, folks, not revenues. So, anything that originates in any way, shape, or form from Shell, Exxon, BP, etc. is just PR which seems to work very well....so they keep doing it.

    Why aren't the Arabs increasing the supply of oil? Because demand is falling is their predominant market, the U.S., so it doesn't make economic sense to increase supply. Surely, this wasn't lost on the majority of you.

    Peak oil? What a joke, although it does fit in nicely with another scam: global warming being caused by petroleum-based products. For every geologist who gets mileage in the advertising-driven press, there are hundreds with dissenting opinions (who may not be popular with the oil companies' agenda) that don't. Oil companies are in business to make money: As much of it as possible.

    As for the canners and survival set, well they make excellent curio items for newspapers to write about during tumultuous times, don't they? Do these people really think that humankind would not have a replacement for their economic fuel? That we as a race would just sit around and wait for the taps to run dry before we innovated? There are a plethora of technologies out there, waiting to be harnessed so talk of collecting manure is premature...although if they could find a way of collecting that which spew from their mouths....well, now we may have something!
  25. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: "Scolding everyone else to be responsible when there are five little Suzukis pooping on the planet is hypocritical beyond words."

    Perhaps, but it doesn't invalidate his message one whit. Nor does the fact that Gore has invested in carbon trading invalidate his.

    Otherwise, if you, John Melnick, don't lead an immaculate life, why would we bother with your opinion?
  26. Edward graydon from hAMILTON, Canada writes: What a bunch of Bull.If you are trying to put fear into the minds of people by writing these types of articles; why?. The best outcome for every one is to keep things on a calm tone. The only people that will be able to have 30 or more aces of land will be the rich and those are few and far between. you can take the price of oil to $5.00 dollars a barrel and the citys will still keep on moving.Be fair and kind to your niebours and things in all major canadian cities will be just fine
  27. zaphod beeblebrox from DirtyOilmonton, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell.
    You are a very interesting person and obviously have read many of the articles, books as I have. I do believe you have a good grasp on the situation. I laugh at those nay-sayers who don't. The living in denial crowd.
    Hydrogen, although sounding good on paper, is nowhere near being a substitution for oil. It also takes more energy to produce hydrogen than hydrogen can produce, ie 1.4 units of energy to produce 1 unit energy of Hydrogen.
  28. Paul Chapman from Laputa, Canada writes: Eh, 'peak oil' has probably already passed, but I don't see a gigantic meltdown from that directly. A series of global wars resulting from squabbling over the remains, however, could change that.
  29. Steve Dunlop from writes: We need to develop alternative energy sources and soon
    www.nexplanrecycling.com
  30. Gnarly Kanuck from Canada writes: Where is our Government on this... it is time to reconstruct our railway system so that people and goods can move with the least energy costs.

    The notion of biofuels as a solution is nonsense. If 100% of U.S. Agricultural production were diverted to biofuel production, it would only address 16% of the demand for fuel and would mean there is nothing to eat.
  31. bruce reid from Chippawa, Canada writes: John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: "five little Suzukis pooping on the planet"

    I lol'd.
  32. zaphod beeblebrox from DirtyOilmonton, Canada writes: This song from John Kay of Stepenwolf back in 68 pretty much somes up our attitude. http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/thstrch.html We'll call you when you're six years old And drag you to the factory To train your brain for eighteen years With promise of security But then you're free And forty years you waste to chase the dollar sign So you may die in Florida At the pleasant age of sixty nine The water's getting hard to drink We've mangled up the country side The air will choke you when you breathe We're all committing suicide But it's alright It's progress folks keep pushin' till your body rots Will strip the earth of all it's green And then divide her into parking lots But there's nothing you and I can do You and I are only two What's right and wrong is hard to say Forget about it for today We'll stick our heads into the sand Just pretend that all is grand Then hope that everything turns out ok You're free to speak your mind my friend As long as you agree with me Don't criticize the father land Or those who shape your destiny 'Cause if you do You'll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew We'll send out all our boys in blue They'll find a way to silence you But there's nothing you and I can do You and I are only two What's right and wrong is hard to say Forget about it for today We'll stick our heads into the sand Just pretend that all is grand Then hope that everything turns out ok
  33. billy bhuj from Canada writes: where do you think all the people who aren't doing the "moving to the country bunker thing" are going to go when the world collapses? they're going to go to those country bunkers and take what they want by force. yes, your stockpiles of weapons and ammunition will keep them at bay for a while, but in the end you will lose. humans are sad animals at best, but when the world collapses we'll really show you how low we can go...
  34. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: While the media may poke fun, anyone who has actually read and anlyzed the argument of the "peak oil buffs"and seen the numbers coming from the IEA and US Department of Energy, knows that these "doomers" are largely correct.

    Folks...read, learn and do the math. The investment required to offset depletion of existing fields is staggering. If it were feasible, a huge proportion of the world's capital would need to be redeployed and invested into the industry. Yet the oil companies keep returning money to shareholders and buying back stock.

    Don't rely on propaganda articles like this one from biased media who want you to keep consuming blissfully like a good little sheep.
  35. Pierre Dionne from Toronto, Canada writes: Simple logic dictates that oil will run out. While it run out in the next 5 to 10 years? Unlikely. The gradual increase in price will help dampen demand. However, without joining the doom and gloom crowd, the article makes a few good point.

    First and foremost, there are too many people on this planet. That's the basic problem behind peak oil and global warming. Every country should be doing like China and putting a limit of 1 kid per couple.

    Second, do try and conserve energy. This does require some lifestyle changes, but it will probably make you healthier (more walking/bicycling) and richer (lower spend on oil/gas, insurance, parking downtown, less depreciation on whatever car you have, buying smaller, less expensive cars, etc.).

    Third, eat lower on the food chain (more vegetables and fruits, less meat). Again, that is good for you. Also support local farmers, or try growing your own if you do have a garden.

    Finally, reduce consumptions of items, and get out of debt (credit card debt first, than unsecured lines of credit, than mortgage). Not all debt is bad, and one can borrow to invest. But if you borrow to buy the latest electronic gadget, you're doing something wrong.
  36. S WF from Canada writes: Nom De Plume from Canada writes: "Also the fact that something like 75% of original oil in place remains in the ground in many older resevoirs and newer technologies like CO2 injection or waterflood that make sense at $100 oil are probably also just lies being spread by the forces of the dark side."

    Unfortunately these specific technologies are not new and are already in use in most of the oilfields that produce the majority of our oil. These are the technologies that allowed the North Sea fields to ramp up production rates very quickly back in the 80s to compensate for oil taken off the market in the Middle East. C02 injection and waterflooding do enhance the amount of recoverable oil from a field, but they are mainly used to maintain a given rate of production (flow) from a field where the natural pressure has dropped. The issue is that when these technologies are used, they cause the rate of production to decline much more quickly once the field is nearing exhaustion. A good example of this rapid decline from fields using this technology are the above mentioned North Sea fields and the Cantarell field in Mexico, both of which are major fields and are experiencing decline rates of at least 20% per year. You can readily confirm this number from many sources.

    Here a good intro on the topic of oil reserves versus rate of extraction from those reserves: http://www.energybulletin.net/39308.html

    A gradual decline in production over time may not seem like a problem, but a declining production coupled with an increasing demand is a big problem. The couple of billion people in the Middle East, China, and India are eager to have the same lifestyle that we have enjoyed. Their increased demand for energy will dwarf any efficiency or conservations measures we make in the first world.
  37. John Howe from Grafton, Canada writes: I 've been following the peak oil story for the past 4 years. I do not refer to it as a 'theory' as that implies that production may or may not peak . Production will peak at some point as oil is a finite resource. Experts in the field (geologists,physicists,scientists who are NOT paid by the oil industry to promote the 'decades of plentiful oil' idea) are saying we are at or very near peak oil. This is evident in the quick rise in oil prices. Two years ago these same experts foresaw $100.00 oil prices by 2010. Look what has happened. Oil is the engine of our economy, the provider of our food and lifestyles. Get ready for a mass adjustment in our way of life. The 50 or so year party is over. Life after the oil crash will not be so easy. James Howard Kunstler discusses the implications in his previous book 'The Long Emergency'(available in libraries for those more frugal). His most recent 'A World Made by Hand' is a fictional account of what life will be like in the near future
  38. Righteous Indignation from Somewhere, Canada writes: Increasing oil scarcity will definitely bring an end to globalization, which has been partly responsible for the problem in the first place. Think of the 2,000 mile Caesar salad, where all of the ingredients on our plate have been transported by truck across a continent. Trouble is, so many of our small, local farmers have been driven off their land by agribusiness that we may end up cultivating our own vegetable patches.

    Time to relearn the survival skills of our ancestors. When did you last split wood or bake bread?
  39. zaphod beeblebrox from DirtyOilmonton, Canada writes: John Howe from Grafton
    I too recently read Knunslers book, along with dozens of others. He also plays a big role in the documentory End of Suburbia
    Highly recommend, it is very sobering indeed.

    Here is a link to an interview with a Shell Executive
    http://www.energybulletin.net/39582.html
  40. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: The ideas presented here have only some merit, the practicality of their suggestions and the timelines are ALL debatable. The only reason the G & M posts such irresponsible rubbish is to encourage a long string of comments that they use to measure the popularity of their content and articles. Look at us, we all bit. For shame.

    So, if you must, save and store a months worth of poor tasting food and stress yourself out whether you should move your family of 5 from your single bungalow into the city. Have fun storing a months worth of food in a 2 bedroom condo. If doom is to have us, what good will a month of crappy food do us?

    Give your head a shake.
  41. Interested Observer #1 from Canada writes: Nom De Plume from Victoria, Canada writes: "It's true petroleum has become more fundamentally important to human society than whale oil ever was. My point was that economics will eventually drive adaptation through innovation..." Yes, but the problem lies in the time lag between acknowledgment of a problem, and taking the economic steps to do something about it. As someone else said, our difficulties will lie in the period of time between assessment and action, which is what we are now seeing. We have to survive in the interim, and it may very well come to survival of the fittest and the most prepared. Someone else said earlier that people won't change until they can't drive their cars anymore. Ditto as it applies to water. A few years ago a scientific study raised alarm that the Bow River, which supplies Calgary, could run dry within 20 years. It went on to say people will not change until they turn on the tap and nothing comes out. Yes, we humans are smart and are capable of adapting, but first we must change our attitudes and redirect our focus on what is most important. And that takes acknowledging that there is a problem in the first place. The longer we stick our heads in the sand the greater the short term crisis will be.
  42. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: I wouldn't want the responsibility to find the world the oil it will require for the nect 100 years. Especially with the current world wide demand for engine driven machines. Oil companies have their work cut out.
  43. Righteous Indignation from Somewhere, Canada writes: Perhaps the media has spared us the knowledge of peak oil, just so we wouldn't link the West's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "blood for oil". Funny, isn't it, that we don't seem interested in spreading peace and democracy with tanks and bullets where there's no oil bubbling out of the sand.
  44. Righteous Indignation from Somewhere, Canada writes: With the oil cartels basically calling the shots, what hope is there of developing alternate energy technologies?
  45. Dave Sutherland from Kitchener, Canada writes: This was an interesting article, but rather than point the readers only to the doomsday sites, he should also have directed them to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, http://www.peakoil.net/. This has good information on Peak Oil, but generally stays away from the doomsday scenarios. The last three years of oil production has been flat at around 85 million barrels per day, and a lot of industry experts believe getting to 90 bpd will be difficult, and 100 will never happen. With booming economies in China and India, it is not hard to do the math to figure out that there will not be enough to meet demand in the very near future, even if production hold flat. A recent article in the newsletter from the American chapter of ASPO indicated there are several major oil projects that will come on stream in the next few years. This will probably result in slightly more oil being produced. However, there are no major projects being developed after that. Given that new projects typically take about 10 years it would seem that sometime shortly after 2013 we could move into a scenario where production will start a slow decline. When steady decline actually begins will depending on a number of geopolitical and economic factors affecting supply and demand. Sooner or later the time will come. Although probably not a doomsday scenario, it will be painful.
  46. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Two more resources for mitigation/adaptation strategies for communities and individuals:

    http://www.relocalize.net/
    http://postcarboncities.net/
  47. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Doomsday scenario is probably a bit extreme, but…

    Food is planted, harvested, fertilized, and transported for processing and distribution by fossil fuels.

    There is no short term alternative to liquid fuels for transportation – which is essentially for a car and truck base society. Change over to an entirely new form of transportation would probably take about 20 years. Hybrid, electric or hydrogen power vehicles are not the going to be the answer tomorrow!

    Any changes to infrastructure to deal with reduced oil (i.e. expand public transport) requires lots of energy to develop that infrastructure – much of it coming from fossil fuels.

    We will have to decide on the priorities someday, and it will be sooner than we are prepared for – because we won’t take any precautions until it happens!
  48. Last Straw from Canada writes: Brian Anderson from Toronto, Canada writes: As for the canners and survival set, well they make excellent curio items for newspapers to write about during tumultuous times, don't they? Do these people really think that humankind would not have a replacement for their economic fuel? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- actually, i'm pretty sure we don't have anything else like oil to start pumping into our jumbo jets and power our meat packaging factories. take a look around you: how much of the stuff you see is actually made of plastic. good luck carving yourself up a nice wooden motherboard. the best advice in this article, i thought, was the "get out of debt while you still can" thing. even if you live in a dream world (ie nom de plume's "our imaginations are the only source of limitations" idea) and don't care about the air pollution, the biodiversity crisis, the changing weather patterns, the rising cost of oil, and the traffic jams that clog up the roads in and out of every major city in the world, YOU SHOULD STILL SEE that the inefficient use of oil is tying our economy (via america) to some pretty nasty characters (like the saudi royals), pulling us into ridiculous wars (like afghanistan), and traping us all in this culturaly, morally, socially, and environmentally destructive cycle of shallow consumerism and ever-increasing debt; shopping for things we dont need and throwing them away almost immediately. of all the values we've lost over the last couple of generations, frugality might be the one we end up missing most.
  49. Cliff Dunlop from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm a huge skeptic of the whole Global Warming scenario being played out by our popular gurus / snake oil salesmen of the present day. Trouble is, I don't argue my position well because I totally believe in all the things we are doing to replace our dependence on oil. I realized long ago that we would never reach Gore's doomsday scenario of rising seas and killer hurricanes because we would start to fight over oil (we already are) to the point where we could precipitate WWIII. And folks, if that happens, this time the world will really do it up right! We could expect to lose millions, perhaps billions as dirty bombs are let loose in cities around the world.
    I'm not an alarmist. I think my reasoning is logical, because this is the way humans behave. To prevent this, I think we need to leave the Middle East behind and create a new power source and infrastructure.
    This is why I agree with many of the goals of the global warming movement if not their reasoning. Humans won't be scared by another war threat, but they are being scared shitless about the possibility of their basements filling up with sea water. So the end justifies the means? I don't know. Do you?
  50. Bill Needle from Canada writes: It took a hundred years to peak and it will take a hundred years to decline to "zero". It's not a major problem for me and my kids - just a reallocation of expense.
  51. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: But meanwhile we all love to drive our SUVs to work - alone. And fly to Cancun for the weekend. And heat our 4,000 sq ft houses and our 2nd residences. And build more roads and suburbs. And buy fresh flowers and cumquots from the antipodes. What me worry? I know they are working on electric or hydrogen cars and nuclear fusion and jet packs. So life will be just grand! Just look at your 1963 copy of Popular Science.
  52. Pierre Dionne from Toronto, Canada writes: Bill, your math is wrong. If it took 100 years to peak with ever increasing demand, it won't take 100 years to decline to 0, unless demand plummets down, which is unlikely to happen in the short term.
  53. Doug Consul from Alberta, writes: Rocky...my friend, think about Canada: the second largest land mass in world....One of the coldest countries on the globe....Canada only operates 6 months of the year...the rest of the time it is hibernation...

    To compare Cuba with Canada, pure nonsense...Cuba, average temperature, maybe 20 C degrees, Canada average temperature, maybe 3 C degrees...One could walk the breath of Cuba in a month...what you are advocating is the depopulation of Canada...
  54. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Bill Needle completely misses the point. The problems don't somehow just start when oil gets to zero. The problems are already here. Just ask some miserable peasant in Ghana (pick any one of your 50 favorite other slum countries) if they can buy cooking oil today. But of course they aren't "our kids."
  55. Sue City from Canada writes: I watched the documentary "A Crude Awakening" a few months back and it was quite convincing, if not a little alarmist. Just look at some of the vast oil reserves in Texas and South America that were huge producers in the 50s... dried up. Gone. The gravy train will end someday...
  56. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Let's organize the human cull: those who believe that CO2 is the culprit should show leadership and volunteer...
  57. GI Jeeper from Mississauga, Canada writes: I dont think there is anyone who has objectively read the extensive documentation on Peak Oil who cant conclude that we are at or extremely close to the peak...and in a heap of trouble. This society is built completely on unsustainable and literally free energy from fossil fuels. Everything around us is an equilibrium point in an equation whose basic input is cheap oil. Vary that parameter so that society has a high EROI and the equilibrium point will change drastically. Couple that with the basic hypothesis put forward by people like Jared Diamond in Collapse and the potential is there for some pretty scary stuff. Given the inherent complexity in our society that we will no longer be able to afford, the next step down will NOT be a gentle one. Also, in a high EROI environment, just forget about hydrogen cars and high tech, I dont think each person in T.O. could sustain a horse, much less a fuel cell.
    I am not a hypocrite. Personally, I own a few hundred acres of farmland in a small community somewhere in Ontario. The land is good, very sustainable with plentiful water, good soil, is surrounded by a local community and is far enough from Toronto to be insulated from their problems. It cost me very little, has yielded a fair investment dividend and spending time there serves to give my children a perspective on what things are really important. If Jared Diamond turns out to be correct in his hypothesis of what happens when societies cave inward, may turn out to be a place to retreat to when things get tough here in the city. During the blackout we learned that Toronto and the GTA has a 3 day food supply and that muni water requires power. In a serious crisis that lasts longer than a day, you have to figure that people wont quietly starve and at a minimum, you wouldnt want to be here.
    I think anyone who is capable of taking a step back and objectively thinking about things will agree that keeping a couple baskets for their eggs is a good idea.
  58. rm r from Canada, United States writes: The last book I read on the topic (The Empty Tank by Jeremy Legget) speculated that the US alone has sufficient coal reserves to last some 100 years even accounting for future increases in energy demand. So if you don't believe in global warming, or think much about pollution, then there's no need to worry. In any case, as the oil dries up we're going to have to pay the cost to switch infrastructure to new energy sources, and it might be interesting to take the opportunity to switch to the cleanest most economical sources that can be developed. My impression is that even now, no-one seems worried enough to put research dollars into this problem (but we will pay to stock up on bullets and canned food).
  59. Randy McClure from Canada writes: Righteous Indignation from Somewhere, Canada writes: Perhaps the media has spared us the knowledge of peak oil, just so we wouldn't link the West's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "blood for oil".



    There is no good news in any of this for the media. The solution to peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, overfishing, etc. is to REDUCE CONSUMPTION and shift the way we do things. That means moving to steady state economy rather than a growth economy. The ad-based media needs people to keep buying so they can keep selling advertising to the manufacturers. The mainstream media will never report the obvious -- our current model is not sustainable given population and rising consumer demand. Globablization is done-fer. Lots and lots and lots of people are going to lose their jobs. Lots and lots of people will be needed for new jobs in local food production, rebuilding railways, commercial waterways, building modern sailing vessels. (Oh yeah and nuclear? Forget it. Too expensive, too dangerous and the refining of uranium produces too many greenhouse gasses -- so much for nuclear being the solution to global warming)
  60. Paul Chapman from Laputa, Canada writes: At least in Toronto you've got plenty of neighbours to eat :)

    But really, plastic can be made from any kind of oil, not just mineral oil. Everything we do today we could do with coal, it would just be much dirtier. And that's the worst case, assuming no better replacement is found.
  61. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: can anyone say "chicken little"? I guess every generation needs its own boogeyman, and this certainly qualifies. I wonder if it had anything to do with all the post-apocalyptic "Mad Max" and "Road Warrior" style movies that we grew up with?
  62. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: shouldn't we ... like ... lie down and put a paper bag over our head?
  63. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: @ Pierre Dionne: I think YOUR math is wrong, if oil is $1000/bbl demand won't plummet? 100 years is not "short term". Basically oil will never run out, only CHEAP oil will run out. For example, there is enough shale oil/gas in North America to last for decades - uneconomic at $50, but when they are economic they will be developed. This is the same thing that happened with the oil sands. The "bunker" crowd is laughable. North America is not Cuba; Canada is self sufficient and the US is largely self-sufficient with Canada's help (granted some South American countries also send a significant amount to the US, but a 10-20% cut can be dealt with). Despite MSM propaganda, we use very little Middle East oil in North America. Peak Oil is not new, in fact its claim to fame was calling the "peak" in Gulf production in the 70s. All of the doomsday prophets simply do not understand the supply/demand dynamic. Even if production does go down it will do so slowly and prices will rise gradually pricing out marginal items along the way. Supermarkets will stop giving out free plastic bags (made with oil, and costs CENTS even though they are shipped from far away), then people will start driving less. Packing with plastic, cosmetics, disposable utensils, etc will all be used less and demand will go down. One day maybe oil will be $1000/bbl or $10000/bbl. At that point power generation from oil/natural gas will be uneconomical and frivolous use of plastic, waxes, fuel will be curtailed. People car pool to work, cities build more transit that uses the electrical grid, people fly less, etc. Life goes on. In the meantime I would appreciate it if you stayed in your bunkers so my drive to work is faster, thanks.
  64. hostile camper from north of the 49th, Canada writes: John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: David Suzuki, the champion of the environmental movement, chose to sire five children...

    Nice try John. So folks that try to contribute to society should voluntarily limit their family size (how about 1.7 kids), while folks that have trouble with read'n and writ'n, or are simply not cut out for the job of raising a brood, get a free pass cause they never thought about the matter. Give me a break.
  65. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: Watch the movie "End of Suburbia"
    if after that you have need for further information read:

    http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
    The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler
    The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg
    The Empty Tank by Jeremy Leggett

    Even if you don't agree with everything here it's still important to know what's going on. You can't just hot-swap out oil for other power sources and expect it to work.

    Hydrogen, is not going to work for us because it's not a power source and wastes too much useful energy. Also it's mostly made from Natural Gas, which is also in decline. (see "The myth of the hydrogen economy" from http://www.energybulletin.net/11963.html)

    Heading for the hills is not a solution. Living better in smaller communities where you don't require a car is going to be it. Think parents/grandparents style. You're not going to suffer, just change and improve your life.

    Another poster is correct. No one who has read and understood all of this can come away thinking it's all bunk. Please do yourself a favour and have an open mind.
  66. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: Where is G & M finding all these losers ?
    And why should you strive to pay all your debts if the end of the world is coming ? It sure doesn't make too much sense...
  67. Paul Chapman from Laputa, Canada writes: Hey, what's this I read about pebble bed reactors? Seems like an elegant solution to safety issues.
  68. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: Didn't we get all this 'the world's going to end' stuff out of our systems in 1999 with the Y2K thing?

    For god's sake, there is no way we are going to run out of oil to the point that our society collapses in the short term

    I've read studies that cite the mid-21st century as the point where we may see a massive global crisis simply becasue there is no oil left.

    This 'peak oil' BS is just that- BS. The fact is that the more valuable oil becomes, previously untapped sources which were not economically viable to exploit will become economically viable. This is exactly what happened with the oil sands.

    Also, its worth noting that previous to approx. 2002, oil companies had drastically reduced the amount of money they spent on exploration and research.

    But go ahead, get a 'socially responsible vascectomy' - at least it guarantees that someone stupid enough to believe this garbarge won't be reproducing.
  69. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: Walter Spicer-

    two things-
    1) hydrogen IS a power source- you burn it and it produces energy- that's the definition of a power source.

    2) hydrogen is the single most common element in the universe. And you know the H in H2O? Umm that's hydrogen- all we need is to find more and better ways to seperate hydrogen into a pure form and we're gold. Current methods leave a lot to be desired, but thats a technology problem that's very solveable.
  70. zaphod beeblebrox from DirtyOilmonton, Canada writes: re. RD Lone, Cameron Reid

    Wow more graduates from the university of sesame street.
  71. S WF from Canada writes: RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: "For example, there is enough shale oil/gas in North America to last for decades - uneconomic at $50, but when they are economic they will be developed."

    Please read the link I posted earlier to understand the difference between energy reserves and energy production/extraction rates. (http://www.energybulletin.net/39308.html)

    We do not use reserves of energy, we use flows of energy. It doesn't matter how much oil there may be in the tar sands or oil shale, it matters how fast we can extract that energy.

    What also matters is how much energy you use to extract/refine the oil relative to how much oil you end up with (EROEI - Energy Returned on Energy Invested). EROEI is a complicated topic, but the fundamental issue is that the oil we have been using so far has been very easy to extract (low energy input), while the oil from oil sands or shale is extremely difficult to extract (high energy input). For example if it took 1 barrel of oil equivalent energy to produce 1 barrel of oil from oil shale, the net result is no energy produced.

    The bottom line is that we probably will use these other sources, but the rate of energy production and the net energy produced will be much lower than what we have grown accustomed to.
  72. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy article http://www.energybulletin.net/11963.html

    hydrogen is a simple element, therefore it is also the most corrosive element in the universe. It takes so much effort to prevent corrosion as to negate any positive uses.
  73. S WF from Canada writes: Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: "hydrogen IS a power source- you burn it and it produces energy- that's the definition of a power source."

    What you are saying is equivalent to saying that a battery is a power source. However, the battery had to be produced and charged. Do you think you get more energy out of a battery than went into producing and charging it?

    Hydrogen is the most abundant ATOM in the universe. However, the hydrogen MOLECULE (H2) is not floating around for us to collect. That means that like a battery, we need to produce H2 from sources that contain hydrogen atoms. The simple example - water hydrolysis: use electrical energy to produce oxygen and hydrogen molecules. How many units of electrical energy are needed to produce one unit of energy extractable from H2? (Hint: more than one). If hydrolysis was perfect (100% efficient) we would get one unit of energy out for every unit of energy we put in. No technology will be invented that is more than 100% efficient. Therefore, hydrogen can only be used to store or transfer energy. It is not an energy source.
  74. walter spicer from Toronto, Canada writes: @SWF great explanation.

    We would lose so much energy in the conversion to hydrogen, and then again from hydrogen as it naturally evaporates, and then again when you try to convert it to electricity via a catalyst etc it goes on and on....

    All the development went into making really exotic catalysts that cannot be easily manufactured, and of course the manufacturing process takes energy too. Hydrogen is a net loser.

    The marketing cannot trump science class 101. Also the fact that any spark can set it off, from electronics on a car to your cellphone, even static electricity! Handy yes, practical no.

    Reforming our urban design, eating a good diet, and getting a bike would be more efficient use of all that energy and expense. Otherwise it's all just a collosal wasted effort. I always love the question "Are we smarter than yeast?" I wonder sometimes.
  75. PG Cochrane from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm a believer that the future will be more energy scarce. That is not to say that I don't think society can come up with ways to make things more efficient, being living arrangements, transportation, food cultivation.

    To buy a farm and bullets is to bet on societal collapse. If we ever get to that stage, owning a farm isn't going to improve your outcome much when you have lawlessness and roaming hungry bandits coming to get you.
  76. Sue City from Canada writes: S WF - bang on!
  77. Shane Mason from Canada writes: Cheaper, clean electrical power is the most likely alternative, whether its solar powered at the home, or centrally supplied but using green (or greener) sources. We can power vehicles with stored, solar or fuel-cell supplied electricity if only GM et al had not mothballed the electric car out of pique at being told what to do by the California government (see Who Killed the Electric Car?). Note also that electrical cars are 95 % efficient, whereas fuel powered cars are < 45% efficient, so increased efficiencies in central and distributed electricity generation are automatically transferred to the national vehicle pool. We can heat our homes with direct solar (heating water and using radiant heating rather than central heating - just replace the boiler with a solar water heating panel, with electrical backup) or photo-electric energy (either radiant or central). There is a somewhat high capital cost, but it pays for itself over time, and energy is increasing in price. Apartments are an issue, as mentioned, but they can purchase their electricity from green sources and the surplus generation from homes. Transmission and Distribution (T&D) will likely stay in play as is, as they can act as the clearing house for the expanded electricity market (users are also suppliers) and take their cut from there to maintain the power grid. We should be able to anticipate a significant per-capita reduction in centrally managed generation if this scheme takes off. It is already mandated in many jurisdictions that electricity users can get credit for supplying power to the grid, so we are already poised for adoption of the model. This complicates grid operations, but that is an easily surmountable engineering issue.

    So, now that prices are coming down on photo-electric and water solar panels, all home owners should be looking at retrofitting their homes, AND looking into electric cars.
  78. John Howe from Grafton, Canada writes: Many of the worlds largest exporters of oil are now in serious irreversible decline (ie Canterell in Mexico,the North Sea, Prudhoe Bay, Iran and even Saudi Arabia). If we are losing 2-3 million barrels a day from these fields we have to make up at least that much to stay even. That is unlikely. As Warren Buffet said recently on CNBC we have "stuck all the straws we can" around the world. Secondly, don't forget that the oil exporting countries will no longer export their oil once they've decline to the point that they will need the oil for their own needs. This gap is narrowing rapidly.
  79. Reefer Sutherland from The Big Smoke, Canada writes: John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: David Suzuki, the champion of the environmental movement, chose to sire five children when simple mathematics (not climate models etc) told us that there would soon be too many people for the earth to sustain. Scolding everyone else to be responsible when there are five little Suzukis pooping on the planet is hypocritical beyond words.

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

    Except maybe one of those Suzikis develops/discovers the alternative energy source that will end our addiction to oil....