|News||Peak Cheap Energy and Oil Price Slump||Recommended Links||Energy Bookshelf||Secular Stagnation||Energy returned on energy invested (ERoEI)||A note of ERoEI decline|
|MSM propagated myth about Saudis defending this market share||Deflation of the USA shale oil bubble||Oil glut fallacy||Why Peak Oil Threatens the Casino Capitalism||Media disinformation about Plato oil and Hubert peak||Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism|
|Energy Geopolitics||Ukraine: From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss||Russian Ukrainian Gas wars||The fiasco of suburbia||Fiat money, gold and petrodollar||The Great Stagnation||Big Fukushima Debate|
|Casino Capitalism||Inflation, Deflation and Confiscation||All wars are bankers wars||Why Peak Oil Threatens the International Monetary System||Financial Quotes||Financial Humor||Etc|
Until recently the main source of consumption growth were China and India. The USA also increase consumption substantially due to low oil prices.
Earth population growth imply the growth of oil consumption.
Jul 19, 2018 | foreignpolicy.com
S 2929 text
perated by high gasoline prices just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, lawmakers in Congress are trying to make it easier for the United States to sue OPEC. And unlike previous failed efforts to go after the oil-exporting cartel, this time Congress will find a sympathetic ear in the White House.
The bipartisan No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC bill, would tweak U.S. antitrust law to explicitly ban just the kind of collusive behavior that OPEC was created to engage in. The bill, a carbon copy of previous legislation, makes illegal any activity to restrain the production of oil or gas or set oil and gas prices and knocks away two legal defenses that in the past have shielded OPEC from U.S. antitrust measures.
Jul 19, 2018 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
Extracted from: The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld By Peter Dale Scott
The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world. As John Foster Dulles wrote in the 1930s to a British colleague,
The word "cartel" has here assumed the stigma of a bogeyman which the politicians are constantly attacking. The fact of the matter is that most of these politicians are highly insular and nationalistic and because the political organization of the world has under such influence been so backward, business people who have had to cope realistically with international problems have had to find ways for getting through and around stupid political barriers. 44
This same mentality also explains why Allen Dulles as an OSS officer in 1945 simply evaded orders from Washington forbidding him to negotiate with SS General Karl Wolff about a conditional surrender of German forces in Italy – an important breach of Roosevelt's agreement with Stalin at Yalta for unconditional surrender, a breach that is regarded by many as helping lead to the Cold War. 45 And it explains why Allen, as CIA Director in 1957, dealt summarily with Eisenhower's reluctance to authorize more than occasional U-2 overflights of the USSR, by secretly approving a plan with Britain's MI-6 whereby U-2 flights could be authorized instead by the UK Prime Minister Macmillan. 46
This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman's Justice Department sought to break up the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York, Standard Oil of California or Socony, Gulf Oil, and Texaco; together with Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called Seven Sisters of the cartel.) Faced with a government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon's lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and Cromwell, where Foster was senior partner, refused: "If it were not for the question of national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on." 47
At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC's nationalization by Iran's Premier Mossadeq, by instituting, in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports.
In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest in discouraging nationalisation.... None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil; despite one or two picturesque episodes the boycott held. 48
As a result Iranian oil production fell from 241 million barrels in 1950 to 10.6 million barrels in 1952.
This was accomplished by denying Iran the ability to export its crude oil. At that time, the Seven Sisters controlled almost 99% of the crude oil tankers in the world for such export, and even more importantly, the markets to which it was going. 49
But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq's differences with London. 50
All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952, followed by the appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA. The Justice Department's criminal complaint against the oil cartel was swiftly replaced by a civil suit, from which the oil cartel eventually emerged unscathed. 51
Eisenhower, an open friend of the oil industry changed the charges from criminal to civil and transferred responsibility of the case from the Department of Justice to the Department of State – the first time in history that an antitrust case was handed to State for prosecution. Seeing as how the Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles and the defense counsel for the oil cartel was Dulles' former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell), the case was soon as good as dead. 52
Cooperative control of the world market by the major oil companies remained in effect, with varying degrees of success, until the oil embargo of 1973-74. That the cooperation was more than tacit can be seen by the fact that antitrust regulations were specifically set aside a number of times during the 1950-1973 period, allowing the major companies to negotiate as a group with various Mideastern countries, and after its inception [in 1960], with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC. 53
Also in November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve CIA in the efforts of MI6 and the oil companies in Iran 54 -- although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953. 55
The events of 1953 strengthened the role of the oil cartel as a structural component of the American deep state, drawing on its powerful connections to both Wall Street and the CIA. 56 (Another such component was the Arabian-American Oil Company or ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, which increased oil production in 1951-53 to offset the loss of oil from Iran. Until it was fully nationalized in 1980, ARAMCO maintained undercover CIA personnel like William Eddy among its top advisors.) 57 The five American oil majors in particular were also strengthened by the success of AJAX, as Anglo-Iranian (renamed BP) was henceforth forced to share 40 percent of the oil from its Iran refinery with them.
Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq's overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa. In terms of the deep state, the oil cartel or deep state initiated in 1951 a process that the American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available, is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a "CIA coup."
Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Oil as a tool of geopoliticsPeter AU 1 , Jul 17, 2018 4:23:41 PM | 112VK
I posted the sequence of events used to create the petro dollar back in the 2018-33 thread.
Will post them again here as this thread concerns Kissinger.
More specifics can be added to this planned sequence of events, this just the basics.
In the late 1960s, US found oil at Prudhoe bay and by 1970 it was a proved crude oil reserve.
Due to environmental and other legal challenges, construction of the pipeline was held up.
In late 1972 the US Secretary of the Interior declares the trans-Alaska pipeline to be in the US national interest
1973-74. OPEC oil embargo due to US backing of Israel pushes oil prices up in an initial rise.
1973 (OPEC oil embargo) The Trans-Alaska pipeline Authorization Act legislation is quickly pushed through. Signed by Nixon on November 16 1973. This blocked all further challenges allowing construction to begin. pdf
Late 1973 Nixon along with Saudi Arabia create the petro dollar beginning in 1974.
The trans-Alaska pipeline is pushed through to meet a deadline, no costs spared, first oil delivered through the pipeline 28th July 1977, extra pumps then installed and pipeline running at full capacity by 1980. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System
1979-80 the price of oil skyrockets due to the Iranian revolution. The US is now the global economic hegemon as all countries now need US dollars to purchase oil.
Historical crude oil price chart https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/65661/111554736.48/0_118d4e_344fb37_orig
I have read that Kissinger withheld information from both Nixon and Israel, but have not followed that line of research.
Here is a piece from an official Kissinger biography. You can see here he was working both sides.
Kissinger entered the State Department just two weeks before Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel. The October War of 1973 played a major role in shaping Kissinger's tenure as Secretary. First, he worked to ensure Israel received an airlift of U.S. military supplies. This airlift helped Israel turn the war in Israel's favor, and it also led members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to initiate an oil embargo against the United States. After the implementation of a United Nation's sponsored ceasefire, Kissinger began a series of "shuttle diplomacy" missions, in which he traveled between various Middle East capitals to reach disengagement agreements between the enemy combatants. These efforts produced an agreement in January 1974 between Egypt and Israel and in May 1974 between Syria and Israel. Additionally, Kissinger's efforts contributed to OPEC's decision to lift the embargo.
Jul 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1 , Jul 17, 2018 6:46:40 PM | 141
It is noticeable that Trump's US attack any Syrian forces coming too close to US occupied zones of al Tanf and Dier Ezzor. Also Trumps takeover of the Deir Ezzor oilfields where US forces simply set up bases or forward posts in the ISIS occupied area.
Under Trump, US has set up a number of new bases in Syria. On the other hand, no concern about Afrin and Manbij. The Deir Ezzor area is Arab tribes and this and al Hasakah (Kurd/Arab?) is the top end of the Persian Gulf/Mesopotamia oil field.
US now controls al Hasakah and half of Deir Ezzor province. The have been ongoing efforts by the US under Trump to take Al Bukamal. US has a base just south of Al Bukamal in Iraq. US bases are now thick throughout Mesopotamia, with more being built.
Also a new base being installed in Kuwait.
The US controls the Arab shore of the Persian gulf, it now has many bases in Iraq and Syria. The only thing missing is the oil rich strip of Iran running alongside the Persian gulf and Mesopotamia.
Jul 15, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1 , Jul 14, 2018 4:55:33 PM | 101
The latest article at the Saker site by Rostislav Ishchenko - Trump's Geopolitical Cruise - I think is the best take on Trump's and his backers mindset. Worth a read and covers what I think was the cause of the split in the US elite.
The petro dollar, kicking off in the late 70s was a piece of creative accounting to give unlimited credit. This should have been ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but greed got the better of most. Trump and the people backing him could see that this was now in its terminal stages and US close to collapse itself.
Rostislav Ishchenko, like many thinks that Trump is pulling the US back to a form of isolation from the world, but I don't think this is the case.
Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy. Although not labeled as global, when reading through the energy dominance section of the NSS, it can clearly been seen to be global. This is not just about sell oil produced in the US.
Trump is going for the Achilles heel of Eurasia - energy. Rather than a creative accounting scam that simply racks up huge amounts of debt, Trump is looking for a monopoly or near monopoly business to take over and rake in the profits.
Russia supply energy to Eurasia from the North. The opening for the Trump mob is in the south. The meet with Putin may well be to sound out the possibilities of forming a cartel.
Putin/Russia is also the only entity that can prevent Trump's US from simply walking in and taking over the rich energy hub (Mafia style) to the south of Eurasia.
Daniel , Jul 14, 2018 5:35:42 PM | 104Peter @101Peter AU 1 , Jul 14, 2018 5:42:51 PM | 105
"Global Energy Dominance is now part of the US National security Strategy."
Yes, it absolutely is. But this is not a new "Trump policy." Certainly Zbiginew Brzezenski laid this out quite clearly in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives." It's really all in there, just as you're now identifying. If you can't take the time to read it, please consider at least reading some book reviews. As I've noted before, Ziggy apparently didn't foresee Putin rising to power and restoring the Russian state, which threw the proverbial monkey wrench into the globalists' plans, but really, US foreign policy has continued to follow his plans otherwise.
Kissinger has written much the same, though I don't recall in which books/articles. This page from the US Navy seems a fine reading list, designed as it appears to indoctrinate officers in AZ Empire geopolitics.
IMO, the US took the lead in the Empire's Global Energy Dominance quest when FDR met with King Saud on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal in 1945 (swinging by after the final post-war world planning meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Yalta). This was when the US largely replaced Great Britain in primacy over Asian/Middle Eastern energy dominance.Daniel, I will read through the Grand Chessboard again.Peter AU 1 , Jul 14, 2018 5:49:29 PM | 106US setting up more bases. A base in Iraq, and a large airfreight logistics base in Kuwait.Daniel , Jul 14, 2018 6:52:45 PM | 108
The US is in the Persian Gulf to stay. Trumps face face meet with Putin will be so Trump can try and gauge what Putin will do - if he will run any blocking moves, his reaction to a fait accompli ect. Most likely a few more face to face meetings before any move on Iran.Peter, thanks for pointing out the new and unwanted US base in Iraq. I just read that the US was building the world's largest Embassy Compound in "Iraqi Kurdistan." I wonder it they're the same thing?
In a quick web search, failing to find an answer, I noticed that besides the "Green Zone" compound we built in Baghdad at the start of the current military occupation, the record holder was the US Embassy Compound in Pakistan.
James and I have discoursed here a bit on the history of US military occupations since WW II. Boils down to the US has never removed its military from any country it's occupied with the exception of Vietnam.
veritas semper vincit @103 linked blogpost notes that the US has 40,000 troops still occupying Germany. His (I presume) post is quite entertaining considering the severe seriousness of the topic.
Dis is a nice little country ya gotz heyah. Id be a shame if sumpin' bad was ta happen to it.
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 | Jun 29, 2018 5:51:08 PM | 32
Peter AU 1 @28--
The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever. Here's the most current data while this chart shows importation history since 1980.
As I've said before, the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when it no longer requires energy for its existence.
Peter AU 1 , Jun 29, 2018 6:11:54 PM | 33karlof1 32uncle tungsten , Jun 29, 2018 9:25:02 PM | 41
What I am looking at are strategic reserves, not how much oil is currently produced. With shale it now has those reserves and shale oil I think is now at the point where production could quickly ramp up to full self sufficiency if required. Even if the US were producing as much oil as they consumed, they would still be importing crude and exporting refined products.
A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production.@Peter AU 1 #28 Thank you for that stimulating post. I just have to respond. And thanks to b and all the commenters here, it is my daily goto post.Peter AU 1 , Jun 29, 2018 9:25:04 PM | 42
The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors.
In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly.
I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good.
That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics.
By gross ignorance and foolish under-investment, the USA of WAR and its coterie of killers have eaten their future at their people's expense.karlof1 32Peter AU 1 , Jun 30, 2018 4:07:22 AM | 65
This is the chart for US exports of crude and petroleum products.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=M61Peter AU 1 , Jun 30, 2018 4:30:22 AM | 67
Light sweet vs heavy sour. Light means it contains a lot of diesel/petrol. Sweet means low sulphur. Many oils are heavy sour. Canada sand. the stuff they get from that is thick bitumen with high sulpher. The sulpher needs to be removed and the bitumen broken down into light fuels like diesel and petrol.
Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets.
The great game for the US now is control or denial. Access to oil as a strategically critical resource is no longer a factor for the US."We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove.
The squealing and consternation coming from the UK indicates that the empire has changed course and the UK is left sitting on its own shit pile.
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1 | Jun 29, 2018 4:14:35 PM | 24
Loot is only a side benefit for post WWII wars and no doubt before. Oil is energy and energy means power to those that control it. UK, French, US have fucked the MENA region over simple for control of the oil.
Working to prevent communism, socialism, democracy and pan Arab movements which are all a threat to FUKUS control of MENA, and then pulling the same dirty tricks on each other. Russia has its own all and through the Soviet era seems to have only dabbled in the region.
China needs to import energy and so the great power game of controlling or denying access to energy continues.
ben , Jun 29, 2018 4:15:18 PM | 25karlof1 @ 3 said"Criminality mostly driven by Greed."Peter AU 1 , Jun 29, 2018 5:16:04 PM | 28
james @ 5 said: "trump isn't much different or he would be addressing this too..."
Two bottom line truths, that are apparent...
As always, profits "trump" humanity. How to change that mindset? I for one, don't know, but, the so called "religious" among us, should ask themselves that same question. IMO, religion is, as practiced, mostly crowd control..The great power game is why there is continuity of government policy in the 'US west' no matter who is elected. Within the great power game democracy in the west is meaningless.
with USA's new found oil independence, the direction they take may change from the last 70 years or so.
Another recent change is the rise of current Russia and their vision of a multi polar world, also the rise of China.
If the US is changing how it plays the game, then the Brit players may be getting desperate. They are now small players but unlike the US do not have an oil reserve.
This may be the reason the Brits have ramped up the propaganda to the ridiculous and also why they have attempted to take down Trump.
Jun 21, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand x Ignored says: 06/18/2018 at 2:36 pmThere is a narrative that oil demand will soon begin dropping due to widespread use of EV.GoneFishing x Ignored says: 06/18/2018 at 3:28 pm
1 million EV just replaces 14,000 BOPD of demand. Conservatively assuming those one million EV require $40K per unit of CAPEX, just to replace 14,000 BOPD of demand took $40 billion of CAPEX.
Likewise, to replace 1.4 million BOPD of demand via EV would take $4 trillion of CAPEX.
Worldwide demand has been growing somewhere between 1.2-2.0 million BOPD annually, depending on who one believes.
See where I am going with this? How do the EV disruption proponents explain away the massive CAPEX required just to cause oil demand to flatten, let alone render it near obsolete?
I'd like to see some explanation with numbers.The average US car gets 25 mpg and travels 12,500 miles per year for 500 gallons of gasoline per year.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 06/18/2018 at 6:04 pm
Refineries in the US produce 20 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil.
That gives 69,000 BOPD per day reduction per million EV cars in the US and 110,000 BOPD oil equivalent energy due to the multiple energies put into gasoline and distillate production.
At current rates of EV sales growth the US will reach 50 million EV cars by 2031. That should put he US to being mostly independent of external oil for gasoline by mid 2030's and
It's tough to predict a complete transition in the US since cars as a service could greatly reduce the numbers of cars needed, especially in dense population areas. That would mean a much earlier transition.
If US ICE cars trend upward in mpg during that time, the demand for oil could be quite low by the early 2030's.
All depends on continuation of trends, for which the auto manufacturers seem to be on board. Just have to get the public charging infrastructure out ahead of the trend.
Here is an interesting article, from a couple of years ago, showing the trend and sales at that time.
Cars get replaced all the time and the cost of new EVs will fall over time to the same price as ICEV, so it's simply a matter of replacing the ICEV currently sold with EVs over time, in addition cars can get better gas mileage (50 MPG in a Prius vs 35 MPG in a Toyota Corolla or 25 MPG in a Camry.) There's also plug in hybrids like the Honda Clarity (47 miles batttery range) or Prius Prime(25 mile range on battery) these have an ICE for when the battery is used up.
If oil prices rise in the short term to over $100/b (probably around 2022 to 2030), there will be demand for other types of transport besides a pure ICEV.
EVs and plugin hybrids will become cheaper as manufacturing is scaled up due to economies of scale.
Jun 21, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher, 06/17/2018 at 11:37 pm
Got time to go thru the bible more carefully.
Surprising stuff. Huge oil consumption growth rates in Eastern Europe. 8+% growth %s in Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Something weird going on because Romania and Slovenia didn't show the same thing.
Western Africa grew consumption of oil 13% last year. I'll add a !!!!. East Africa about 6%. Both are over 600K bpd, so that growth rate is not on tiny burn.
World oil consumption growth 1.8%.
(population in africa . . . . . .)
Ktoś, 06/18/2018 at 8:44 amPoland's official oil consumption growth is caused by better fighting with illegal, and unregistered fuel imports since mid 2016. When taxes are 50% of fuel price, there is big incentive for illegal activities. Real oil consumption probably didn't increase much.Strummer, 06/18/2018 at 2:00 pmPoland, Czech and Slovakia are going through a huge economic boom now (I live in Slovakia and party in Czech Republic). It's visible everywhere, there wasn't this much spending and employment ever in the last 28 yearsWatcher, 06/19/2018 at 12:04 amSouth Africa grew at 0.6%.Watcher, 06/18/2018 at 2:43 pm
Middle Africa is listed as growing at 0.4%. North Africa is divided up Egypt, Morocco and "Other North Africa". Other was +4.7% consumption growth.
It's gotta be Nigeria west and Angola east.Pssssst.Dennis Coyne, 06/19/2018 at 6:41 am
Oil consumption 2017 increased 1.8% from 2016.
Oil price 2016 about $41/b. Oil price 2017 about $55/b.
hahahahhaaOil demand is mostly determined by GDP growth, oil price has a minor influence on short term demand. World GDP grew by about 5% from 2016 to 2017 according to the IMF, so oil demand increased by 1.8% possibly less than one would expect. Real GDP (at market exchange rates) grew by about 3% in 2017.
Jun 21, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 06/18/2018 at 5:54 pmHi George,Eulenspiegel x Ignored says: 06/19/2018 at 3:56 am
The idea behind peak demand is simply that oil supply may at some point become relatively abundant relative to demand in the future (date unknown). When and if that occurs, OPEC may become worried that their oil resources will never be used and will begin to fight for market share by increasing production and driving down the price of oil to try to spur demand. That is the theory, I think we are probably 20 to 40 years from reaching that point for conventional oil.
Oil still contributes quite a bit to carbon emissions and while I agree coal use needs to be reduced (as carbon emissions per unit of exergy is higher for coal than oil), I would think it may be possible to work on reducing both coal and oil use at the same time. Using electric rail combined with electric trucks, cars and busses could reduce quite a bit of carbon emissions from land transport, ships and air transport may be more difficult.Why making a fire sale?Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 06/20/2018 at 8:00 am
It's better to sell half of your ressources for 90$ / barrel than all at 30$ / barrel.
The gulf states will always have cheap production costs at their side, they will earn more at each price of oil. Why not make big money, especially when at lower production speed the production costs are much lower (less expensive infrastructure).
And in the first case you can sell chemical feedstock for a few 100 years ongoing for a good coin. Theocracies and Kingdoms plan sometimes for a long time. When you bail out everything at sale prices, you end with nothing ( and even no profit).Eulenspeigel,
You assume half the resource can be sold at $90/b, at some point in the future oil supply may be greater than demand at a price of $90/b, so at $90/b no oil is sold and revenue is zero.
In a situation of over supply there will be competition for customers and the supply will fall to the point where supply and demand are matched. Under those conditions OPEC may decide to drive higher cost producers out of business and take market share, oil price will fall to the cost of the most expensive (marginal) barrel that satisfies World demand.
I don't think we are close to reaching this point, but perhaps by 2035 or 2040 alternative transport may have ramped to the point where World demand for oil falls below World Supply of oil at $90/b and the oil price will gradually drop to a level where supply and demand match.
Jun 20, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher, 06/13/2018 at 12:54 pm
The bible is out. A few surprises.
India's oil consumption growth was only 2.9%. Derives from their monetary debacle early in the year. We should see signs of whether or not that corrects back to their much higher norm before next year.
China consumption growth 4%. Higher than India. Clearly an aberration.
KSA consumption actually declined fractionally, which allows Japan to still be ahead of them in consumption.
US consumption growth 1%. So much for EV silliness.
Jun 18, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.comJust as China topped the list of nations buying US oil, Beijing – retaliating to unilateral Trump economic threats – sent jitters through energy markets on Friday by threatening new tariffs on natural gas, crude oil and many other energy products.
On Friday, Beijing threatened to impose tariffs on US energy products in response to $50 billion in tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. Such tariffs would inhibit Chinese refiners from buying US crude imports, potentially crashing US energy markets and hitting the fossil fuel industry where it hurts the most: in shareholder approval.
"This is a big deal. China is essentially the largest customer for US crude now, and so for crude it's an issue, let alone when you involve [refined] products, too. This is obviously a big development," Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData, told Reuters.
According to US Energy Department figures, China imports approximately 363,000 barrels of US crude oil daily. The country also imports about 200,000 barrels a day of other petroleum products including propane.
The US energy industry has seen its profits boosted by fracking in domestic shale fields, which produce some 10.9 million barrels of oil per day.
The US is also exporting a record 2 million barrels per day, and encouraging countries like China to import more US energy products instead of those from Iran, after Trump recently withdrew from the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2015 nuclear arms deal with Tehran.
China is currently the largest buyer of Iranian oil as well, purchasing some 650,000 barrels daily during the first quarter of 2018.
According to Bernadette Johnson with the Denver, Colorado, energy consultancy Drilling info, tariffs will increase prices for other petroleum products including propane and liquefied natural gas.
"The constant back-and-forth about the tariffs creates a lot of market uncertainty that makes it harder to sell cargoes or sign long-term [trade] deals," Johnson noted, cited by Reuters.
In late March, the White House slapped trade sanctions on China, the world's second largest economy, including limitations in the investment sector as well as tariffs on $60 billion worth of products.
Citing "fairness" considerations, Trump referred to the car market, stating that China charged a tariff ten times higher on US cars than the US did on the few Chinese cars sold in the US.
Separately, in a bid to deliver on campaign promises, Trump announced his intention to impose a 25-percent tariff on steel imports and a 10-percent tariff on aluminum imports from an array of US allies, including the EU, Mexico and Canada. Those nations -- longtime allies to the US -- have promised retaliatory economic measures.
Trump has also reportedly mulled placing a 25-percent import tax on European cars, something that would significantly affect the highly-profitable US market for expensive German automobiles.
Mar 29, 2018 | www.ft.com
Martin Wolf : How China can avoid a trade war with the US
... the plan to impose 25 per cent tariffs on $60bn of (as yet, unspecified) Chinese exports to the US shows the aggression of Mr Trump's trade agenda. The proposed tariffs are just one of several actions aimed at China's technology-related policies. These include a case against China at the World Trade Organization and a plan to impose new restrictions on its investments in US technology companies.
The objectives of these US actions are unclear. Is it merely to halt alleged misbehaviour, such as forced transfers -- or outright theft -- of intellectual property? Or, as the labelling of China as a "strategic competitor" suggests, is it to halt China's technological progress altogether -- an aim that is unachievable and certainly non-negotiable. Mr Trump also emphasised the need for China to slash its US bilateral trade surplus by $100bn. Indeed, his rhetoric implies that trade should balance with each partner. This aim is, once again, neither achievable nor negotiable.
...A still more pessimistic view is that trade discussions will break down in a cycle of retaliation, perhaps as part of broader hostilities.
Feb 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Palloy | Feb 20, 2018 8:52:02 PM | 34
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C) as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began, even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b). Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't make sense from a normal perspective.
Jan 13, 2018 | www.thedailyeconomist.com
According to one source out of the Far East, China's Yuan denominated oil contract is set to go live for trading on Jan. 18.
While not an official date announced from government sources, according to an anonymous member of the Futures market where the new oil contract will trade, this is the expected date for Beijing to begin its latest challenge to the long-standing Petrodollar system.According to the Shanghai-based news portal Jiemian, which cited an unidentified person from a futures company, trading is expected to start Jan. 18. Multiple rounds of testing have been carried out and all listing requirements met. The State Council, China's cabinet, was said to have given its approval in December, one of the final regulatory hurdles. The push for oil futures gained impetus in 2017 when China surpassed the U.S. as the world's biggest crude importer. - ZerohedgeWhile the Chinese markets are not expected to immediately take dominion over the West's Brent and WTI oil markets, several countries which include Venezuela, Russia, Qatar, Pakistan, and perhaps even Iran appear ready to transition away from dollar based oil trade. Additionally, many more nations will likely be willing to dip their toes into this market as it proves itself to be a viable alternative to dollar hegemony, and as protection from foreign policy threats from the U.S. which often uses the dollar as leverage in economic sanctions.
Dec 25, 2017 | russia-insider.com
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds ... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072 198
The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat" to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone, bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching its first $1 billion yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade, moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to focus on trading physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold. Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries. Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt – and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in 2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point, remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway, the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with – what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share: "They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than 149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO, which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS counterpunch.
John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 10:11 AMTommy Jensen John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:26 AM
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates, gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next century or so.Cliff Aleksandar Tomić , December 23, 2017 6:20 PM
I believe America will win. Therefore I sold my gold and bought dollares. The bad guys always win.............LOL.Mychal Arnold Tommy Jensen , December 24, 2017 4:49 AM
" Treason doth never prosper
What be the reason?
For when it prosper,
None dare call it treason" -William ShakespereRichard Burton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 11:11 AM
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!zorbatheturk Richard Burton , December 25, 2017 2:11 AM
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.Mychal Arnold Richard Burton , December 24, 2017 12:01 PM
It's still a million miles better than a craphole like RuSSia!Le Ruse Tommy Jensen , December 25, 2017 2:32 AM
Yep! As Rome burns and eaten from within!Peter Jennings John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:09 AM
Yes Tommy.. Good move !!
Buy US$ !! US$ is backed by US government !! Gold is not backed by anything !!wilmers13 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:43 AM
Remember the Belgium Bulge a few years back? the process must also work in reverse.John C Carleton wilmers13 , December 24, 2017 8:39 AM
You cannot buy gold from the Empire, have you not read the book Gold Warriors.
Security is a propaganda term now, stands for war preparations.Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 1:11 PM
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for "safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Washington DC/USA.John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 2:02 PM
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more... So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and default..?
I want to know more.Bd-prince Pramanik Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 8:28 PM
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings, queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming, or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating, and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil, and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming, will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protectionMychal Arnold John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:41 PM
your answer is in your question!John C Carleton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 12:46 PM
John I firmly believe they will get what is coming to them just a matter of time nothing endures forever. But mostly not in our life time, though!Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 3:15 PM
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and their neighbors.BobValdez Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:48 PM
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..? https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
I need to read more on this subject.Paw Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 9:48 PM
Russia acceps dollars for oil, and uses them to buy physical gold. No need to hold useless dollars, just convert them to gold.Richard Burton Paw , December 24, 2017 11:18 AM
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.Isabella Jones Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 11:54 AM
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers. View HideMychal Arnold Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 12:32 PM
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble, Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!Tony B. Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 11:31 PM
10% of GDP goes out where is the ussa 100 as are many others in the west. All western country have huge debts funny how that is or is it?Isabella Jones Tony B. , December 25, 2017 5:41 AM
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:41 PM
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should. But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just sitting in the ground.Nathan Dunning John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 4:36 PM
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in terror.John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:44 AM
You're a tool for the left I bet you're American Liberal.John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:49 AM
You are a sheep.
i Am a wolf.
You are lucky i lost my taste for mutton.
i prefer goat and jackal. View HideMychal Arnold Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 12:45 PM
View Hidealexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 AM
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got your back as always.John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 12:18 PM
John C Carleton • an hour ago China and Russia been dumping US bond
no they don't! Russians reserves are about 100+ bln in UST
and WHOLLY 20 % OF RUSSIAN assets in Russian banks are kept mostly $$$ and some eurooncefiredbrass John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 2:44 AM
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile baby rapers.John C Carleton oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 8:22 AM
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries. Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the Debt!Ron John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:11 PM
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves, and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.alexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 PM
Dude, your postings are good and has an element of humor, thanks.John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:58 AM
pedophile baby rapers.
people who associate everything w/ pedophile baby rapers.
USUALLY ARE pedophile baby rapers.!!!!!
YES, $ lost about 97 %, but rest of even worse
russian ruble of 1913 - worthless
german mark -worthless
japanese yen - worthless
etc!Aurora alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 1:19 PM
Open mouth in ignorance, insert foot.
Don't worry about a foot in the other end, i will do that verbally with my Texas cowboy boot.
Dispora Pedophiles increasingly Use Israel as 'haven,' activist charge.'
'Advocacy group: Israel is a pedophiles paridise-Haaetz-Israel News'
'Nachlaot, where pedophiles roam free,--the Times of Israel
'Israel Found to be Safe For Pedophiles'
'Jewish Pedophiles Increasingly use Israel as a haven, activist charge'
'Power, Pedophilia and the US Government'
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
How you like them Texas cowboy boots?alexwest11 Aurora , December 24, 2017 12:43 AM
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to youAM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:25 AM
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market
btw . moron
Russia/ china don't buy gold on world market. they are 2 /3 gold producers in the world
WHAT IS YOU LEVEL OF FORMAL EDUCATION ??
it seems you are uneducated moron !Aurora alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 1:19 PM
Russian Gold Reserves 2014-2017 View HideMychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:50 PM
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016, the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around $800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For 2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for 2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.Le Ruse Mychal Arnold , December 25, 2017 2:37 AM
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.alexwest11 Aurora , December 23, 2017 11:29 PM
Maybe Happy "Kwanza" whatever is that ??Bd-prince Pramanik alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:51 PM
any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.J
???????? converted what ?
in Russia, in gold ? you are not Russian, don't live, know nothing
most Russians are stupid and uneducated in finance, savings do not exist
average Russian rather buy car , or flat than save money for something.
it is USSR mentality plagued by memory of deficitsTony B. Bd-prince Pramanik , December 24, 2017 11:36 PM
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine like poroschenko ?Le Ruse Tony B. , December 25, 2017 2:39 AM
Rothschild finance can be described in a single word: THEFT.
The world's sole economic problem.AM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:38 AM
the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away ??oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 2:52 AM
You confuse me. If Russians are so stupid and uneducated in finance, then why is their President a Dr in Economics?
Why are they in control of their vast wealth of natural resources?
Why do they have virtually enough gold to back the ruble and decent currency reserves, that rise monthly?
Also, how come they have free healthcare and education, including university level, if they are so stupid and uneducated?
Why does the US require Russian engines to make it into space?
Like I said, you confuse me, as I assumed you were talking about another super-nation, that has seriously lost it's way.
PUTIN'S PHD THESIS ESSENTIAL READING FOR OFFICIALS
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
Russia Foreign Exchange ReservesView Hidealexwest11 oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 3:19 AM
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 3:27 AM
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
more than 20 %alexwest11 JIMI JAMES , December 24, 2017 6:23 AM
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?Mychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:59 PM
because in the end only the strong will survive and russia just like china
avg salary in Russia about 500 $
avg pension 200 $
that is why idiotic Russians twice in 20 century totally annihilated own country!!!!!! 1917 and 1991
and for china!!!!!!! it just show how moronic you are
we will see how china is good in 100 or 200 years!!!
cause history showed china always being overrun by someone else;
mongols, Manchurians, etc
learn a history western moron!!!!!!!!Why , December 23, 2017 9:42 AM
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin? In ww2 of course!Craig A. Mouldey Why , December 23, 2017 10:51 AM
I hope Russia will survive UKUSA's onslaught.
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil. And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because we will watch it out our front windows.
Dec 03, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
11/29/2017 Notice: Please limit your comments below to the subject matter of this post only. There is a petroleum post above this one for all petroleum and natural gas posts and a non-petroleum post below this one for comments on all other matters.
First, let us define carrying capacity and overshoot. And none has done that better than Paul Chefurka .
Carrying Capacity : Carrying capacity is a well-known ecological term that has an obvious and fairly intuitive meaning: "the maximum population size of a species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment". Unfortunately, that definition becomes more nebulous the closer you look at it – especially when we start talking about the planetary carrying capacity for humans. Ecologists claim that our numbers have already surpassed the carrying capacity of the planet, while others (notably economists and politicians ) claim we are nowhere near it yet!
Overshoot : When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot. Because carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary. Populations always decline to (or below) the carrying capacity. How long they stay in overshoot depends on how many stored resources there are to support their inflated numbers. Resources may be food, but they may also be any resource that helps maintain their numbers. For humans one of the primary resources is energy, whether it is tapped as flows (sunlight, wind, biomass) or stocks (coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.). A species usually enters overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but exhaustible stock of a resource. Like oil, for instance
When we talk about carrying capacity we need to define exactly who or what we are carrying. Are we talking about humans, all animals or what? Well, let's just talk about terrestrial vertebrate biomass.
Okay, Vaclav Smil and Paul Chefurka (and the estimates of most earth biologists) are correct, the long-term carrying capacity of terrestrial vertebrate biomass is a little over 200,000,000 tons. But how do we know that amount is correct? Easily, because that is what it was for millions of years before the advent of agriculture and other things brought about by modern day Homo sapiens.
Plant and animal species all struggle to survive. In doing so they have evolved to fill every available niche on earth. If a plant can grow in an area, any area, it will do so. If an animal can find a habitat in any area on earth, it will do so. At least since the mid-Triassic, about 225 million years ago, plants and animals have occupied every available niche on earth. If any animal overshot its habitat, dieoff would soon correct that situation. So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained at about two hundred million tons, give or take. I say that because climate change, sea levels rising and falling, continental drift would cause the long-term carrying capacity to wax or wane. Also, the estimate is just that, an estimate. It could be slightly higher or lower. But the long-term carrying capacity of the earth always remained at one hundred percent of what it was possible to carry.
Then about 10,000 years ago man invented agriculture. At first, this only enabled a slight increase in population. Soon only plants that produced the most grain, fruit or tuber per plant, or per area of ground, was selected for replanting. Genetic engineering goes back thousands of years.
Then they discovered fertilizer. Animal and human waste could greatly increase plant production. Animals were domesticated and the plow was invented. More food per area of ground could be produced. Then chemical fertilizers were invented and the population floodgates were opened. At first phosphates from bird guano dramatically increased agricultural production but around the middle of the last century nitrate fertilizers from the Haber Bosch process enabled the green revolution and enabled the population to expand three fold.
It's mostly cows, then humans, then pigs then chickens then Interesting that the biomass of chickens is ovwe three times that of all the wild animals combined. If this chart does not shock you then you are totally unable to be shocked by anything concerning the earth's biosphere.
The world population is still expanding at an alarming rate. By 1989 the population was expanding by about 88 million people per year. Then by the year 2000 population growth had slowed to about 77 million per year. Then the slowdown stopped and started to increase again. it stands at about 79 million per year according to the US Census Bureau.
Now they are saying it will start to slow. But that slowdown has not yet started. True, the fertility rate has been dropping but that has been offset by the increase in population. The fertility rate is dropping but on more and more people.
Notice the U.S. Census Bureau starts the slowdown at almost the exact date this chart was drawn, August 2017. If they had drawn this chart in 1995, then no doubt they would have started their prediction of constant decline in 1995.
But I have no doubt that the population will start to decline. It must, it must because we are destroying the ability of the planet to feed all its people.
Paul Chefurka created the above graph in May 2011. I think he was a little off. He has the world population hitting almost 8 billion then starting to drop around 2030.
I am more inclined to agree with the U.S. Census Bureau who thinks the world population will hit 9.4 billion around 2050. Then I believe the population will start to fall. The rate of population decline and how far it will fall is hard to predict. That will depend on many things but primarily on if and when globalization collapses. The collapse of globalization will bring about civil strife, border wars, and famine around the world.
I want to call your attention to the green, wild animal, portion of the second graph at the top of this post. Notice the wild animal portion of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass, by 1900, had dropped to about 20% of its historical value. Then by 2000, it had dropped to half that amount. Then by 2050, we expect that 2000 value to be cut in half again.
By 2100, it will very likely all be gone. Well, almost all gone. There will still be plenty of rats and mice and perhaps a few other small vertebrates will still survive, but all the large megafauna, except humans, will be gone. Gone forever or at least for the next million years or so. It will take that long for new megafauna to evolve after the human population has been greatly reduced to a billion or even a few million people.
But the far distant future is of little concern to us now. The sad fact of the matter is your descendants will live in a world completely free of wild megafauna. There is no way to avoid that fact now, it is already too late to stop the destruction.
Yes, why? Why are we destroying the earth's ecosystem? Why are we driving most all wild animals into extinction? Why have we dramatically overpopulated the planet with human beings? Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had a cause, that someone or some group of people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into.
Was it the early farmers who invented agriculture. Or was it the early industrialists like James Watt or Thomas Edison? Or was it Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, are they the villains that got us into such a damn mess? No, it was none of these people. It was no one person or no group of people. It was not even any revolution like the industrial revolution, the medical revolution or the green revolution. There is no one to blame and there is nothing to blame.
Agriculture enabled the very small early population to expand. The industrial revolution and later the green revolution enabled more people to be fed. The medical revolution enabled more babies to survive and people to live much longer. Our population has exploded simply because it could. We have always lived to the limit of our existence and we always will. It was just human nature pure and simple.
Now many will say that we are now controlling our population, that we have learned how to limit our fertility rate. Well, yes and no. Reference the below chart and table that were produced by the Population Reference Bureau in 2012.
In the developed world, where most of the world's energy is consumed, we almost have zero population growth. But in the less developed world, the population is still growing.
Here is the perfect example of what is happening, what is still happening , in much of the world. Notice the difference in the infant mortality rate and the annual infant deaths. Most of the world's people are still living at the very limit of their existence.
<sarc>But not to worry. The death rate is rising, babies are dying, the population will soon start to fall in the undeveloped world. </sarc>
Note: The Paul Chefurka graphs in this post were created, primarily, with data from the research of Vaclav Smil and is published in this 24 page PDF file: Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact . The file includes over 2 pages of notes and 4 pages of references where Smil sources and documents every stat he quotes. Below are a table and some text from the paper.
The zoomass of wild vertebrates is now vanishingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals. In 1900 there were some 1.6 billion large domesticated animals, including about 450 million head of cattle and water buffalo (HYDE 2011); a century later the count of large domestic animals had surpassed 4.3 billion, including 1.65 billion head of cattle and water buffalo and 900 million pigs (FAO 2011). Calculations using these head counts and average body weights (they have increased everywhere since 1900, but the differences between larger body masses in North America and Europe and lower weights elsewhere persist) yield estimates of at least 35 Mt C of domesticated zoomass in 1900 (more than three times the total of all wild land mammals) and at least 120 Mt C in the year 2000, a 3.5-fold increase in 100 years (and 25 times the total of wild mammalian zoomass). And cattle zoomass alone is now at least 250 times greater than the zoomass of all surviving African elephants, which in turn is less than 2 percent of the zoomass of Africa's nearly 300 million bovines (Table 2).
Please comment below but only on the subject matter of this post.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Megafauna Extinction , Overpopulation , Overshoot , Peak Oil , Population Explosion , Species Extinction . Bookmark the permalink . 295 Responses to Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Species Extinction
George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 8:23 amGreat summary. Mainly so I don't have to think about all the depressing aspects: do you not think if humans disappeared but even a few of our larger domesticated animals survived that evolution could go bonkers and we'd have new familes and species springing up all over in far less than a million years. After all homo sapiens are only a few hundred thousand years, and dogs (admittedly still technically wolves) only a few thousand. It would depend a bit whether we left much of the planet that was actually habitable of course – i.e. there'd need to be plenty of evolution pressure, but not too much. I guess your point would be we'd get new species but not the mega fauna, but I think there's evidence that isolated small islands can lead to either pygmy species or giants depending on the exact environment.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 9:28 amGeorge, I would have to start by saying that humans are not going to disappear. Other than extinction via natural disaster, like a giant meteorite hitting the earth, species are driven into extinction. That is they are outcompeted for territory and resources. Humans are the drivers of extinction, no species will drive us into extinction. We occupy every habitable niche on earth and will likely continue to do so even after our numbers have been dramatically reduced.The Cunning Linguist says: 11/29/2017 at 10:18 am
If we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within the next one hundred years, then the human population will be devastated by civil strife, border wars, and famine. Seven to nine billion hungry people will be a disaster for all other animal life, domestic as well as wild. So I do not believe there will be enough domestic animal life to kick-start evolution of new wild species of megafauna. As I have said before, we will eat the songbirds out of the trees. So there sure as hell will not be any cows left.
Okay, so perhaps it will not take a million years for other large megafauna to evolve. Perhaps it will only be in the hundreds of thousands of years.So, after we eat the songbirds from the trees, what the hell will we eat then?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 10:44 am
Is it not possible that the human species will drive itself to extinction because we are so successful at destroying the natural environment which we depend upon for our survival?
After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than 90%. Life for the remaining humans will be extraordinarily hard. If the overall stress level is high enough, it will be very difficult for humans to raise enough offspring to reproductive age to maintain the species over time. Biologists call this pre-extinction phase die out. Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.
And what the hell do you mean: "If we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within the next one hundred years "? Within the next 100 years? You are dreaming! We are in the early stages of apocalypse right now! Rapid die-off will begin within the next few years. 100 years from now, there will be no one alive who will remember it.Cunning said; "After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than 90%." ..Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 10:59 am
..while what is left of nature will rapidly move into the niches vacated by species humans have wiped out. If (big if, maybe) there are remaining reproductively viable human populations, they will exploit those recovering niches at rates which will be far below the astounding rates of exploitation during the industrial age. Where humans have abandoned their schemes of destroying the natural world for their own purposes, nature, in some form, recovers quite quickly.
On the other hand, if global warming goes off the scale (ala Guy McPherson, et al), all bets are off. Everything larger than a shrew will be toast.Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.The Cunning Linguist says: 11/29/2017 at 12:01 pm
The replacement level for animals in the wild and the replacement level for domestic animals are two different things entirely. For animals in the wild, the replacement level may be several hundred to several thousand. Animals in the wild have to find each other in order to reproduce. For domestic animals, the replacement level is two.
In this regard, we Homo sapiens are far more like domestic animals than wild animals. An example would be the Polynesians who migrated to distant islands in sailing outrigger canoes. Their numbers, in those canoes, likely numbered only a dozen or so. Yet huge numbers eventually sprang from tiny numbers.
Yes, stress during periods of great strife and famine will be great. Stress will likely take a great toll. But there will always be survivors. Everyone is not equally affected by stress. Some can overcome, some cannot. It is a little like a plague or disease. There are always some who are immune or otherwise escape the problem.
As for rapid die-off coming within a few years, yes that may happen but I doubt it. Humans societies are far more resilient than you might expect. For instance, look at Somalia, or Venezuela. Somalia, a failed state, has been in turmoil for decades yet no massive die-off has occurred. Venezuela is in a state of almost total anarchy, yet no massive die-off as of yet.
I believe the die-off will start within the next hundred years. Next week is within the next hundred years. But I doubt it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for things to really fall apart.Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 12:27 pm
"But I doubt it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for things to really fall apart."
What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century, in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong? How do we avoid sudden, catastrophic collapse once world economic growth comes to an end?
What about the fragile, debt ridden financial/credit/monetary system? Have you read the Korowicz paper? How will industrial civilization gradually unwind over many decades when the world economy freezes very suddenly and food stops arriving at the grocery stores? That should lead to a very rapid die-off as every city suddenly becomes uninhabitable.What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century, in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 12:37 pm
Hey, I have a copy of Limits to Growth right here in my hand. On what page do they predict catastrophic collapse before 2050. Help me out here but I just can't seem to find it.
As to real problems, hell yes, we are having real problems right now. We have been having real problems in Venezuela and a lot of other places. But there is a tremendous difference between real problems and catastrophic collapse.
And what about all the other terrible things you are say are happening right now. Hell yes, they are happening and they are terrible. But they have not yet led to catastrophic collapse. But it is very likely they will lead to collapse in three or four decades from now.The LTG graphs appear to show economic and industrial peaks @2025-2030, if not sooner, dropping off quickly.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 12:59 pm
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/9/1/1409550981593/cc68cfc8-072c-4e53-a741-b28c3d6bcea3-573×1020.jpeg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=1ec7d319d599211c6d4adb5d287cced8Ghung, what page is this on?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 1:17 pmIt's actually from a Guardian article, taken from Bardi's "The Limits to Growth Revisited". I don't know what page the original graph was on, but I have a copy of the original 1972 graph which shows the same curves, without the more recent data curves.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:17 pm
Guardian article "Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse" :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapseRon – that graph is from the Graham Turner LtG update: http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdfRon Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:32 pmShit? Is this real? I had no idea that we might be this close to collapse.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:43 pm
Nevertheless, I just can't believe we are that close. I think it will be at least 20 to 30 years from now.It depends on what you call collapse. The UK and USA are both following the curve such that life expectancy is starting to decline. I think industrial productivity might be going the same way in UK, and definitely our health and old age care systems (which is one of the measures he uses for "services") are in decline (though the government always finds a way to massage the numbers so far). One of the authors of LtG has said that once one of the main curves is definitely through an extrema then the models probably don't work any more – which I took to mean possible accelerating chaos, but might mean something else.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:37 pmShit? Is this real? I had no idea that we might be this close to collapse.Alice Friedemann says: 11/29/2017 at 8:02 pm
Yep -- -
Population overshoot, ecocide, environmental destruction, deforestation, ocean acidification, mass loss of pollinators–
I could go on --
It doesn't take a weather man to tell which way the wind blows.This a unique, one-time only collapse because we never relied on fossil fuels in the past, and we certainly won't in the future. If you look at energyskeptic/3) Fast Crash, you'll see the many reasons I think collapse will unfold quickly. Turchin, who has looked at the patterns of collapse in civilizations going back to Mesopotamia, says it takes about 20 years on average. That is in line with Hook's estimate of a 6% exponential decline, which is the rate at which the 500 giant oil fields decline on average after peaking (something like 270 of them last I checked), all others (offshore, shale, smaller, and so on) decline much faster, hence Hooks estimate of an exponential increase of .0015 a year as non-giants increasingly contribute to what's left of production (giants are now 60% of world oil production). If Hook (2009) is right, that means we'll be down to 10% of what we produce after global peak production in 16 years. At that point, even if governments are rationing oil wisely to grow and distribute food, you're reaching the breaking point. Oil makes all other resources possible, so although many resources reaching their limits, the decline of oil will be the true beginning of the end. No more pumping water from the Ogallala 1,000 feet down, going 10,000 miles on factory farm fishing boats, and so on. Oil is masking how incredibly far we are over overshoot. Above all, 99% of the supply chain transport – trucks, rail, ships – depends on oil. 80% of communities in the U.S. depend entirely on oil, by far the least efficient mode of transportation of the three. Well, it is too big a topic to cover in a comment. I have a lot more to say in my book "When Trucks Stop Running".OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:14 am
Oh, and when I heard Dennis Meadows speak at the 2006 Pisa Italy ASPO conference, he said that if anything Limits to growth was head of schedule, with collapse starting as early as 2020. We'll see, too many factors. Also in the past, nations avoided collapse way past their carrying capacity by trading or conquering other nations, like the Roman Empire, which had to import food from Carthage and Egypt, no way to grow enough food in Italy.
Hook, M., Hirsch, R., Aleklett, K. June 2009. Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world oil production. Energy Policy 37(6): 2262-2272
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:225443/FULLTEXT01.pdfHi Alice,Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:22 pm
I'm hoping to see more comments from you in the future, and not just in this one thread, lol.
It's very common for experts in any given field to presume there are none in other fields that are capable of solving the problems they see as civilization killers.
There are no guarantees of success, but success is possible when it comes to finding and implementing solutions to problems such as the eventual depletion of oil.
Once the shit starts hitting the fan pretty hard and fast in terms of declining oil supplies, both good and bad things will happen on a scale that will take the breath away.
The bad will unquestionably include economic collapse across large swathes of some and maybe most societies.
The good will come in the form of action on the part of awakened LEVIATHAN, the nation state. Those of us who cannot see that once LEVIATHAN stirs and focuses on such problems as we FORCED to deal with soon have little understanding of history , human nature, and technology.
Now WHETHER , or NOT, Leviathan, Uncle Sam, John BULL, the Russian BEAR, et al, can do enough to keep the wheels on and turning, instead of falling off, is an open question.
I believe they can, depending on how far gone things are once they begin to come to grips with the various troubles that will threaten their existence.
People CAN AND DO come together, and work together, sometimes. Consider the case of the USA. We were mostly all isolationists the day before Pearl Harbor, but within a couple of days after, we were all ready to to go flat out to murder our enemies on the grand scale, and DID.
Neither I nor anybody else can prove either way whether we WILL work together well enough to prevent outright collapse meaning we die hard deaths by the tens of millions even here in a country such as the USA.
There's no question that we CAN work together, once we realize we must. Whether we get started soon enough is probably going to determine just how bad things will get in economic terms.
But between what scientists and engineers can do for us, by way of providing us with better tools, and what we can collectively do for ourselves by way of collective action, there's a real possibility that some countries will pull thru ok, no longer sleek and lazy and fat and wasteful, but at least still functional, and with most of their populations still alive and leading a reasonably dignified life style.
I will have more to say about what Leviathan awakened, scared and enraged can do later on, way down thread someplace within the next few days, by relating some historical examples.I too feel that one day the trucks will stop running. It will be a very interesting transition to observe. I imagine it will have a progression that goes something like this:George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 12:57 pm
-trucks running will increase in cost as will the things that they are running about with inside them.
– trucks will run to less and less places.
-trucks will run to less and less places less frequently.
-trucks will run only very rarely and only for high priority reasons.
-trucks will stop running altogether.
As this process takes place I imagine there will be measures taken to fill some of the void, where and when it is possible to do so.Ron – do you think humans will still be around in a million years or even a hundred thousand? If they are I think it will only be because they have made themselves irrelevant to the environment (i.e. small in numbers and having found a way to live sustainably) and other species will be evolving without too much human involvement.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:59 pmYes, George, I think humans will be around in a million years. Not nearly as many as are around today however. If I had to guess, and I do have to guess, then I would guess around 10 to 15 million humans would be around a million years from now. That would be one person alive then for every 500 alive today.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 2:26 pm
Of course, all fossil fuel would be gone and everyone would live off the land.
But if you doubt human survival, then just what do you think will wipe everyone out? What will bring the human population to zero?That sounds as good a guess as any. Part of my point was that they could only survive if they were not intrusive, and therefore would not be an impediment to evolution of other mega fauna. I think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years, homo is a family rather than a species so the sapiens could go and something else come along, like we took out the Neanderthals. On the other hand if the bottlenecks get small enough in different locations we could just be whittled away by different causes.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 2:52 pmI think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years,George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 2:59 pm
The point is George, Homo sapiens is not an average species. If we were an average species we would still be competing with other species for food and territory, losing some of those battles and winning others. But our numbers would be kept in check by our success and failure of that struggle, just like every other average species.
Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about us as a species.Ok, but our numbers were kept in check and we were competing like that for almost all of our history, until the Holocene interglacial came along and we decided agriculture was a good idea, or maybe we had a go before and it never took in a less stable climate. But before that there is evidence of some pretty tight bottlenecks when we were almost gone either locally (e.g. in India) or globally. And things like the Roman empire collapse suggest we can forget any kind of technological advantages in a couple of generations.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 3:11 pmYou lost me. I don't understand your point.George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 11:23 am
But since our brains to a degree where we could create stone tools and use fire, our population has been on a slow increase, bottlenecks notwithstanding.
What has made us not average is our brains, our mental ability. That is the one thing that has given us a huge advantage over all other species.
We are smart enough to wrestle all the world from every other species that stood in our way. If another species had something that we wanted, including even their flesh, we got it. We are smart enough to dominate the world, but not smart enough to see that we are destroying it.My point is that unless we find a niche in which we can exist sustainably despite our intelligence and ability to get whatever we want and dominate the world, then we won't survive very long, and may not even then.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:31 pmHi Ron,Des Carne says: 11/30/2017 at 1:02 pm
I think some (you for example) are smart enough to see that we are destroying our World.
It may not be a majority view, though I think the numbers are increasing.
I would agree that we so far have not demonstrated that we are smart enough to change what we are doing (reduce the rate that we destroy the planet as rapidly as possible to zero (or negative, by which I mean restore the planet closer to a natural or sustainable state).
This may never be accomplished, but we cam move in that direction while reducing our numbers and our impact.What it is about our brains that makes us not average is our capacity to deny reality. The mind over reality transition (Varki &Brower) is arguably what gave "sapiens" the advantage, successful but apparently impossible risk taking, to do away with neanderthalensis. In small scale hunter bands surrounded by magafaunal predators, denial of reality is a decided advantage, but in mass societies with the capacity to produce mass belief in non-realityy, it is the disadvantage that could do us in. Although not experimentally demonstrable, the idea that this mind over reality transition was an evolutionary event in the hominid genus 100-200 thousand years ago is a plausible explanation for sapiens' dramatic cortical development and the development or consolidation of female sexual selection, not present in our forebears or current great apes.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:26 am
In a future world scratching a living as we did for most of our history as hunter-gatherer bands, but from a depleted world absent of any predators, we might evolve the ability to believe reality, without sacrificing cortical development. The first inhabitants of my country (Australia) managed to get by fot 60,000 years by killing off the megafauna. They were helped by climate change which dessicated the continent, but hung in there making it an extremely attractive aquisition by my ancestors when they came along.Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:38 am
In broad terms, I agree with what you are saying here.
"Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about us as a species."
But we aren't doing any better than rats or fire ants, lol.
You're dead on about humanity not being an average species. We will be around at least until some other species capable of wiping us out evolves, and it's unlikely that we will ALLOW such a species to exist, unless it's a microbe and we can't wipe it out.
If chimps were to evolve just a little further along the lines of using tools and being able to communicate and work together, and started attacking humans, numerous humans armed only with primitive weapons such as fire and bows and arrows would kill every last chimp, and they wouldn't lose any time in doing so.
This brings up an interesting question. We know chimps use stone tools as hammers to break nuts, etc, , and that they fight ORGANIZED fights to the death sometimes.
Is there any evidence they are using stones as weapons . YET?No, chimps do not use stones as weapons but they do use sticks to flail another chimp with.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:27 pm
Chimps will not evolve much further if any. Their numbers are dropping like a rock. They will all be gone in 20 or 30 years.I once heard an interesting story about chimps. Might have been in one of Pinker's books, I can't recall.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:46 pm
If you hang a bunch of bananas from the ceiling that a chimp cannot reach and you leave an A-frame ladder laying on the ground the chimp will set the ladder upright and get the bananas.
If you do the same thing with 2 chimps and a ladder so heavy that one chimp alone cannot set it upright, but 2 chimps working together could set it upright, they'll never get on the same page, so to speak, and cooperate in setting up the ladder. They will both try individually and fail. The bananas will never be reached.Hi Ron,Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 3:47 pm
The charts in your post suggest about 1 billion might work, I would say 500 million would be my guess, not sure where you come up with 10 to 15 million.
Note that 500 million is roughly the World population in 1550 CE.
Just a different guess as I think a sustainable society could be reached by 2300 at these lower population levels, though perhaps fertility levels will remain below replacement over the long term so population will continually decline eventually some optimum will be determined and fewer than two children will not be encouraged.Humans, that is Homo Sapiens per se, maybe not. Don't forget Cro-Magnons probably caused the extinction of Homo Neandertalis in about 40,000 years or so ago. Some other future species of the Genus Homo, very likely will be around for another million or so years. This is what I think they might look like. Maybe they will be called Homo technoligicus implantabilis, feel free to call them whatever you want. In any case resistance will be futile and you will be assimilated.robert wilson says: 12/01/2017 at 12:23 am
http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/The_Next_Million_Years__how_to_kill_off_excess_population___1953_.pdfNathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:18 pmFirst of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:15 pm
Second, regarding population growth, my primary charity for 20 years has promoted sex ed, access to contraceptions, and education of women worldwide. We know how to halt and reverse population growth in the "underdeveloped world". It's not difficult except for the religious groups which oppose contraception and oppose women's liberation.
Often the same religious groups who promote burning of fossil fuels. And deforestation.
Basically, whether humans survive depends on whether we defeat those groups, IMO.
Countries like Cuba which are very underdeveloped but essentially *lack* those religious groups (thank you Godless Communism!) they're doing OK on population stabilization.Hi Nathaneal,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:46 am
There are countries that are religious such as Iran that have seen rapid demographic transition (15 years for TFR to go from over 5 to under 2). Also non-communist nations such as South Korea saw rapid transitions.
I agree education and gender equality as well as access to modern contraception are helpful.
Electrification will also help.Thank you Dennis,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 5:41 pm
Religion has it's points, as Twain used to put it, both good and bad. Preachers and priests have a way of figuring out what is in their own best interests, short term, medium term, and long term.
There are some religions or cultures, which are not necessarily one and the same thing , that do encourage or more or less actually force women to bear lots of children.
I come from a culture that is very often ridiculed here in this forum, which doesn't bother me at all personally. It's ridiculed on such a broad scale that it's hard to find a public forum peopled with technically well educated people where ridicule isn't the NORM.
As religion goes, my own personal extended family is about as religious as they come in the USA. My nieces and nephews and third cousins, the children of my FIRST cousins, are having kids at less than the necessary 2.1 rate needed to maintain our blood lines, lol. My informal seat of the pants estimate is that the extended family birth rate is down to somewhere around one point five.
It's well known that the birth rate in some countries that are supposedly Catholic has fallen like a rock over the last couple of decades.
And while I can't prove it, it's my firm opinion that once the priesthood in any country comes to understand that it's own long term interests are best served by encouraging small families, small families WILL BE ENCOURAGED. That may not happen for another generation or so, and it may not happen at all in some countries, if there is no top down control of the culture and religion.
Priests and preachers don't exist to serve GOD, or any combinations of gods, etc. They exist because they have found a way to provide a secure and relatively easy way of living largely off the work of their followers.
This is not to say their followers don't get back as much or more as they contribute. Every society has to have leaders, and priests and preachers can be and have often been very effective leaders. Some of them are effective leaders today.First of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:31 pm
Really, I have never heard of that. The only superpredator I ever heard of are human beings. But if you can give an example of a species destroying its own food supply and habitat, please enlighten me.Humans on Easter island is the only thing that comes to my mind when thinking of such an example. I'm no expert on Easter island, however I understand people there did not go extinct, and that there was a small group living there when the island was found by Europeans. Again, not terribly well informed about that particular bit of history.Kathy C says: 12/02/2017 at 5:20 amWhen things begin to collapse the grid infrastructure will collapse. Coal factories in China and elsewhere will shut down and dimming will end. James Hansen estimated that warming may be held back by 50% by dimming, so we can expect warming to shoot up. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdfSurvivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:34 pm
When the grid collapses the nuclear power plants will no longer be able to be cooled. We know what happens then. This article addresses that happening from solar flares or emp attack but of course the failure of the grid from civilization collapse would do the same thing http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400-chernobyls-solar-flares-electromagnetic-pulses-and-nuclear-armageddon
With collapses of civilization their will be no remediation of forest fires. Chemical and Nuclear Dumps will burn as well as the nuclear power plants that have gone Fukushima.
A very underappreciated study is that of decaying leaves around Chernobyl While horses and other wildlife might now roam around Chernobyl the implications of leaves not decaying is enormous. "However, there are even more fundamental issues going on in the environment. According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers -- organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay -- have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem."
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/
To just state that humans wouldn't disappear is nothing more than an assertion, as is stating that they would certainly disappear. However what faces humans is much more daunting than just the chaos of civilization collapse. Those who survive everything else will have a hard time reproducing with all that radiation around https://chernobylguide.com/chernobyl_mutations/
Of course long before civilization collapses the countries of the world may well play out the scenario that Richard Heinberg describes – Last Man Standing. Sound like politics today?I suspect someone will bulldoze the nuclear power plants into the ocean before they let them melt down on land. Just a WAG.Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 9:13 amI posted this as a reply to a comment by GF a few threads back.Tom Welsh says: 11/29/2017 at 9:38 am
I highly recommend the following three ASU Origins Project debates and panel discussions to get a good feel for the big picture. It might take up a good four hours or so of your time. This isn't something suitable for sound bites. It involves a lot of in depth cross disciplinary knowledge.
Great Debate: Transcending Our Origins – Violence, Humanity, and the Future
Great Debate: Extinctions – Tragedy to Opportunity
Conversation: Inconvenient Truths – From Love to Extinctions
Maybe we are all royally fucked already but I also recommend E.O. Wilson's book 'Half Earth'.
Cheers!"Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had a cause, that someone or some group of people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into".Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 10:34 am
I would like to suggest, respectfully, that this wording is the wrong way around. The essence of the problem is that no one has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility – and that is hardly changing at all.
The world is teeming with governments, corporations, NGOs, and "leaders" of all kinds. But what are all those leaders, and their estimable organizations, really trying to do? Some are aiming to earn as much money as possible. Others are trying amass as much power as possible. Most of their programmes have a lot to do with gaining more money and power – which become interchangeable at a certain point (as can be seen from a study of the US Congress, for example).
An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces.Tom, I think my wording was correct, you just did not quote all of my explanation. You wrote:Joe Clarkson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:20 pm
The essence of the problem is that no one has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility
No one can take responsibility because no one is in charge of the human race. And as far as being "profoundly unintelligent", I think that is an unfair charge. Having a blind spot in our DNA does not imply that we are unintelligent. The human race has never been faced with such a dilemma before. Our brains evolved to its present state during our hunter-gatherer days. We are molded by evolution to do everything possible to survive and reproduce. There is nothing in our DNA that tells us to protect the biosphere because the lives of our grandchildren depend upon it. So we don't.
What is happening is just human nature. That's all.What is happening is just human nature.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:10 pm
Evolution has resulted in all species, including humans, having a biotic potential that is greater than the carrying capacity of the niches in which they live. Populations are limited by resource limits and predation, not by self restraint or mutual agreement.
It would have been very unusual, perhaps unique in evolutionary history, for humans to have deliberately limited our population, even though it might have been theoretically possible due to our 'intelligent' ability to foresee our probable future. Despite Malthus, Limits to Growth and many other warnings, no realistic attempt has been made to remain below carrying capacity.
As you note, a massive die-off is inevitable, the only real question is when. Like The Cunning Linguist, I personally think it will be whenever people lose confidence in the global monetary system, as in Korowicz's "Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse". Once money stops flowing so does the food supply.Hi Joe,Joe Clarkson says: 11/29/2017 at 9:29 pm
What would cause this rejection of the monetary system? I don't follow the argument. Everyone decides at once that money is no longer a reasonable medium of exchange. Didn't happen during any financial crisis so far, people couldn't access their money at Banks after the 1929 crash, but this was less of a problem in OECD nations during the GFC.
The ETP nonsense is just that, anyone who knows their thermodynamics knows that theory is full of holes.Didn't happen during any financial crisis so farDennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:07 pm
No, but we did come close in 2008. All sorts of debt instruments including commercial paper, CDOs (the root of the problem), many derivatives and letters of credit all froze up. Without prompt dramatic action by the central banks and the US Treasury, the financial system could have collapsed. Nobody knew who was solvent or insolvent, so the central banks had to backstop every financial institution. All this over some mortgage securities based on the US housing market.
Now imagine that growth has turned to continuous worldwide economic recession, the inevitable fate of the global market economy in the face of energy and resource depletion ( it will happen despite the stupidity of the Hill's Group). Unemployment increases year after year and tax revenues continuously fall. Every kind of debt instrument, from sovereign debt to mortgages, to municipal and corporate bonds is more and more likely never to be repaid. Defaults are increasing with greater and greater frequency. The equities of every company become suspect as more and more companies go under.
Sooner or later, a critical mass of people are going to realize that most debts can never be repaid and are therefore worthless as assets. Since almost all money is created from debt, almost all money becomes worthless.
The only thing that makes money work is confidence in its value. When confidence in money (debt repayment) fails, the monetary system fails and without a monetary system, the global market fails.
Billions of lives are dependent on that market functioning smoothly every day. When it fails to function, people will die. I fully expect to lose every financial asset I own at some point, that's why I am preparing to live without money. Unfortunately, most people in the developed world can't do that, though they should be trying to do so with utmost urgency.
I admit that if there were a concerted international effort to declare a debt jubilee and start all over with a new world currency, some form of monetary system might continue after the present one collapses, but I really doubt that creditor countries and debtor countries are going to cooperate with the rapidity and solidarity needed to manage such a transition.
And even though all the productive assets in the world would still continue to exist after a financial collapse, without a market to mediate their interconnected function, everything would grind to a halt. I don't see an international command economy taking over either. That would be harder than creating a whole new monetary system.
The global market economy is very complicated and very fragile. I certainly wouldn't trust my family's life to something that could collapse virtually overnight and neither should you.Hi Joe,Joe Clarkson says: 11/30/2017 at 6:32 pm
There are a lot of if's in your scenario, any of which if broken makes the conclusion invalid.
I suppose it is possible that all of those things could happen, just as it is possible that a large asteroid will strike the planet.
I choose not to concern myself with very low probability events.
Pretty sure neither of us will convince the other. If you are convinced buy some good farm land and maybe gold, guns, lead, and gun powder.
Probably even better, find a nice community somewhere.
Note that as long as governments are willing to intervene in the economy when necessary, the system is much more resilient than you believe.
The biggest risk to the Global financial system would be free market fundamentalism where government intervention is never invoked.
I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in your argument.
This assumes what you are trying to prove.I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in your argument.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 1:14 pm
Well, I can't imagine how the global market economy and industrial civilization are going to have a steady state economy forever at present levels of production and affluence. Overshoot means eventual retrenchment and die-off.
Up-thread you estimated the carrying capacity of the earth at around 500 million people. You obviously expect to gracefully reach that level (in 2300!) through birth control while still maintaining current standards of living.
I expect that we will reach that population, or fewer, due to complications from resource-depletion-caused economic failure (famine, war, pandemic). There simply isn't enough energy available to make the transition you desire without also destroying the climate, even if there were the political will to do so, which there isn't.
I suggest looking at the history of the last 100 years to decide which future is more probable. Humanity has had the ability to create a high technology, steady-state civilization with sustainable population levels for over a century, but has failed to do so. There is still no evidence that we are serious about making the attempt now. I wonder why you can believe that such a thing will happen at a time when the resources to make it happen will be declining rapidly. Continuous world-wide recession is a certainty and unless you are very old, you will live to see it.
And as far as your suggestions for prepping go, my family has already got it's lifeboat ready in a rural tropical community. I've got the productive land, the community and the guns. I don't expect to rely on gold at all. To my mind, the best durable trade items are ammo, fishing equipment and livestock.
If raising my own food and living without money is necessary, I can do it. If your eco-modernist utopia magically appears, I won't be disappointed, or regret one iota of the 'unnecessary' preparations I will have made, but I prefer to err on the side of prudence.Hi Joe,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:51 am
I don't expect to live forever and as I said don't plan ahead for scenarios I believe have a very low probability of occurring. As fossil fuel resources become scarce they will become more expensive and we will use them more carefully (or efficiently). There has been no need to do so for the past 100 years as they have been relatively cheap and abundant. There will be enough energy from Wind, solar, hydro, and perhaps nuclear to make the transition, as fossil fuel becomes expensive these will be produced as they will become cheaper alternatives. Much of freight traffic can be moved to rail, which can be electrified, moving goods from rail to factory or store can be done on overhead wires on main roads with EV used for the last few miles.
Also keep in mind that fossil fuels by nature are quite inefficient in producing electricity with about 60% of the energy wasted, for heating systems compared to heat pumps there is also higher energy use. The transition to non-fossil fuels will result in about one third the energy use for the same exergy (or work and useful heat) provided.
I make no assumptions about living standards being maintained, perhaps the transition will be very difficult and living standards in the OECD will decrease while living standards in less developed nations increase. Note that declining population will reduce resource pressure and realization of resource limits (as will be clear from fossil fuel scarcity) by the majority of citizens may lead to changes in social behavior.
Also note that we have only been aware of the climate problem for about 38 years (using Charney report in 1979 as the starting point).
If fossil fuels are very limited (say 1200 Pg C emissions from 1800-2100) then climate change might be less of a problem, but this will still be adequate for a transition to non-fossil fuels. Even 1000 Pg of total carbon emissions from all anthropogenic sources (including fossil fuel, cement and land use change) may be adequate for an energy transition, though it will need to begin in earnest in the next 5 to 10 years, the sooner we begin the easier it will be to accomplish."What is happening is just human nature. That's all."alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 6:07 pm
I posted a long rant down thread trying to get this across to people who somehow think we are DEFECTIVE because we don't collectively behave more rationally, hoping to get it across in terms that are intelligible to those of us who have HEARD of evolution, but never actually studied it for more than an hour or two at the most.Nonsense, this is just Libertarian propaganda, which is actually a fake religion invented by real estate investors in the fifties in a political catfight to avoid rent control legislation. It has now widen to some kind of pseudo-Darwinistic hocus pocus, but it ignores the obvious fact that we became the world's dominant species be collaboration and long term thinking.Hickory says: 12/02/2017 at 12:02 am
We're doomed if we don't get along with each other, and lots of propaganda is pushing you to believe we never have or could, and never can or will. But that doesn't make it true.aren't all religions fake (fabrications)?Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:42 pmThat's a pretty narrow view of libertarianism.Phil Stevens says: 12/02/2017 at 2:56 pm
What you say is perhaps relevant to contemporary versions of libertarianism in USA, however it goes back a bit further than the 50's.
It's worth noting there are left wing libertarian models also.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismI'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race. In "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" (Yale, 2017), James C. Scott demonstrates fairly convincingly that humans actively avoided adopting grain-based agriculture because the labor:reward tradeoff was far less satisfactory than what could be obtained through hunting and gathering. The accumulation of surplus, and presumably the insurance a surplus would provide against yearly fluctuations in food supply, in other words, was an insufficient motivation for humans to give up hunting and gathering. As Scott documents quite clearly, this refusal to adopt agriculture as the basis of the human economy persisted for more than 5,000 years in Mesopotamia, and much longer elsewhere.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 5:00 pm
So what caused the shift? Alas, Scott fails to explore this in any detail. (Just one of the many weaknesses of the book, which nevertheless manages to make its central argument very well.)
I will speculate that what caused the change was the coming-together of a sufficiently large number (five? a dozen? who knows?) of individuals who lacked the ability to feel remorse, shame, or compassion, and who were motivated purely by a desire to enrich and empower themselves. Modern psychology calls these types psychopaths. I suggest that it was these individuals who, likely with help from others with the related disorder of sadism (see recent research on "the dark tetrad"), were first able to subjugate (Scott uses the very apposite term "domesticate") human communities and force them to labor on the land to produce a surplus, which of course then could be appropriated by the psychopaths and their henchmen.
I am not aware of anyone else who has advanced the notion that civilization was founded by psychopaths and sadists. But recent psychological research (popularized in books such as Babiak and Hare, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work") suggest that psychopaths are four times more commonly represented in upper management than in the population as a whole, so it seems plausible to me, at least, that the project of civilization and its attendant destruction of the ecosphere has been, from its inception, forced upon humanity by a small minority.Phil, thanks for a great post. I have no doubt that psychopaths have had a great influence on civilization. Many great leaders were no doubt psychopaths. Hitler and Stalin come to mind. However, not all of them were psychopaths. Rosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, and many other U.S. presidents were not psychopaths. Neither was Churchill or Gandhi.Phil Stevens says: 12/03/2017 at 4:56 pm
However, your original sentence was: I'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race. So I kept reading, waiting for you to tell us just who was in charge of the human race. Of course you did not do that.Fair enough, Ron.Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 12:24 pm
My short answer to your question would be to ask "Cui bono?" Doubtless not everyone who reaps the most benefit from the biocidal trajectory of late capitalism is dominated by one or more of the traits of the Dark Tetrad, of course. Some of us might even be able to argue plausibly that we were unaware of the consequences of our actions. But even though late capitalist society is sufficiently robust that it continues to work out its internal logic without a lot of direct guidance by the dark few, I doubt it would last long without their presence among the wealthy and powerful classes. If their interventions on behalf of the killing machine could be eliminated, my guess is that dismantling the machine would be a much easier project.
Ultimately, it's the ones in positions of power who manifest the traits of the Dark Tetrad whose interventions are critical to maintaining the status quo. If anyone can be said to rule the earth, it's them.An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:04 am
That is my view as well! Though some like E.O. Wilson argue that we have evolved into an eusocial species and can at least in theory function as a hive or termite mound. Where the collective intelligence emerges and even though the individual ants or bees are stupid the anthill is an entity unto itself is smart and knows how to defend itself. See also Douglas Hofstader and Daniel Dennett's book, 'The Mind's I', Chapter 11 titled Prelude Ant Fugue.
Also check out Curtis Marean's talk at the end of Inconvenient Truths – From Love to Extinctions from the link I provided above from the ASU origins debates. He specifically makes that analogy about aliens, in his talk.
Marean is a professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the associate director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. He is interested in the relation between climate and environmental change and human evolution, both for its significance as a force driving past human evolution, and as a challenge to be faced in the near future. Curtis has focused his career on developing field and laboratory teams and methods that tap the synergy between the disciplines to bring new insights to old scientific problems. He has spent over 20 years doing fieldwork in Africa, and conducting laboratory work on the field-collected materials, with the goal of illuminating the final stages of human evolution – how modern humans became modern." Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces."George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:04 pm
Such an organ would be very costly, in terms of depriving humanity of the energy and resources devoted to it, depriving us of the use of these resources for other purposes.
Evolution doesn't create organs that will be useful in dealing with new circumstances, by plan, ahead of time, except by accident. It's just a "lucky accident" FOR US TODAY that our own ancestors evolved hands capable of grasping things such as branches .. which set the stage for us to be able later on to grasp a stone and use it as a hammer or weapon.
No planning is involved. NONE. Various deists who accept the reality of evolution but still believe in higher powers disagree of course.
I can't prove they are wrong. I don't believe anybody else can. All we can do is demonstrate that they have no evidence that such higher powers exist.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, lol.I doubt if "intelligent" aliens are any different than we are – and therefore probably have a very short life expectancy should they ever get to an industrial age – evolution can only work from one generation to the next and is therefore incompatible with longer term planning for species longevity.Steve says: 11/29/2017 at 2:25 pm"It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only." – Sir Fred HoyleRon Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 3:19 pmThanks for posting this Hoyle quote Steve. I have read it before, many times. And the truth of it is so obvious. All the things that have enabled this wonderful abundant life will soon be gone. Then what?Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:02 pmHi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 5:58 pm
We recycle what we can, we use less of scarce resources as prices rise and we try to find substitutes for resources as they become scarce. Also population will fall as TFR falls (with a time lag due to population momentum) putting less pressure on resources.
None of this will be easy, and perhaps not possible, hard to predict the future.Dennis, Hoyle here, is talking about long-term. Recycle or not, we will run out of all fossil fuels and eventually all metals. However, recyclig will help, in the short term anyway.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 6:27 pm
No, we cannot really predict the future. All we can do is look at what is happening right now and say: "If this continues ." And Dennis, it will continue. Human nature may be changed by evolution. But that will take many generations and tremendous evolutionary pressure. So right now, human nature being what it is, we can predict that collapse is just down the road. Just how far down the road is what we are trying to figure out right now.Ron, if we look at the apparent numbers, say of many species, collapse appears already here, just that the shockwave hasn't hit yet. Remember, if you see an explosion in the distance, it takes awhile to hit.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 11:51 amHi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 12:10 pm
Yes some things will continue and others will not.
For example fossil fuel output has grown pretty steadily in absolute terms (about 163 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year from 1981 to 2016) and I expect that will change (it will not continue).
The total fertility ratio has decreased at about 1.38% per year from 1965 to 2015, but I expect this will continue until the World TFR approaches the high income nation average of about 1.75 (which would be reached in 2040 if the 1965-2015 rate of decrease continues).
There may be more fossil fuels available than either of us think, but if my medium scenarios are correct there may be enough fossil fuel to enable a transition to non-fossil fuel, then we just need to deal with other depleting resources.
Note that the fact that fossil fuels have peaked and declined (which should be apparent by 2035 at the latest), may enable people to realize that this will be true for every scarce resource and perhaps we will plan ahead and recycle, and use resources more efficiently.
Much of this is a matter of education.
Perhaps the meaning of soon we use differently.
When you say "will soon be gone." Can you define soon in years.
The sun will eventually destroy all life on Earth, but not "soon", as I define it.Well, perhaps I should not have said "gone". There will always be trace amounts of everything left. And nothing will suddenly disappear. There will be a decline curve for everything. But let's deal with the one with the least future abundance, oil. I believe we are at peak oil right, or very near it anyway. The bumpy plateau may last from 5 to 10 years. Then the decline curve will be much steeper than the ascent.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 1:26 pm
That's about the best answer I can ive you.Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:01 pm
Let's assume for the moment you are correct and the peak is either now or next month and we remain on plateau for a year or two.
What happens to the price of oil?
Let's assume that you agree that unless there is a severe World recession in the next year or two that oil prices are likely to rise.
What happens it oil output if oil prices rise to say $100/b or more?
Eventually I expect output will reach a peak no matter how high oil prices rise, I just disagree it will be at the current level of output.
Can you define your limits for the "bumpy plateau" (high and low 12 month average output level)?
If the limits were 80 to 85 Mb/d, then we would agree and I would say we may be on a bumpy plateau between 80 and 85 Mb/d for 10 years or so.
I suspect you may expect output to remain below 81 or 82 Mb/d (World 12 month average C+C output).Dennis, you must be familiar with the phrase "You cannot get blood from a turnip". High prices will not create more oil in the ground. We will most definitely have higher prices but they will be high because we have reached the peak. So, $100 oil will not create a higher peak.Dennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 10:37 am
Just my guess but I believe the plateau will average less than 82 million bpd.Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/03/2017 at 2:49 pm
So could you define your "bumpy plateau"?
Is it a trailing 12 month average of between 80 and 82 Mb/d?
I imagine we will break above 82 Mb/d in 2018 if oil prices are over $65/b (Brent in 2016$) for the annual average in 2016.
For the most recent 12 months (EIA data) ending August 2017 we are at 80.93 Mb/d.
In the low price environment since 2015 the trend in World output is an annual increase of 280 kb/d. This rate of increase is likely to double (at minimum) with oil prices over $80/b, which would bring us to 82 Mb/d by 2019 or 2020, perhaps this will be as high a output rises, but my guess is that there is a 50% probability that output will continue to rise above this and perhaps a 25% probability it may reach 85 Mb/d around 2025.I thought I did that Dennis. I the bumpy plateau will average about 82 million barrels per day or less. There could be spikes and dips and it will last from 2 to as much as 10 years. But when it heads down, it will do so with a vengeance.alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 6:11 pmBlah, nobody needs coal or oil in the long run, and metal is never "gone" unless you shoot into space or a fission reactor.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 7:03 pm
For every obvious problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H. L- MenckenJesus H. Fucking Christ, how fucking stupid can one person be?OFM says: 11/29/2017 at 6:17 pmHi Steve,Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 6:47 pm
I will have a lot to say later on tonight.
For now, all I have to say is that while Sir Fred forgot more about astronomy than I have or ever have even DREAMED of knowing, he didn't know shit from apple butter about biological evolution . not even as much as a good student in a good public high school after finishing one high school level course in biology.
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein."
It's very common for people who are great experts, sometimes even renowned experts at the very peak of their professions, to make fools of themselves talking about subjects of which they know less than nothing.
Hoyle is the best single example I know of and the one I use most often to point out this very common shortcoming.
For what it's worth, he would be RIGHT if the problem were the one of having a gazillion monkeys typing at random and one of them eventually turning out Romeo and Juliet, correct to the last letter.
That involves getting every letter right in one try.
Evolution doesn't work that way. It's more like a poker game, in which you can discard cards you don't want, and keep the ones you do, until you have a GREAT hand.
In a real poker game, discarding is usually limited to two rounds, but in real life and evolution, the number of rounds is literally unlimited, the same as the number of generations. If you have two pairs, you can keep on discarding until EVENTUALLY , assuming all the discards go back into the deck, you have a full house. And given time enough, you could discard your pair, and eventually have four of a kind.
YOU DON'T usually throw away a pair of aces, lol, even in a game that allows you to ask for a redeal if you have no more than a pair.
Evolution is a blind, and runs on random chance, at the individual level and generational level, but at the species level, it's a blind BUILDER, one that generally retains what works from one generation to the next, and builds on it. Over time .. lots of time, usually.
But significant evolutionary change can happen in very quickly, in terms of evolutionary time. House flies evolved resistance to DDT within the space of a single generation of humans, lol.
Biologists work with time on roughly the same scale as geologists and astronomers, counting in billions of years. It's quite possible that life originated not too long after the first stars evolved to the point that the heavier elements were first created from lighter ones.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:41 pm
"I will have a lot to say later on tonight." ~ OFM
LOLHoyle, IMHO, is a closet Cabbage for Christ.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 8:30 pmHightrekker's Alpine Garden of Eden RestaurantHightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:26 am
~ Menu ~
• Talking Snake Au Jus (So fresh, you can almost hear it hissing!)
• BBQ Rib-Woman's Ribs
• Stuffed Cabbages for Christ
• Wing Pawn Garlic Prawns
• Apple Pie A La Mode (So sinful, one bite and you will be cast out of Eden, after you pay your bill.)
• Tree of Knowledge Crepe Flambé (Ask about our Summer Forest Fire special!)
• Adam's Fruit Cobbler
• The Blood of Christ
• Holy Water Cider
• Milk of Holy CowYum!Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 8:10 pmStop the presses! I forgot theSurvivalist says: 12/01/2017 at 10:19 pm
• Cider-Marinated Free Range Chicken Wing Pawn Platter for Two
BTW, I just began my first ever apple cider home brew, Nov 30th . (I actually tried making sauerkraut ages ago.)
What I did was buy half a liter of fresh-pressed raw organic apple juice, and then added the peel of an organic apple to it for a wild yeast innoculation, and closed up top with a simple cellophane wrap and elastic with a toothpick-prick hole on top for ventilation
I used these instructions and accompanying YouTube video, Eat The Weeds, episode 9.
So now the bottle is just hanging out in one of my lower kitchen cupboards, and we'll see what happens. (Does it need light?)
I'll try to let POB know if it works and I get a good batch or if it throws a bad one and I have to start over. I am unsure what a good or bad batch is supposed to taste like, but I guess if it's tasty, then it's good.My fav post that you made was a link to some great riot porn! Oh man that made my dayCaelan MacIntyre says: 12/02/2017 at 8:30 pmHi Survivalist, glad you enjoyed it.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:52 pm
Frank Lopez's Sub.Media channel, (which is probably where I sourced the riot-porn-in-question from), its videos, have been picked up by PeakOil.com, incidentally.
I'll admit that some of the riot porn was a bit dubious with regard to its 'methodical randomness', but it could be from the younger 'anarchists' who may be still learning. That's perhaps also why some of the Antifa members have sometimes gotten criticized for their (apparent misplaced or misapplied) 'violence' tactics.
The image is of the cider in question– about one litre. With the unwashed organic apple peel in it as the only yeast 'starter', it's supposed to take 2 to 3 weeks to start bubbling. The pin you see is to pop the hole in the plastic when it starts doing so.
If it throws a good flavour, I intend on keeping the yeast, and innoculating some more juice but also some kind of straight-up water-and-honey or sugar mixture and see if I can get pure alcohol or 'mead' or something like that from it, using freeze distillation (a 'jack'). (And yes, I am aware of the methanol issue, but apparently, it is not a big deal at this scale/amount, although I'll recheck it to be sure.) (You can of course select the image for a larger image popup.)
If, when or as the 'trucks stop running', we may want– and have– to look into more local/home-brewing and other locally-/homemade things of course. So we might as well start sooner rather than later.
Once upon a time I provided health services to inmates in a prison. Generally speaking I liked the inmates better than the guards, who for the most part were men who had wanted to become cops but were too stupid to pass selection. I met some real brewmasters (inmates) working that gig. Good luck with the brew.Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:00 pmInteresting line of work, Survivalist, and thanks, fingers crossedPaulo says: 11/29/2017 at 10:36 amUp early today and lit the shop woodstove; just waiting for light to get on with my day which always starts (after chores) with my dog and I going for a walk.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 11:10 am
Ron, I do not disagree with your post or comments, with the exception of when population will peak and the aspect/timing of social disruption?
On this morning wait for daylight I have been reading various blog sites with CNN ticking over in the background. Maybe it is the speed of the news cycle and my being used to the insanity of what is being reported, but today, after seeing the Trump tweets on Muslim Violence (film clips), the so-called tax plan, sexual misconducts, the recent reports on KSA, Yemen, Syria, and what is ramping up concerning North Korea, I think we are at a crux right now. I think there will be a Market collapse and war; perhaps global in scale. Further to that I don't see any desire or mechanism for defusing tensions or a way to recall the situation.
I am 62 and was a kid during a recent/last big social reset. I had older sibs and parents who moved us north to Canada in '68 because they had had enough. My WW2 veteran parents proclaimed they had seen enough to be afraid, and sold out to start over and build new lives. While I was thinking about it, and your post, I realized that in today's situation there are no simple answers and not really any places to run to. It seems different because of the population numbers and armaments, plus the willingness of people to pretend it's just 'tribal/crooked politics as usual'. Then, I thought about photographs and how a few catapulted us into rapid change last century. Certainly, the haunted faces of the Dust Bowl sparked a move towards reform. Images from the south and the stories of the KKK perhaps Rosa Parks herself helped galvanize the Civil Rights Movement. For me, the image of the young lady holding the dead student at Kent State, (her anguish), the burning Monk and young girl coated with napalm coupled with the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident pushed me into cynicism; so much that I was not surprised about the non-existent WMD of Iraq.
Perhaps it won't be an image, or story that we look back to as a turning point. Maybe it will be a tweet. Maybe it will be the Market collapse or a premptive attack on North Korea that sets everything in motion. I just think we are loaded and tamped down like a pipe bomb ready to blow.
I do not think we will continue to grow in population until 2050. I think it could start to unravel pretty fast and any day. I don't see any step back from war(s) in either the ME, or Korea.
From Wiki: (just one event that pales alongside today's triggers)
"Just five days after the shootings, 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., against the war and the killing of unarmed student protesters. Ray Price, Nixon's chief speechwriter from 1969 to 1974, recalled the Washington demonstrations saying, "The city was an armed camp. The mobs were smashing windows, slashing tires, dragging parked cars into intersections, even throwing bedsprings off overpasses into the traffic down below. This was the quote, student protest. That's not student protest, that's civil war." Not only was Nixon taken to Camp David for two days for his own protection, but Charles Colson (Counsel to President Nixon from 1969 to 1973) stated that the military was called up to protect the administration from the angry students; he recalled that "The 82nd Airborne was in the basement of the executive office building, so I went down just to talk to some of the guys and walk among them, and they're lying on the floor leaning on their packs and their helmets and their cartridge belts and their rifles cocked and you're thinking, 'This can't be the United States of America. This is not the greatest free democracy in the world. This is a nation at war with itself.'"
I apologize if this seems North American centric; and in blinders. I wish to reiterate that our population numbers, plus increasing divide and disparity, proliferation of weapons and intolerance, coupled with environmental degradation and Climate Change, makes this much much worse. It's a gun waiting for a trigger, imho.Yes, things are pretty bad. But things were bad during the Kent State/Nixon era. Yet we survived.Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 11:34 am
It has been my experience, following this biosphere destruction for many years now, that people who see and understand the destruction, almost always expect things to fall apart real soon. They never do.
I once spent several months as a stockbroker. One thing I learned during that period was a truth about insider traders. That is traders who trade the stock of the company they work for. They see things happening inside their company and expect it to cause great trouble or great profit. They are almost always right and almost always way too early with their predictions. Things just never seem to happen as fast as they expected.
We, you and I and a few others, are insiders to this problem that I have described in my above post. We know something terrible is going to happen. But most of us expect it to happen way before it actually will happen.
An example is "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. I think he was spot on, but things just did not happen as fast as he expected. I hope to avoid his mistake.Yep, Ron, and we need to be careful about saying "this time is different". Perhaps we need a list of things that really are different this time.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 1:16 pm
One that should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that, in the late 60s, US debt to GDP was in the mid 30% range. It is now over 100% according to a number of sources. As Gail T. is wont to say, unservicable debt will likely be the trigger that results in a cascading failure of financial systems, and everything else is likely to follow. In short, our financial house of cards has grown three-fold in 50 years, as the global reserve currency is tagged to nothing.Hi Ghung,Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 1:28 pm
I think the debt problem is a little overblown.
Now people use debt differently sometimes implying "total debt" and sometimes "public debt" and sometimes "central government debt".
Which one are you talking about?
I don't read Tverberg's stuff.
Looking at your numbers and the link below
it seems you are talking about total US federal government debt.
They have been over 100% debt to GDP since 1999 and have been around 200% since 2014.
If Japan has collapsed, I missed it.
Note that I agree with the idea that when the US economy is doing well (which at present is the case), that paying down debt is a better idea than reducing taxes. I would raise taxes if anything ( a carbon tax would be ideal) and reduce the deficit to less than zero and pay down the debt.
Or just balance the budget and let economic growth reduce the debt to GDP ratio.The figures I posted only include US government (National) debt. Total US debt (public+private) is, of course, much higher.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 4:49 pm
US National debt currently around $20.5 trillion.
US GDP for 2016 per the World Bank was $18,569,100.00
As for Japan, most of what they owe is to themselves while they own a lot of that US debt, above. Japan also uses the carry trade to stay afloat.
I only posted this as being one of the things that is different about our situation ~50 years ago. People can make of it what they will. I personally think it is significant since the world runs on credit. No credit, no growth.Hi Ghung,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:17 am
Hard to imagine no credit.
Also in the 1960s there was less borrowing by the government (so less credit) and higher growth rates (at least in the US) than today.
In the old days there was concern the government would "crowd out" private debt, as if there was some fixed amount of debt the system could sustain and the system always remained at this maximum debt level.
Instead it seems the system had room for higher levels of debt as government debt as increased, but there is little evidence of "crowding out". There may be some maximum debt level that an economy can sustain and Japan may be there. Also note that 50 years ago debt was at fairly low levels, but in 1946 Debt to GDP was 118% of GDP, rapid economic growth from 1946 to 1974 reduced this debt to GDP to 31%, by 1992 it was at 61%, and in 2016 it was 105%.
Strange that the Republicans want to raise the debt higher by cutting taxes, this made sense when the economy was doing poorly during the Obama years and the aftermath of the GFC.
I agree debt could become a problem and would be worried if central government debt to GDP was 200% (as in Japan).
I also don't buy into the unfunded liabilities argument, laws change and governments don't always fulfill their promises, that is just a fact of life.Personally I believe Tverberg is a person who has discovered a niche she can exploit and is making a living out of it. I had the pleasure of seeing her make her canned presentation at a conference once, where all the presentations were repeated several times over for three days so the entire attending crowd could see them all.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:25 am
If you ask her a real question, she seizes up like a deer in headlights. She knows some elementary level stuff that is worth some thought, in the case of people who know little or nothing about the overall economy and environment.
Her answer in the case of a real question is the same answer you get from a politician who doesn't WANT to answer. She just pretends you asked a DIFFERENT question, and provides a stock answer to THAT question.
She doesn't have anything to say worth listening to , in terms of the level of understanding of the contributing members of this forum.Being a Cabbage for Christ and a AGW Denier doesn't exactly lend credibility to her work.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 9:06 pmShe denies AGW?doomphd says: 12/03/2017 at 4:18 amShe does not deny AGW. She just doesn't think the effects of AGW are going to be our biggest problem going forward, especially if we run low on fossil fuel flows in the near future.Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:02 pmOk, thanks for the clarification.Nathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pmUK government debt to GDP was well over 400% for decades running; it was never a problem. Don't worry about it. Government debt is not really debt, it's actually money.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 4:54 pmHi Nathanael,Paulo says: 11/29/2017 at 1:39 pm
When was that?
Oh I see high debt but not 400%
It was over 160% from 1925 to 1952, maybe that's what you mean.Good point on the rate. I remember my grade 11 Social Studies teacher talking to me after class in 1972. One of our class texts was The Population Bomb. He expected to see, in his lifetime, a collapse of sorts. When I asked him to expand further he described small scale gardens/farms of no more the 2 acres. The primary machinery used would be walk-behind tractors.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:49 pm
I smiled at the memory when I bought my BCS walk-behind ten years ago. I smile every spring when I till the gardens. I still think he was right, just off on the timing (just like I was when I got out of stocks several years ago and put my money in term deposits.)
The older I get, the less I understand. I take comfort in knowing my Dad wouldn't get it, either.I thought Ehrlich's book "The Dominant Animal"was fairly well measured, and generally in line with the post above (I haven't read the population bomb).Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:44 pmEhrlich underestimated the Green Revolution and Haber/Bosch factor that was really upping food production at the time.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:39 am
Ultimately, he will be proven right.I met Ehrlich personally when he visited Va Tech sometime around 1972. Visiting scholars often have smaller seminar meetings after making their presentation to the larger U community, which he did. Not many people attended the particular seminar I participated in , probably less than a couple of dozen. I was taking some ag courses there at the time, and enjoyed a long conversation with him.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:54 am
You're dead on. He badly underestimated what we farmers could do, and are still doing, given the necessary industrial support system that keeps industrial level agriculture humming.
Sooner or later . We are going to have to deal with the Population Bomb. The resources we are devoting to industrial ag aren't going to last forever. Neither are nature's one time gifts of soil and water so long as we are in overshoot.
I was head over heels in love with a milk and corn fed girl from Ohio and we were about ready to join the Peace Corp or something along that line, and go someplace and save the people in some backwards community by teaching them how to farm the American way all day and enjoy each other all night of course.
But one of my crusty and profane old professors took me aside and asked me if I really wanted to go to XXXXX and teach starving people how to produce twice as much food so that twice as many of them would starve a generation down the road.
HE was right about the increase in production just resulting in more mouths to feed . back then. Since then, things have changed dramatically . in SOME countries.
There are good reasons to believe that birth rates may fall dramatically within the next decade or two in at least some of the countries that still have exploding populations. Maybe a few of them will manage to avoid starvation on the grand scale long enough for their populations to stabilize and decline.
It's too late for falling birth rates to prevent famine on the grand scale in a hell of a lot of places.Hi Old Farmer Mac,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 2:51 pm
Let's assume Ron's prediction of 2050 for a peak in World population at around 9 Billion is correct (this seems a very reasonable guess to me).
Also assume for the moment the grain is freely traded throughout the World with few barriers to trade (tariffs and outright bans).
Are you suggesting that it is likely that World food output will not be adequate to feed the World under this scenario?
Typically famine results from war and food supply not being able to be safely transported to those in need, at least in the past 50 years or so.
Do you expect this to change before 2070?Hi Dennis,Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 11:25 am
I'm going to answer twice, lol.
First off, do I think it's technically possible that we can feed a population that peaks around nine billion a few decades down the road?
This answer depends on how well energy supplies and the overall world economy holds up, with some wild cards thrown in relating to climate, depletion of certain critical resources such as fresh water and minerals such as easily mined phosphate rock, etc.
New technology and the reactions of the people to it will also play a big role.The role played by governments local to national to international will be critical, and huge, because only governments will have power enough to FORCE some changes that may and probably will be necessary.
Here are a few examples.
It may be necessary to force well to do people aka the middle classes, to give up eating red meat for the most part, so that grain ordinarily fed to cattle and hogs can be diverted to human consumption.
(I expect rich people will still be able to get a ribeye or pork chop any time by buying up ration tickets, or buying on the black market, or paying an exorbitant consumption tax, or any combination of these strategies.)
Fuels, especially motor fuels, may be tightly rationed, so that enough will be available to run farms and food processing and distribution industries.
Large numbers of people may be paid or coerced into going to work on farms or in community gardens or greenhouses.
A substantial fraction of the resources currently devoted to other needs or wants may have to be diverted to building sewage treatment infrastructure designed to capture and recycle the nutrients in human sewage.
I could go on all day.
Bottom line, I think that barring bad luck, it is technically possible that we can feed that many people that long, and for a while afterwards, as the population hopefully starts trending down.
As a practical matter, I don't think there WILL BE food enough for nine billion.
It's more likely in my opinion that some countries are going to come up desperately short of food, and be unable to beg, buy or steal it from other countries. Some people, and some countries, are likely to resort to taking food, and other resources of course by force from weaker neighbors .. maybe even "neighbors" on the far side of oceans.
I may be too pessimistic, but I'm one of the regulars here who think that climate change for the worse, much worse, is in the cards, and I spend a few hours every week reading history. Humans have always been ready to go to war, even without good reasons. A lot of people in desperate situations are going to see war as their best option, in my opinion, over the next half century.
Maybe my fellow Yankees will be willing to give up their burgers for beans so that kids in some far off country can eat. I'm not so sure we are compassionate enough to do so on the grand scale.Hi Hightrekker,Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 1:01 pm
If total fertility ratios continue to fall (for the World they fell from 5 in 1965 to 2.5 in 2015) about a 1.38% per year, there may be no catastrophic collapse.
If that average rate should continue for 16 years then World TFR would be at 2 (below replacement level) by 2031. If the rate of decrease in TFR experienced from 1965 to 2015 continues for 35 years (to 2050), the TFR for the World would be 1.54 in 2050.
Based on UN data from 2015, 65% of the World's population had a weighted average TFR (weighted by population) of 2.05, but a more sophisticated calculation using estimates of the population of Women of child bearing age I have not done, I simply used total population to weight the TFR from each nation which implicitly assumes the age structure of each nation is identical which is clearly false.Dennis-Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 1:17 pm
We are adding 83 million per year to a already population in drastic overshoot.
The barn door is already open, and the horses are gone.Exactly! That's been my point from the very beginning. It is already way too late to fix things.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 7:41 pm
We have a predicament that must be dealt with, not a problem that can be solved.Bingo --alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 3:09 pm
We have a winner!Yeah, they shot white people. Can't have that. Nowadays the cops shoot three people on average every day in America. Nobody cares, life is cheap in America. Gun deaths are the price of freedom. Native Americans run about three times the risk of white folks, and black folks run about twice the risk.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 11:03 amIt is obvious that humans are the major drivers of extinction on the planet. We are in the Sixth Extinction event and we cause it directly and indirectly through our actions. the why is quite obvious, all species live to propagate and expand to their limits, our limits are global at this point and so are our effects. I don't see energy as much of a problem as there is plenty of it in various forms and we can obtain it if we want it. That however means continuing the high tech industrial form of civilization which we have embarked upon. Can that be made sustainable and much less harmful, even helpful? Of course it can, it's all about wise choices and thinking before we act instead of just going for profit.SRSrocco says: 11/29/2017 at 11:17 am
The loss of vertebrates is just horrible but the loss of invertebrates will be the undoing of our farming and food production and much of the other life that depends upon them. The loss of insect life due to global human generated poisoning of the environment, especially food production areas, will unwind much of the food production.
As collapse starts, the chaos of riots and crime will rise sharply. All those mentally ill and drug addicted people will no longer have their chemicals, causing a trigger point of violence and chaotic actions.
However the major fast cause of loss of human life will be disease. People forget how it was just a few generations ago before antibiotics. Diseases will spread rapidly among the weak and starving, public sanitation will fail causing more disease to spread. Clean water supplies will become absent, compromised or even purposely wrecked. Hospitals will fail because of both being overrun and the power will fail plus supplies will fail. Disease will grow and spread among both people and their animals. It could take less than a generation to drastically reduce the population of the species, with the resulting loss of knowledge, technical ability and industrial ability the cascade will go further.
In the bad case scenarios much of the infrastructure will burn putting up a cloud of aerosols and GHG's as well as causing a large toxic pulse to the environment.
But on the other side humans are very inventive and determined to continue the system that supports a huge population. So we may expand this time forward for quite a while, but only through smart choices and changing how we do things such as agriculture, industry and technology. Smart choices, not choices just for profit.
Just one example of our innovative and creative ability.
From sand to soil in 7 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stc5MUIloP0NOT TO WORRY .Doug Leighton says: 11/29/2017 at 11:21 am
Humans need not worry about the Falling EROI, the Falling Carrying Capacity or the degradation of the environment. Those no longer matter now that BITCOIN is now trading over $11,000.
Technology will solve all our problems and Bitcoin will make us all wealthy once again.
steveRon -- The full text of this paper in SCIENCE will cost you 15 bucks but in my opinion, is well worth it; below is the Abstract. Commenters are welcome to talk about educating women, etc. but its too late for Africa for the balance of this century. I have personally observed the situation in Central Africa where you can see a school each containing about 1,000 kids located at roughly one-kilometer intervals along all significant roads -- a lot of kids. Virtually all schools in Africa are run by churches (of all types), and you can guess what these guys are teaching about birth control: I've asked, and the answer is NOTHING. AFRICANS LOVE KIDS. And, health care has improved greatly over the past few decades meaning general health has been upgraded and infant mortality has been reduced greatly. In fact, I would say the bulk of the UN's efforts in Africa are directed towards improving general health at which they have been successful.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 11:39 am
Sorry for the inarticulate ramble but this is a rather personal interest of mine partly because our family is supporting a young girl in Uganda who will soon become a medical doctor. I had promised to stop commenting on the Blog but the African over population crisis issue is one dear to my heart.
WORLD POPULATION STABILIZATION UNLIKELY THIS CENTURY
"The United Nations recently released population projections based on data until 2012 and a Bayesian probabilistic methodology. Analysis of these data reveals that, contrary to previous literature, the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100. This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is expected to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also, the ratio of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently have young populations."
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 3:11 pm
I think you are about 237,500,000 too low with your estimate of world population. Well, that was as of a few minutes ago. It was 7,437,500,000 last time I checked.
World Population Clock
However, I think the UN is way off on their population projection. I believe that world population will reach 9 billion by 2050, just about a billion and a half above where it is now. However, I doubt it will ever go much above that. The UN, of course, is predicting no catastrophes. After all, that's not their job.The UN systematically underestimates the fall in birth rate associated with better education for women and their access to health care and contraceptives.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 11:43 amHere is the free pdf version of the paper"World population stabilizationDoug Leighton says: 11/29/2017 at 11:57 am
unlikely this century".
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/gerland.pdfThanks Fish!Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 12:49 pmHi Doug and Gonefishing,David Archibald says: 11/30/2017 at 2:06 am
The article inked below is also of interest (chart from the PDF).
My work suggests that the world runs out of more land that can be put under grain by 2035. This is mainly Brazil and Russia. Just about every country in Africa is importing grain now. Therefore most of their population growth has to be fed on imported grain. Most of the costs in producing grain are in energy so a rising oil price will have a leveraged effect on food prices.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 12:31 pmHi Doug,George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:10 pm
Glad you decided to comment.
Yes Africa is indeed a problem as far as population growth. With education and improved access to health care and internet access on smart phones, African women may become empowered and decide to control their fertility using modern birth control. The transition to lower fertility can happen in a generation.
As an anecdotal example, my family and my wife's averaged a Total fertility ratio (TFR) of 5.5 for the two families (close to the average sub-Saharan TFR), the next generation of 11 children in total had a total of 6 children for a TFR of about 1.1.
Unscientific and likely too optimistic, but not that different from what occurred in the upper middle income nations of the World (population about 2.4 billion in 2015) where TFR decreased from 4.93 in 1975 to 1.93 in 2000 a period of 25 years.
It is the low income nations that have lagged in reducing TFR, economic development is a key ingredient to getting population under control. Easier to say than to accomplish.
The article below is hopeful
I saw something similar on PBS
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/in-remote-kenyan-villages-solar-startups-bring-lightDennis – I guess this site is rightfully energy-centric but what's your view on the other limits that are showing up like potable water, top soil, phosphorus?Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 1:40 pmHi George,Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 5:44 pm
I think recycling human waste might help with top soil and phosphorus, though a Farmer would know more than me. I think recycling water from sewers can also be done and eventually the expansion of solar power may allow desalination of sea water.
In short, I think there are solutions to these issues, especially as we move to more sustainability (less beef production would help) and a peak in population as education levels improve would also help.
Some nations such as Iran have made amazing progress on their TFR, from 1990 to 2005 (15 years) the TFR fell from 5.62 to 1.97 and by 2015 it had fallen to 1.75.
African nations should find out what happened in Iran over that period and import some of the lessons learned.
Note that there are many examples of a rapid demographic transition, another is South Korea where total fertility ratio (TFR) decreased from 5.63 to 1.60 from 1965 to 1990 and in 2015 had fallen to 1.26.Using South Korea as an example of increased sustainability (the point here?) is not helping your case much Dennis. As their TFR decreased, their consumption grew exponentially. Just since 1991:Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:40 am
Seems their per-capita energy use has skyrocketed in the last 60 years or so, and they now import most of their energy sources. They became 9th in CO2 emissions as of 2005. Looks like increased standards-of-living and declining birth rates are not much of a solution for reducing planetary impacts.Hi Ghung,Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:41 am
I agree. The point was that population growth can be reduced.
We need two things to happen, reduced use of fossil fuels (which peak fossil fuels will take care of by 2030) and reduced population (which peak population in 2050 to 2070 will take care of).
Figure below is from page 1153 of the article linked above.
Note that in 2015 the TFR for South Korea was 1.26, if average life expectancy does not rise above 90 years and World TFR falls to 1.25 by 2100, then World Population falls from 8 billion to 2 billion in about 100 years. This reduces the use of resources and the pressure on other species.
Transition to wind and solar with pumped hydro, wind gas, and thermal storage backup can reduce carbon emissions and reforestation as population falls will help to absorb some of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage of burned biofuels and cement that absorbs CO2 would be other options for reducing atmospheric CO2.
As fossil fuel peaks prices will rise and the transition to non-fossil fuel will speed up.
The process will be messy, but we are likely to muddle through as there is not much alternative (or not a better one as I see it.)Forgot chart sorryGeorge Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 3:54 am
I think a common factor in all countries seeing large falls in birth rates is that they are preceded by large falls in death rates. This typically takes a couple of generations, which is one of the biggest causes of population overshoot. In Iran it was maybe a bit faster but not much – from above 20 per 1000 in the 50s and 12 in the eighties to around 4 now.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 8:39 amRegarding fertilizers, when you realize that there was a "human bones" market in the 19th century, and that for instance England "emptied" the catacombs in Sicily for that, or took back the soldiers bones from Waterloo, you get a sense of the urgency for fertilizer without phosphorus or natural gas based ones.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 10:21 am
See for instance below :
"England is robbing all other countries of their fertility. Already in her eagerness for bones, she has turned up the battlefields of Leipsic, and Waterloo, and of Crimea; already from the catacombs of Sicily she has carried away skeletons of many successive generations. Annually she removes from the shores of other countries to her own the manorial equivalent of three million and a half of men Like a vampire she hangs from the neck of Europe."
Or below :
I had a better link regarding the bones from Sicily catacombs (many due to the plague epidemia I think), but cannot find it back.Note : the above quotation is in fact from Justus Von Liebig (German chemist/agronomist), it also appears in below books :Nathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:24 pm
And this page above (from "Justus Von Liebig : the chemical gatekeeper" p 178) is also interesting on other aspects, suggesting Liebig would today address energy ..The churches which promote childbearing must be destroyed. They are basically the enemies of humanity. Since they're losing in North America, Europe, South America, and most of Asia, they are targeting Africa.islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 5:00 pm
(And *targeting* is the correct word -- they are deliberately sending missionaries to spread their sick, twisted doctrines and spending lots of money to do so.)If you read my story below, Food for the Poor is a religious group. In Jamaica I believe it is affiliated with Missionaries for the Poor , an international Catholic organisation. So while they are doing yeoman service in providing shelter for poor folks, they are doing diddly squat to encourage poor folks to stop creating more mouths to feed and bodies to clothe and shelter. Isn't that just dandy?Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:49 pm
Incidentally here's a recent newspaper article from my neck of the woods:
Crime strangling growth – Youth unemployment in Caribbean highest in world, fuelling criminality
Youth unemployment in the Caribbean is said to be the highest in the world, and crime, partly fuelled by this high rate of joblessness, is a major obstacle to economic growth in the region, according to Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF boss, who addressed the sixth High Level Caribbean Forum, held yesterday at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel in Kingston, said that crime imposed several economic costs such as public spending on security and the criminal justice system, as well as private spending on security. She also highlighted social costs arising from the loss of income owing to victimisation and incarceration.
Can anybody spot my comment? Hint: I used a pseudonym that should be familiar with everybody here.Can we be so unpolitical correct to call for "A Pope onA Rope?"Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:57 pm
Someone must draw a line in the sand- or should we all be under a religious spell?
Or do we want to break that spell?"would you like to see the pope on the end of a rope do you think he's a fool"GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 7:54 pm
https://youtu.be/OOCbrUTpukMThis was discussed just this morning on NYC NPR, concerning homelessness and the housing provided for low income people. The gist of it was that although there were programs to help the people with food and housing, very little was really being done to solve the problems.Fred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 8:20 pm"This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is expected to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also, the ratio of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently have young populations."islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 1:49 pm
I have the impression that many of us myself included have an outdated and still colonialist view of African societies. I think changes happening in many parts of Africa will surprise us and technologically leapfrog over much of the built infrastructure of the OECD countries. I have seen it happen first hand in previously underprivileged parts of Brazil.
How we're using drones to deliver blood and save lives
Keller Rinaudo wants everyone on earth to have access to basic health care, no matter how hard it is to reach them. With his start-up Zipline, he has created the world's first drone delivery system to operate at national scale, transporting blood and plasma to remote clinics in East Africa with a fleet of electric autonomous aircraft. Find out how Rinaudo and his team are working to transform health care logistics throughout the world -- and inspiring the next generation of engineers along the way.
BTW, I have a serious question! Does this kind of technology make the population crisis in Africa better or worse? Would like to hear some thoughts on the matter.It is uncanny how this lead post has come about just when I have been thinking about this subject recently. I am currently very depressed, to the point I suspect it may be clouding my better judgment with respect to various matters. This depression is partly caused by my views of the future of my little island in particular and the world in general. Let me try and illustrate how my thoughts have been brought into focus recently.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:07 pm
I travel around the city I live in, passing through all the different types of communities from time to time. We have pockets of extreme wealth as evidenced by palatial homes with swimming pools, tennis courts and all the creature comforts you would expect in the home of a wealthy first world resident. Leaving these pockets of extreme wealth, one doesn't have to drive for more than five minutes to reach pockets of extreme poverty, people who are so poor, they cannot pay rent and cannot envision ever buying a plot of land or a house, so they build structures on any piece of land that they can get away with. This type of activity extends across the island and there is no area that does not experience informal settlement (aka squatting). There is a political aspect to this, in that in an effort to garner the votes of the large voting block that poor people make up succesive governments have not discouraged squatting, to the point of encouraging it. See yesterday's cartoon in one of the local rags for a satirical perspective of the situation but, I digress.
I try to avoid too much contact with people outside my socioeconomic and educational class because it inevitably leads me to being depressed but, sometimes I end up in that exact situation. This past Monday night was one such case and it was my observations from Monday night that got me thinking about Peak Oil and carrying capacity and overshoot. I was invited to visit a gathering and told to bring drinks and that they were going to cook so, I decided not to eat a meal before leaving the city. It was a forty five minute drive, including a drive through late evening heavy traffic heading westward out of the city, past a big highway construction project being carried out by a Chinese (honest to God, from China) construction firm that has been active in the island for a number of years. On arriving at my destination I was told by my host that the gathering was at another house less than half a mile away.
This particular house was one of 39 houses made possible by the efforts of a couple from Grand Junction, Colorado (with pics) along with the local branch of Food For The Poor . I estimate that, these "houses" measure about 13ft. by 15 ft. inside and are supposed to include a kitchen, a bathroom and two bedrooms. The sister of my host was the recipient of this house, being qualified for the charity as a result of being unemployed with four children, one of whom was either newborn or yet to be born at the time the house was handed over to her. She was not yet thirty years old when her last child was born. Does anybody see where I am going with this yet?
Back to the gathering. On arriving at the house my host informed that no food had been cooked. By this time I was hungry and asked where was the nearest cook-shop where I could purchase a meal. I traveled with my host to Old Harbour, the nearest town apart from Spanish Town. I can only describe Spanish Town as an overpopulated, crime infested, thug controlled mess, that becomes a ghost town by midnight even though it is surprisingly busy by day. I asked my host if I should buy a meal for them also and they declined but, by the time we got back to the house, they declared that they were hungry and needed to get something to cook to go with the rice they had. So off we went to try and find a local shop that had what they wanted and was still open. First one was a 24 hour joint, built using an old cargo truck body but it didn't have all they wanted so it was off to another one that we managed to catch just as they were closing. We came away with a small packet of "veggie chunks" and some cooking oil. The little propane stove had been fired up and the rice was almost done so in less than fifteen minutes a meal of rice and veggie chunks was being served to four or five adults, one of whom had an infant, less than a year old, sharing the meal with her.
So let me weave together how all of this ties in with the subject of the lead post. First the "house" was only possible through the generosity of citizens of a first world, developed country. The materials that made the house (lumber corrugated, galvanized steel) are the products of extractive industries that rely heavily of FF, petroleum in particular. The soft drinks and alcohol that I brought to the gathering were manufactured, distributed and retailed in a system, heavily dependent on external energy. My vehicle runs of diesel. The rice for the meal I ate and the one at the house was imported from outside the island, again produced and delivered with lots of help from petroleum. The chicken I ate was locally produced with imported grain, a product of industrial scale agriculture, probably in the USA. Thankfully many of the chicken farmers are involved in a project that started with 15 kW systems at about 40 chicken farms and seems to be expanding. The veggie chunks are a meat substitute protein made from soy meal, again a product of industrial scale agriculture.
The cooking oil was probably one of soy, palm, canola, corn or coconut oil, produced at an industrial scale and imported to the island. Jamaica was once an exporter of coconut oil before the industry was decimated by a disease called lethal yellowing back in the early 70s. Virtually the entire population of coconut palms on the island was wiped out by this disease and even though efforts have been made to resuscitate the industry using disease resistant varieties, more than forty years on, the manufacture of coconut oil in Jamaica is a tiny cottage industry.
So here we have five or adults, two males and three females, one of which had four children with the other two having one each. There were other people at the gathering but as far as I am aware only two had jobs, the brother of my host who left before the meal and the woman with the infant who has a part time job selling lotto tickets. All of these people are living on the edge, heavily dependent on a system that is in danger of collapse for their very survival and they are far from alone. there are thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands on this island alone.
If for whatever reason industrial scale agriculture fails, the songbirds are going to be eaten out of the trees. I used to dissect rats in my sixth form (12 and 13th grade) biology classes and there ain't much meat on them but, if we get hungry enough maybe we'll turn on the rats. Without affordable propane, every tree and shrub will end up as firewood. This is the reason why I have an almost obsessive focus on renewable energy, solar in particular. It is my hope that the deployment of renewable energy can stay ahead of FF depletion long enough for global civilization to transition away from FF. It is my hope that our civilization, seeing itself on a real time, renewable energy budget, will begin to recognize the fragility of our situation. I have to ask Ron and others to forgive me as I continue to bring attention to the hopeful stories. It is the only way I can keep myself from sliding into depression and despair. It is the only way I can cope.The Green Revolution in the 60s was supposed to solve all our problems, and it solved a lot of them, especially in Europe and Asia. It works well when you have a lot of water and farm intensively, but is destructive in semi-arid conditions and when used in extensive agriculture, like the American Midwest.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pm
After the Green Revolution, Asia boomed and Africa fell behind, prompting racist theories. Geography and climate are more likely explanations. In India, for example, the more arid north did less well than the wetter south. The Chinese were the first to realize the problem, and started a new generation of re-greening projects to boost agricultural production.
Meanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading recently about a county in SD that lost 19 inches (not feet!) of topsoil between 1960 and 2014. Many places in America simply abandoned farming, like New England and Appalachia. People blame red dirt and the crick risin' in Appalachia and glacial rocks in New England, but that wasn't a problem before soil degradation set in.
The Green Revolution focused on genetics and chemistry, which makes sense if applied correctly. Development economists were puzzled that Kenyan farmers were uninterested in high yield seeds, but the explanation as simple: They need a regular water supply, not better seeds. A lot of places in the world get 3-4 weeks of rain a years, and good seeds don't solve this problem. Pumping the water out of the aquifier isn't the solution either, just ask anyone in Antelope Valley CA, a former grassland turned desert by the alfalfa farmers.
My mother warned my to watch out for flash floods when camping in the desert. It took me decades to understand why flash floods are a particular problem in the desert: More or less by definition, deserts are places where there are flash floods. The flash floods are both cause and symptom of soil degradation. Deserts aren't places where there isn't enough water -- they are places where rainwater runs off the surface instead of seeping into the soil. Degraded soil can't absorb water fast enough, surface runoff degrades soil.
The problem with industrial agriculture is that it treats the great outdoors like a hydroponic farm -- it ignores soil ecology and just assumes the hydrology will work itself out.
A more modern approach starts with water and soil. It's spreading rapidly in Africa, for example with the sand dams in Kenya, the terracing in Ethiopia and Kenya, and the various planting pit (like zai and demi-lunes) in the Sahel and agroforestry (planting trees in fields, or crops in orchards) in a lot of arid places.
It's true that mankind is pushing the limits of what the current ecosystem can carry, but it's also true that the ecosystem could be much bigger than it currently is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nKc5wEjWrYMeanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading recently about a county in SD that lost 19 feet of topsoil between 1960 and 2014.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:30 pm
There is a serious problem with that statement. No place on earth has 19 feet of topsoil, not even 19 inches over an entire county.
Topsoil is the upper, outermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 inches (5.1 cm) to 8 inches (20 cm). It has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms and is where most of the Earth's biological soil activity occurs.Inches I mean, not feet obviously.Ulenspiegel says: 11/30/2017 at 5:07 am
EDIT: Here's a shot from Kalkriese, Germany where they are digging out a Roman-German battlefield. The artifacts are all found at or just below the border between the black topsoil and the red dirt underneath it -- that was 7 BC
The archaeologists there told me the topsoil is about 1.5-2m deep, and was formed after the Romans left by later farming practices.In the Kalkriese area, the farmers used sod planting ("Plaggendüngung"), i.e. they removed the top soil on large areas to improve the soil on their fields.alimbiquated says: 11/30/2017 at 5:35 am
Therefore, Kalkriese is an example how NOT to do it.I think the thickness of the topsoil in the area speaks for itself.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 11:57 am
My point is that as Ron points out, there is a limited carrying capacity for the planet, but I don't really think we are there yet, because there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface. Of course, even if it's possible, it isn't clear it will happen.there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface.alimbiquated says: 11/30/2017 at 12:50 pm
That seems to be an incomplete sentence. Make huge areas of the Earth's surface what ? Desert? We sure can do that. We are doing more of that every year. Scrubland? We are doing that also by cutting down the forest and trying to make farmland out of it. After a few years the land will row nothing of value. That's happening in the Amazon right now.
There is nothing we can do to increase human habitual area without reducing the wild habitual area. That is what my post is all about. We are destroying every wild thing by destroying their habitat, by taking their habitat for ourselves.productive.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pm
Your last paragraph is not correct. Much of the world is desert, and that desert could be much more productive than it is, given the right agriculture methods.
Whether that will actually happen is another question of course.Just a line of rocks on contour works too.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 4:11 pm
The chinese are a lot farther down ths road.
But the Ehtiopians are doing their best to imitate the chinese
The Kenyns too.
This would be great in East Tennessee, but they get their corn in a jar, as the old song goes.That very same first world country that donated the materials has plenty of homeless and large amounts of poor. It also has large amounts of empty buildings and huge amounts of food waste, yet they do not take care of their own. That is even a sadder situation as people freeze to death, starve, and die of simple preventable health problems in one of the richest countries in the world. Basic needs are not met and the governing bodies are constantly fighting to reduce the paltry benefits that are given. It's a country full of hate for their own people and hate back at the haters.TonyMax says: 11/29/2017 at 4:42 pmThere's no inherent evolutionary advantage to caring for people you have no relation to. That's the real reason why all of these 'safety net' programs you describe are hated in the general sense and under attack as time marches on.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 9:06 pmNow Tony, we all know the public programs are under attack because of the greed and selfishness of people who already have too much money and stuff.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 2:51 pm
We all know it is the greed and the overconsumption that is causing the destruction of our environment and possibly the whole human race. That is a huge evolutionary disadvantage.
Helping, sharing and cooperating is the advantage. The selfish and greedy are like ticks sucking the world dry for their own personal benefit.There's no inherent evolutionary advantage to caring for people you have no relation to.Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:53 pm
That is absolute Bullshit!
Dr. Sarah Mathew
I study the evolution of human ultra-sociality and the role of culture in enabling it. I am especially interested in how humans evolved the capacity to cooperate with millions of genetically unrelated individuals, and how this links to the origins of moral sentiments, prosocial behavior, norms, and large-scale warfare. To address these issues, I combine formal modeling of the evolution of cooperation with fieldwork among the Turkana. The Turkana are an egalitarian pastoral society in East Africa who cooperate, including in costly inter-ethnic raids, with hundreds of other Turkana who are not kin nor close friends. Through systematic empirical studies in this unique ethnographic context, my research project here aims to provide a detailed understanding of the mechanisms underpinning cooperation and moral origins.evolutionary advantage of caring for othersCaelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 5:20 pm
About 232,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)
This information is not exactly carved in a stone tablet and hidden on the dark side of the moon.Hi Ron,islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 6:46 pm
I haven't read your good article just yet (although it is doubtful any of it will surprise me or add to what is already more or less understood), but just to mention that I recently listened to a podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees from the University of BC
Two things about the podcast that stood out was that William was in fine form (articulate, clear, concise, passionate, 'deathly' serious, etc.); and the second was his mention of possibly fundamentally changing the natural system of Atlantic cod (fisheries), so that they may never recover. Not everything can simply reverse, and quickly enough, if they can, such as, say, with the depletion of the ozone layer, and when it involves all kinds of living systems– much, and the intricacies/complex interconnections, of which we are blissfully unaware of, despite some of our arrogant pretensions to the contrary (such as with regard to the avocation of most if not all forms of geoengineering)– it is very serious.
What concerns me also is how some people, such as on this site, can ostensibly claim a required greenwashed BAU from out of one side of their mouths, while on the other side, express grave concerns for the ecosystem. We cannot have it both ways.
To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change.
Loren, assuming that's you, I am certain that radical decline, if not outright collapse, is already well underway, despite the obstinate mindlessness of some people. Just because some don't see something or want to see something doesn't mean it is not there.
My simple recommendation, especially for certain people WRT this deathwish-for-a-culture is to let go/ get out (and in the process, learn things like permaculture and local community resilience, and how our ancestors did some of it). Your comforts are much of an illusion (and predicated, for example, on natural draw-down).I knew you'd show up sooner or later and since you've always been critical of my support for renewables and EVs, let's bite.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 7:59 pm
"To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change."
Are you saying that "there is no real change" going from corporate owned, centrally located, large scale, FF fired generators to small scale, individually or community owned, distributed renewable generators? If so, that's not what the FF and corporate generator class in Australia thinks. They have captured the Australian federal government and are fighting renewables as hard as they can.
Are you saying "there is no real change" going from ICE powered vehicles to EVs that, are perfectly happy to suck electrons from any source including renewable sources individually owned or owned by a co-op of which the vehicle owner is invested? That's not an opinion shared by the Koch brothers who are spending millions of dollars to try and paint EVs in a bad light in the eyes of the public.
Surely you realize that an individual with solar on their roof and an EV is giving a big middle finger to the status quo, including FF corporations and utilities who will no longer be able to feed at that individual's trough. In case you don't realize it, that is a very big disruption of "system, along with its 'power-politics'" and no, in case you haven't been listening, "The system, along with its 'power-politics'", will not be "still intact."
Now if you read my fairly long narrative further up, I hope the point I am trying to make does not escape you. That point is that there are millions, no lets make that billions of poor poorly educated folks who depend on things like industrial agriculture and the current status quo for the basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. If the status quo collapses they are dead, let me say that again, dead! I'm all for dismantling the status quo and replacing it with something that is much kinder to all life on this pale blue dot we call home but, I shudder at the thought of millions or billions of human beings starving to death, just as I shudder at what we are doing to the biosphere. Can you see why I'm depressed right now?Alan,islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 10:31 pm
This is my cameo appearance. LOL
There is no real change if we are still relying on the monstrosity that is the crony-capitalist plutarchy/government-big-biz symbiosis, such as for solar panels, etc. and/or what some misleadingly refer to as 'renewable'.
If you are in the biz– and I think you wrote hereon that you indeed are– then some might suggest, maybe even me, that you are, say, 'soft-shilling' and/or rationalizing for your product using POB as your platform, and maybe problematically skewing the narrative a little more towards a dystopic system that we should be getting the hell out of, while making preparations to do so, like learning how to do the basics in a local, resilient context so that we do not need industrial agro. The longer we rely on industrial anything– and as if it's somehow morally/ethically neutral– the harder/faster we will likely fall, maybe along something of a seneca curve.
We cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.
Attempting to play on people's heartstrings, such as about poor people in so-called undeveloped locales to sell a product they don't need and that would risk locking them– and others– into a certain ('Western') lifestyle, in some contexts, approaches contemptible, by the way.
You should already know how sociogeopoliticultural ideologies like Westernisation is foisted upon the global masses through physical, cultural, mental and intellectual colonialism, with the result often being wars and deaths to people and traditional ways of life. Just consider the Middle East right now. In the name of what? Oil and oligarchy?
You've said it yourself hereon that you have some kind of slavery in your family, yes? Well, many people are still slaves anyway, if with coats of white paint. Libya was in the news recently about that– slavery– incidentally.
If we want to do solar panels etc. the right, ethical ways, we need sea changes, such as that avoid slavery and privilege-by-gun, but I highly doubt we will manage them in time, and suspect that we are already long past that time.
That said, how do you feel now?I am not yet in the business of doing anything with solar PV so, as of right now I have no product that I am shilling for, soft or hard. I am in a business connected to entertainment if you must know. The entertainment business can by no means be classified as non-discretionary and recent technology has allowed far more people to compete with me so it will be necessary to get out of that at some point. How about viewing this as something I see as as worthwhile pursuit for the future of mankind, given my skill set and thus my advocating it as a worthwhile area for me to pursue a vocation in? I am not only advocating for solar PV because it's a field I can participate in but, because I think it can contribute a great deal to reductions in carbon emissions among other noble aspirations.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:40 pm
Are you going to start suggesting that I want to get into the business of manufacturing and selling EVs just because I am suggesting that large scale EV adoption would be a good thing? I ain't no Elon Musk if that's what your thinking. Now, if the shit hits the fan and motor fuels became really unobtainium, I might take a stab at an EV conversion business, a la Jack Rickard but, right now even Jack seems disillusioned with that pursuit, having posted only one new video since the middle of August and only two new blog posts since the last week of July. At any rate the necessary preconditions for such a business to be successful in an age of factory made EVs, do not exist.
I am with OFM on the point that some of your ideas for agriculture cannot adequately serve the needs of a rapidly growing population of 7.5 billion people. My dad who was a descendant of rebel runaway slaves, known in Jamaica as Maroons , was into agriculture and left me and my surviving sister a six acre homestead when he died. I can tell you agriculture ain't a walk in the park. It's damned hard work and carries all sorts of risks not faced by other pursuits (droughts, thieves, diseases pests etc.) . You seem to have some romantic view of agriculture that I do not share.
As for locking people in to a western lifestyle, that doesn't apply to Jamaica. The western lifestyle came with colonization and slavery. Do you think that people outside of the developed word should forgo electricity, computers, cell phones, the internet and other modern conveniences?
Despite all of that, the Caribbean has been bucking western culture for centuries. Trinidad and Tobago has their carnival and it's music and Jamaica has had as big an impact on western culture with our music (reggae and ska) as western culture has had on us. Even this past weekend, a dark skinned Jamaican woman sporting a huge afro, placed third in the Miss Universe pageant. The girl that won was from South Africa and could pass for Caucasian whether she is or not and I didn't see any other black women in the contest sporting an afro hairstyle (not that I watched it).
When it comes to some things, that train has already left the station. No point in romanticizing about what could have been. I'd rather focus on what small steps we can take to improve things in the here and now, while moving us to a more sustainable future. I will probably remain depressed until the new year. Probably more to with not having any immediate family around for "the festive season" than anything else. Maybe the new year will bring some good news on the renewable/sustainability front! That would cheer me up!Islandboy–islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 3:17 am
After being in Central America for quite a while, and that heavy Catholic noose around everyones neck, it was so liberating to get out to the islands.
Lets Party Mon!Now you're talking! We in the Caribbean know how to party! I wouldn't be surprised if we woke up the morning after the collapse and said, "Collapse? What collapse? We were too busy partying to notice"GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:22 am
Having said that, Trinidad is heavily influenced by catholicism, their carnival being associated with the catholic observance of Lent. I don't see any evidence of the Trinis (as they are known in the islands) taking the admonitions of their various religious leaders too seriously. Hell! I've never been to Trinidad carnival but, I hear it's one wild party!
On the other hand, Trinidad should have some long term concerns about what they are going to do after Oil and Gas production fall below consumption and they have to start importing hydrocarbons. What if either prices are too high or supplies are limited? What if prices collapse due to lack of demand as Seba suggests will happen after EVS and solar begin to dominate transport and electricity generation?
So how is that wind farm coming along?islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 9:04 am
https://www.ustda.gov/news/press-releases/2017/ustda-advances-wind-power-generation-jamaica-through-us-solutionsWay too early to say. The article dated October 4, 2017 says this:GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 11:01 am
"The feasibility study will evaluate the viability of installing the wind farm, which would represent one of the first offshore wind installations in Jamaica and the greater Caribbean region."
I expect the feasibility study is going to take months and I would expect them to do some detailed analysis of the offshore wind resource in the process. It is good that this study is being done so soon after two devastating hurricanes have hit the region. Should keep hurricanes very much in the picture.
DatedLooking at some Caribbean buoy data it looks like wind would be a good source of power for the islands.islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 4:26 pm
Beside the wind, the island has about 54 billion kwh/day of sunlight falling on it. That is more than ten times the total energy production per year for the island. Energy is not a problem, how the energy is generated is the problem.
Cover less than 0.1 percent of the island with solar panels and make up the difference with wind power.I have done some numbers in terms of what it would take to power the island entirely with renewables, mostly solar. Not impossible but the technocrats, one of whom is a college classmate of mine, cannot wrap their head around 100% renewable electricity!GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 4:36 pm
Incidentally, I came across a video presentation on Youtube (with a really annoying backing track) that at about 3 minutes in contains the following text:
"Seba's forecasts are predicated on the assumption that the cost of generating and storing electricity will continue to fall – to the point where just about all generation will be solar by 2030. But electricity production would only have to increase by 18 percent in the US to cope with a complete switch to EVs, he said"
That 18% figure squares quite nicely with some back of the envelope calculations I have done.The choice is to transistion or fail.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 12:14 pmI've made good friends with a couple of guys from Jamaica who have friends and family here that have managed to get their permanent paperwork taken care of.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:31 pm
Unfortunately it doesn't look as if they will ever be able to get permanent resident status. They're older guys, and about as mellow and fun people to be around as I have ever met. They come up for an extended family visit every fall, which just HAPPENS to be the time of year local farmers need a lot of extra help, lol.
As soon as I'm finished with family duties, I'm going down to spend a month with them.
Will be spending some money on food and utilities and a few new nice things for them of course, because while they're friends, they're not well off.Bottom line:GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:31 am
It is really hard to face the extinction of your species, no matter what reality presents to you.What has been highly disturbing is watching the natural world be run over and steadily destroyed.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 9:52 amWe cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 9:48 pm
Than do the world a favor and unplug yourself from all sources of electricity! At least we here won't have to read your fantasies!
BTW there are plenty of people who understand that the current capitalist system is not the answer, read Kate Raeworth's, Donut Economics for starters.
Modern humans could no more live without electricity in the 21st century than they could live without food and water. Try living without refrigeration in any city in the world. You would cause massive starvation in a few days. Try providing medical care to an urban population without electricity.
You have to be completely delusional to suggest that electricity is not a necessity!That's all irrelevant to my point which still stands– especially when the system is destroying our planet. We have lived with electricity for a relative split second of our existence as a species on this planet.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:53 pm
Besides, if we're not treating the planet properly, do we even deserve electricity and its conveniences? I think not.
And then there are assorted uses for electricity, some being more questionable as priorities than others.
Electric car versus fridge?
FWIW, I have personally lived without refrigeration for months in a major city, at least at home after shopping at the grocery store LOL, but also in the country– more hard-core.
If your local community especially is growing and processing its own food, then it's easy.
There's pickling, drying, fermenting, spicing/salting, alcohol, etc., and natural cool-storage, such as root cellars and simple cooling-by-evaporation systems.
There's also 'eating as you go'. Other animals do that, and I've never heard of an animal that needs a fridge or electricity, have you? Maybe your cat at home, but even Meow Mix can last outside the fridge, yes?
But some of us have to actually help make the changes, such as to the narrative, and limit the cling to some kinds of BAU narratives and fantasies.
Do it for Mother Earth, Fred. Or me. Or Harvey Weinstein or whoever/whatever motivates you. Coral.
Obviously, we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, but there are plenty of ways to manage, maintain and consume food that don't require a fridge. So if we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, maybe we should start talking more about how to live without them and/or with greater resilience.
But even if the juice stays on forevermore, some juiceless skills and knowledge are great to learn, have and apply.
BTW, I just watched this documentary on rare earths– the apparently highly-polluting stuff that's supposed to help power, until they run out, all these new and relatively-useless electrical gadgets now and in the future to get off of those other pollutants.but just to mention that I recently listened to a podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees from the University of BCCaelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 8:09 pm
And I'm not a fan of some of Martenson's guests.I came across the podcast indirectly via another site, but do sometimes run into Chris' material. He seems good at interviewing and is easy to follow in videos.OFM says: 11/29/2017 at 7:59 pmThis post is going to be a gold mine for me, because it relates directly to so much of what I'm working on for publication in book form if I ever manage to finish it to my satisfaction. Here's hoping it attracts over a thousand comments, lol! I'm especially interested in comments that dispute my own, because those are the ones enable me to understand my own blind spots.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 9:17 pm
Now so far, nobody has said anything about what I will refer to as the SECOND key fact that one must understand to understand evolution. Hoyle missed the first one altogether, making a total fool of himself, although he was a brilliant scientist, one of the top men in HIS field, his mistake being that he failed to understand that evolution BUILDS on it's PAST " accomplishments".
The second key fact I am hereby pointing out is that while evolution creates new life forms that reproduce to fill any and all available niches, there's no GUIDANCE involved, no overall PLAN, no GOD in charge, if you wish to put it that way.
Evolution is characterized in large part by parsimony, by being conservative in the use of resources. Animals that don't have use for claws don't have claws like tigers, lol, and animals that don't eat grass out in the fields don't have digestive systems like COWS. Evolution creates organisms that are "good at" taking advantage of whatever resources are available, WITHOUT REGARD ANY FUTURE CONSEQUENCES because there is NO LONG TERM PLAN. Behavioral BRAKES that aren't needed don't evolve, lol, and countless things that would be extremely useful, like eyes in the back of our heads, which would keep us from being attacked from the rear, don't often evolve either, because .. well because of more factors than I have any inclination to cover at this minute. Half of the SHORT answer is that eyes in the back of our heads would cost us more in terms of sacrificing something else than they would gain for us. The other half of the SHORT answer is that since pure chance plays such a big role . the odds are astronomically high against it happening anyway.
This a comment/ rant, not a BOOK. The BOOK is in the works, and will be available free to member of this forum who may want to read it and point out shortcomings in it before I publish it, most likely for free on the net. I'm not so arrogant as to think anybody will PAY for it, lol.
Dead ends, blind alleys, and death, at the individual level, and or at the species level, means absolutely NOTHING to "Mother Nature" because she is not sentient, she's not moral, she's not even ALIVE in the usual sense. She's just an artifact, a tool, that we naked apes have invented in our efforts to understand reality.
What I'm getting at, since She IS parsimonious, is that She does not provide brakes where none are needed.
Sometimes things do evolve that prove to be useful under new circumstances, but when this happens, it's just a lucky accident for the creature involved. If for instance a creature evolves a forelimb capable of grasping a branch, so that it can climb better, lol, later on the ability to GRASP something MAY come in very handy, because it sets the stage for that creature being able to grasp a stone which can be used as a tool or weapon. This does NOT mean the creature WILL eventually discover the use of tools and weapons. It DOES mean the probability of such evolution is vastly enhanced. There's NO PLANNING INVOLVED . except in the minds of deists who accept the reality of evolution while also retaining the concept of a God or gods or some guiding force of some sort.
IF the need arises for BRAKES, well then, die off, or even extinction, takes care of the problem. If a given species eats only a given plant, and that plant goes extinct, Mother Nature does not grieve for either the plant, nor the species that feeds exclusively upon it,which very likely also goes extinct. She doesn't even consciously keep score, as indifferently as a hired bookkeeper keeps books for a client he has never met and will never meet. She does however inadvertently create a RECORD of historical "scores" , which we can read. It's the fossil record.
It's rather amusing that professional biologists go around talking about human stupidity as if there is something inherently WRONG with people, as if we are collectively DEFECTIVE. We are what we are because we are final product ( up until today ) of our own evolutionary history. We're as " good " or "well designed "as we are evolved to be, like all other living creatures.
Engineers build in safety margins, and add features that may be useful, under certain circumstances, when they design things, because they DO work with and from PRECONCEIVED PLANS. Mother Nature doesn't make plans, she just deals and redeals the cards, over and over, and will continue to do so until all life on this planet perishes which won't be until the sun expands sufficiently to destroy the last vestiges of life on it.
We are NOT something different from the rest of biological creation, we do NOT operate under different rules, we aren't on some sort of fucking pedestal, separate from the rest of the biosphere. THAT whole crock of shit sort of thinking is one of the cornerstones of kinds of the thinking that some of the regulars here like to make fun of, such as religion, nationalism, racism, etc.
A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No.
We have succeeded,basically for no other reason that accident in the last analysis, to the point we compete mostly with each other, rather than other species.
The evolved PROGRAMS hard wired into our brains that drive our behavior DO NOT include much in the way of built in brakes, because BRAKES HAVE COSTS. If we over populate, if we use up critical resources on which we depend for our survival, and perish, there's NOBODY who gives a shit.. other than some of us who are aware of the fact that we ARE in overshoot. Mother Nature is INCAPABLE of giving a shit.
The whole fucking idea that we are SOMETHING SPECIAL was probably originated by the first priests and their allies. It's an idea that has little to do with any discussion based on real SCIENCE within the context of understanding our own overshoot .
Now none of this rant should be interpreted as indicating I don't know and understand that humans are tribal creatures, that we are social creatures, and that we survive and thrive because we DO live and work cooperatively. The thing is , we survive and thrive as COMPETING communities, tribes, and nations, rather than as a SINGLE global community. Wolf packs compete. Prides of lions compete. Bands of chimps compete. We humans compete with each other. Talking as if we are DEFECTIVE because we behave this way is a waste of time.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough and fast enough, we do sometimes cooperate with our former enemies, at least temporarily.Old enemies can be new allies.
It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control agreements.
But just because it's theoretically possible that we can cooperate at the species level globally doesn't mean it's going to happen. I don't think there's any real likelihood of it happening, although alliances consisting of the various major economic and military powers do exist and will continue to exist and some of these alliances will prove to be critically important in determining the course of future history."A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No." Do you mean E. O. Wilson has his head up his ass?Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 6:17 amDo you mean E. O. Wilson has his head up his ass?GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:16 am
Edward O. Wilson's New Take on Human Nature
The eminent biologist argues in a controversial new book that our Stone Age emotions are still at war with our high-tech sophistication
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/edward-o-wilsons-new-take-on-human-nature-
In his newly published The Social Conquest of the Earth -- the 27th book from this two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize -- Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too. Ants rule the microhabitats they occupy, consigning other insects and small animals to life at the margins; humans own the macroworld, Wilson says, which we have transformed so radically and rapidly that we now qualify as a kind of geological force. How did we and the ants gain our superpowers? By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. There are plenty of social animals in the world, animals that benefit by living in groups of greater or lesser cohesiveness. Very few species, however, have made the leap from merely social to eusocial, "eu-" meaning true. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough to be a eusocialist. Wouldn't you rather just grab, gulp and go? Yet the payoffs of sustained cooperation can be huge. Eusociality, Wilson writes, "was one of the major innovations in the history of life," comparable to the conquest of land by aquatic animals, or the invention of wings or flowers. Eusociality, he argues, "created superorganisms, the next level of biological complexity above that of organisms." The spur to that exalted state, he says, was always a patch of prized real estate, a focal point luring group members back each day and pulling them closer together until finally they called it home. "All animal species that have achieved eusociality, without exception, at first built nests that they defended from enemies," Wilson writes. An anthill. A beehive. A crackling campfire around which the cave kids could play, the cave elders stay and the buffalo strips blacken all day. Trespassers, of course, would be stoned on sight.
As is evident by some of the comments on this thread, while the hive may be able to display collective intelligence, the individual ants can still be pretty dumb! Do check out the link I posted to 'The Mind's I' chapter 11 Prelude to Ant Fugue.If we can't cooperate globally then the idea of Half-Earth is a farce.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 9:18 amThe idea is still sound! If humans have not yet evolved to the point that they are able to include the whole globe as a part of their hive Well, that's a separate issue and may indeed mean that we are collectively fucked! Because not enough of us have reached that particular point in our evolution.GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 12:18 pm
As George Carlin once said: "The Planet is fine, it's the people that are fucked"An idea is sound only if it can be implemented, otherwise it is just a bunch of sugars turned to heat and in this case trees turned to wastepaper.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 2:40 pm
My point was not that E.O. Wilson is wrong, but that he would not have presented such a point if he did not think it possible or even probable. It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. Humanity cooperates on large scale right now.
Looking at the update of Limits to Growth I get the feeling that the flattening out of some of the parameters (energy, industrial output) may be misinterpreted. The same thing would happen if an energy and industrial transistion were occurring.
The key question is what does a transistion look like initially?
A field to a forest transistion looks a lot like field, then some bushes with a few small trees, then eventually almost all trees. Originally the trees are hardly there at all and don't seem to be having much effect as their leaves smoother a lot of plant life around them and they take up more and more of the solar energy that used to reach the ground. It starts small then spreads to complete takeover.
An energy and industrial transistion goes hand in hand with a social/governmental transistion. It looks small and scattered at first but steadily fills in even despite the resistance of the legacy systems. Key to the fast takeover is the weakening of the previous growth and it's demise leaving easy space for the takeover.
For example, I have a kitchen ceiling light fixture. It has three bulb positions. I had replaced the three 60 watt incandescent bulbs years ago with a 100 watt CFL (running actual 25 watts).
Last night the CFL started flickering so I pulled it and it had burn marks on the base of the bulb. The CFL bulb has now been replaced by two 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs which together use only 16 watts and provide more light than the CFL.
Also the LED bulbs may never have to be replaced in my lifetime. 180 watts to 16 watts and no more replacement, that is high ground transistion! Now $4 replaces over $500 on the user end and eliminates large amounts of pollution.
The power cost and economics have overshadowed the legacy instrument in an inexorable way. The death of an individual instrument allowed the replacement by a superior one.
I think that effect has been happening all across the world in many areas of energy use and industrial process for decades. This effect may have been interpreted as a reduction in energy and industrial output while it is really mostly a transistion in process.
So how do we get a fast takeover? Strand and remove the old legacy assets and systems plus do not replace dead systems with the same system. The action is harsh, but that is how it is done.
I will know we are on the right course when I see those large glass buildings being stripped of their components, their glass re-used, their steel reused and recycled, their wiring removed as they are removed. Why and how do we put up R2 buildings that soak up huge amounts of energy for heating and cooling? They need to go now. Passenger vehicles that get less than 150 pMPG need to go now and no passenger vehicle that gets below 400 pMPG should be built ever again. There are many inefficient, harmful and problematical systems that could be removed and changed.
Trash the old ways now and insert better ways, ones that work longer with less harm. Make new systems that heal soil and nature in general. The collapse is occurring now, take advantage of it by putting in superior systems that allow E.O. Wilson's Half-Earth idea to flourish, not finish.
Personally, until a lot of the old stupid harmful systems are put aside we can't see clearly if a fast collapse is at hand or not. Maybe if we just stop following bad and stupid we can ease off our consumption of the planet and reverse some of the major problems we face. There may be no real need to go through a grand scale collapse and huge loss of species.Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you said.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 6:20 pm
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
― R. Buckminster Fuller""It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. "OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 3:40 pm
Here's what I actually said in a comment upthread. It was posted a day previous to your comment, lol.
"It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control agreements. "
Perhaps I ought to lecture you a little on the meaning of the word EXPECT within the context I used it, which I think is obvious enough to anybody who WANTS to understand. In this context, expect means (or not ) that cooperation will happen spontaneously, or with only moderate incentives.
I don't think global level cooperation will happen, IF it happens, until the incentives to cooperate are OBVIOUS and overwhelming, when it comes to really changing the way we do things. I don't think any competent biologist will argue with this position, speaking in the broadest terms, painting with the so called broad brush.
We do after all have a few thousand years of known history that indicates that we are as apt to fight as cooperate, lol.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough, id it also hits slowly enough for us wake up , I EXPECT ( PREDICT ) that WE WILL COOPERATE on the grand scale, at least up to the nation state level, in most nations, and frequently at the international level, and MAYBE even at the global level.Hi GF,GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 4:51 pm
I must admit I'm a little behind in reading E O Wilson, who is as capable a scientist as any in his field, and head and shoulders above almost all the rest, in my opinion. He's also one of the best writers ever in his field, probably THE best writer in biology in my personal opinion.
But so far as a I know, and I have read all of his older books, unless I'm mistaken, he would basically agree with me, because I am, as I interpret his work, AGREEING WITH HIM.
There's a HELL OF DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING people to cooperate on the grand scale, and believing they are capable of doing so.I believe we are capable of cooperating on the grand scale, given sufficient motivation to do so, and have said so already in this thread. I don't EXPECT us to cooperate with people we see as outsiders and enemies, but given new circumstances, new conditions, new problems, new fears, we can and sometimes do find new common ground, and make friends with former enemies.
I'm ready to bet the farm that I'm WITH E O WILSON, rather than AGAINST HIM.
To me at least, lol.
A couple of days back in another thread, you lectured me, telling me to THINK GLOBALLY, as if to imply I 'm unaware that most of the people in the world are still desperately poor. I have never said that most of humanity is well off. I have never IMPLIED that most of humanity is well off.
What I DID say, is that FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, quoting myself, that there is a sound case to be made for the trickle down effect, and that a substantial number of even very poor people humanity HAVE ALREADY benefited greatly from economic and technological progress.
Hundreds of millions of desperately poor people are benefiting today from progress made in fields ranging from public health to industrial agriculture to renewable energy , etc. Hundreds of millions of very poor people are making relatively fast economic progress by some measures, for instance in the rate at which they are able to make use of at least some electricity, even if it's only a single light powered by a battery recharged by a small solar panel.
The less you have, the greater the marginal value of anything new you are able to get.
Just one rechargeable light is worth a LOT to a person who has no other option than perhaps a candle or kerosene lamp or a home made torch.
Incidentally I can remember being told by my grand parents that back when they were kids, it wasn't at all usual to literally light a ( corn ) shuck to provide some light so as to make a quick run to the outdoor privy or take care of some other after dark chore. They had kerosene, but it was considered wasteful to use it unnecessarily.
Things can and do get better sometimes, even on the global scale, lol.E.O. Wilson would not have written the book Half Earth if he did not think that people could and would cooperate on a grand scale. I don't think he was just blowing wind. Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 6:57 pm
I have not read his latest book yet " The Social Conquest of Earth" which relates to this subject.
See mine and Fred's comments above." Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 7:11 pm
Bullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up his name, and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again. There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people EXCEPT when circumstances leave the various groups little or no choice, and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND that the only real option they have IS to cooperate.
ONCE various competing groups or societies come to understand that they have little or nothing in the way of viable choice other than cooperation, well then I PREDICT OR EXPECT them to cooperate.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
If you want to play word games,I'm ready, because it's TRAINING as well as entertainment for me. I need all the practice I can get when it comes to making my arguments clear before I go out on my own with my own book and web site .. EVENTUALLY.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
Well, MOST of the audience here , anyway.You ask for opposing opinions then you get nasty and personal and show no sign of wanting to learn or discuss anything, just shove your ideas. Since you apparently are not capable of dealing with opinions or thoughts other than your own, I will cease interacting with you. Plus you are always yelling in your comments, very rude.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 11:06 am
Here is what you actually said ""A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No."I want opposing opinions , and I'm always on the lookout for new facts. I do NOT want my words twisted into pretzels so that they appear to mean something diametrically opposite to what I actually said, by taking them out of context.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:00 pm
I think you are more interested in finding personal fault with me than you are in actually discussing facts, possibilities, and ideas.
I use a lot of caps, but seldom more than five or six words at a time, because caps are a lot quicker for me than taking time to use italics or bold.
I'm not presenting a paper for publication here, lol. I'm just participating in a conversation. If you want to take offense, feel free, it's still somewhat of a free country.
I" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 4:15 pm
Bullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up Wilson , and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again.
There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people under ordinary circumstances versus under new and compelling circumstances.
IF AND WHEN circumstances leave various groups little or no choice other than cooperation, , and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND that the only real option they have IS cooperation , well then .
I expect or predict that such groups WILL cooperate, sometimes, maybe even almost every time.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
Well, MOST of the audience here , anyway.
Understanding is tough for those who prefer NOT to understand.This is pretty much nonsense. People are very different than other animals because they get ideas in their head and follow them. That's the secret to our success -- we change our game plan all the time instead of being stuck in a single niche like most species. It's always hard to guess which ideas are going to work out, but societies choose -- so to speak -- whether to destroy themselves or not.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:29 pm
America has been choosing self destruction for several decades, and the eschatology our wacky creed planted in our minds seems very attractive, especially to old farts -- the alternative is to try something different.
Many societies have shown themselves to be resilient an sustainable. America has a colonial mentality that doesn't support that, even when it's obvious. My grandmother was born in Kansas and when she talked about the Dust Bowl she would shake her head and say, "I always told them not to cut down those cottonwoods -- they were the only thing keeping the farm from being blown away". Now they're depleting the aquifier in Kansas by planting maize for diesel. So the desert will continue to spread.
But the Japanese aren't like that at all. They've been planting trees for centuries. They don't have much choice, because the hills aren't very stable there. They'll get through.
And the Sahel Zone, the world's worst and poorest place, is changing as well. They've started replanting. A lot of them will survive.
Crazy hippies like this may do better than you think. Civilizations come and go, the species won't die for a while.
Root hog or die, as my father used to say. You can't imagine a world without Walmart, but it isn't the end of the world.
Another thought -- The Tasmanians. They were probably the wolrd's most primitive culture. They were cut off from the very old Australian mainland after the Ice Ages, and seems to have even forgotten fishhooks one of mankind's oldest technologies. But they had their ways, and they survived.A panda who was "really, really, ridiculously good at sex" brought the species back from the brink of extinction, but things are still weirdHickory says: 11/29/2017 at 11:32 pm
https://boingboing.net/2017/11/29/panda-bangers.htmlthank you Ron for this posting. I am in complete agreement with you on this.Gene Orleans says: 11/29/2017 at 11:55 pm
nothing more important. it is a bizarre and tragic spectacle to behold, and to participate in.
what a poor use of such an incredible biosphere.Many people from the looks of it here try to deal with the crises we face as a species and civilization the same way as myself. I spend much time here in front of modern electronic gadgetry. It's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated humans with. Yes this is truly a sick sad world we live in now. Matthew 13:38-40.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:51 amIt's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated humans with.Watcher says: 11/29/2017 at 11:55 pm
You are likely to be waiting a very long time. Religious stupidity makes the problem worse, never better.Didn't know this was here.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 9:57 am
1. Any quotes of someone's book on collapse and how collapse happens based on history . . . all worthless. There is no history.
2) There is no history because there has never been 7 billion before. There has never been collapse with nuclear weapons involved before. There has never been collapse with the maggot and fly total in the atmosphere from 6.5 billion corpses before.
3) Chinese oil consumption lags US per capita and they are striving mightily to correct that, as they should. When per capita consumption growth becomes difficult, they HAVE to take oil from someone else. That someone else's population starts to starve for lack of food production or transport. They object to the theft of "their" oil. War. They must. War or starve.
4) Consider Japan. Consider the relations between China and Japan. Japan cries out . . . you're taking this oil to improve your country's standard of living and you are starving our country to death to do this. How can you find morality in this? China will have no trouble whatsoever contriving morality in this.
5) Simply that. When there isn't enough to go around, no one will quietly accept inadequate amounts. Nor should they. All other stuff about global warming and debt and sacrificing lifestyle for someone else is just so much bizarre delusion. You got too little to live, you kill whoever took it.Hi Watcher,Watcher says: 11/30/2017 at 11:18 am
If you were correct there would be constant World War, most humans realize that conflict does not always lead to a positive outcome.
In an anarchic world things might play out as you imagine, we don't live in such a World.
Most people will do all they can to prevent anarchy.Ahh so only evil people resort to war.Survivalist says: 12/01/2017 at 8:33 am
Haven't you noticed only good guys win?'Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning' by Timothy Snyder is quite good. If you're not into the minutia of east European history circa WW2 then just cut to the conclusion. 'Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin' is good too.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 11:35 am
Here's an interview with Timothy Snyder if you want to get a taste.
Will this be the catalyst for the next Holocaust?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/09/what-will-cause-the-next-holocaust/Almost anyone, I suppose, can call himself or herself an anarchist, if he or she believed that the society could be managed without the state. And by the state -- I don't mean the absence of any institutions, the absence of any form of social organisation -- the state really refers to a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preëmpt the control of society from the people. So that would include the military, judges, politicians, representatives who are paid for the express purpose of legislating, and then an executive body that is also set aside from society. So anarchists generally believe that, whether as groups or individuals, people should directly run society.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 2:09 pm
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
-Edward AbbeyHi Hightrekker,Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/02/2017 at 8:50 pm
I define anarchy as without government.
Let's assume for a moment a World without any governments at all.
Let's also assume there at 7.4 billion people in the World.
I just don't see how that works. The World is not a perfect place, but it is far from clear that a World without any government(s) would be an improvement.
When some one comes up with a plan that is appealing to the majority of citizens in some nation, perhaps such a form of non-government will be instituted.Collapse Dynamics: Initial Conditions, Media Manipulation and The Short-Circuiting of ConsensualityDennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 10:48 am
I see anarchy, if it is understood correctly, as potentially having government if it is optional/consensual/legitimate.
For example, if I want you to represent me until which time as I say otherwise , then you can if you wish .
I also see anarchy as potentially 'hierarchical', or at least pseudohierarchical, if it is chosen freely.
So, for example, if I want you to tie me to a bed and have your way with me as your 'slave' if you wish , until which time as I or you opt out , then that is still ok. (fans face with hand)
It is about consensuality and a large part of the whole idea behind media manipulation of the masses is to 'short-circuit' consensuality– IOW, to make the masses consent to what they might not have normally consented to.
At the moment, I do not consent, for example, to what we call 'government' to take my money, or 'skim my labor', such as in the form of taxation. It is an 'initial condition' (think the butterfly effect) that can cascade, and seems to have cascaded, over time into dangerous, 'hurricane', territory. I mention this angle also to hopefully appeal to your apparent understanding and appreciation of physics and physical dynamics over time.
Right now, there is software available, ostensibly to support government governing consensually, called Loomio . There are likely others as well.Hi Caelan,Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:42 pm
See free rider problem. If taxes are not required, then very little is collected. So essentially, not taxes is roughly equal to no government.
How do legal agreements work in this no coercion society?
When there are disagreements how are they settled?
Come up with a system which works in a World with 7.5 billion and maybe someone will pay attention.Hi Dennis,islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 5:08 am
Your assertion does not necessarily stand to reason and is just an assertion without support. I could flip/modify it this way:
If taxes were consensual, then people would likely feel a greater sense of belonging to their locales and how they are shaped and so give them freely and as they see fit.
Consensual tax collection could be viewed as part of the modus operandi of actual government, rather than as a kind of large-scale centralized armed coercive mob, such that it appears.
See also here . I'll paraphrase some of it for you (again)
" if economics is to become an instrument of freedom and prosperity instead of an instrument of statism, then there are certain fundamental fallacies that must be continually challenged and discredited. Chief among these is the persistent non sequitur from externality to coercion -- that is, the bogus conclusion that coercion is a proper means to solve problems involving economic externalities.
One of the most blatant examples of this non sequitur occurs in discussions of the 'free rider problem' and the alleged solution of government provision of so-called 'public goods'. This is a particularly insidious economic theory that bears a great deal of the responsibility of derailing economics into the ditch of statism." ~ Ben O'Neill
A system that works for many more people, rather than a handful of elites, would appear to be a system that truly echoes what the people actually want, rather than what they are forced to.On the matter of carrying capacity, I have a minor quibble with some of the ideas presented here. Let me start by outlining my understanding of what is being said about carrying capacity.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:59 am
"So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained at about two hundred million tons, give or take"
So that lays a base line for carrying capacity but, unnatural selection, the selection of higher output varieties of crops or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would be sustainable indefinitely. The use of fertilizer, primarily organic types, if done in a sustainable way and by that I mean, returning animal and human waste streams to the soil, would also result in a more or less permanent increase in carrying capacity. So far, I've outlined two methods that humans could have used to positively influence carrying capacity more or less permanently.
The big change in carrying capacity comes with the FF age and the industrial revolution, first with the advent of mechanization and then with the Haber-Bosch process. A quick Internet search to refresh my memory of what the Haber-Bosch process entails, reveals that it is the chemical synthesis of ammonia (NH3) from nitrogen and hydrogen. Herein lies the basis for the connection between the petroleum industry and fertilizer industries and by extension carrying capacity. However, if we have enough excess energy we can easily get nitrogen from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water though I'm not sure how well that would work at a industrial scale at a global level.
So between the manufacture of fertilizers and the use of diesel powered machinery in farming, we have seen a huge increase in the ability to produce food. Ostensibly this ability can only last as long as the NG used to obtain hydrogen at an industrial scale and the petroleum to fuel the farm machines. However, the University of Minnesota has a Wind to Nitrogen Fertilizer project that aims to use excess wind power to manufacture ammonia so, it may well be that, if sufficient amounts of renewable energy can be harnessed, the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers could be extended way beyond the end of the petroleum age.
That is the basis for my minor quibble. Obviously, fossil hydrocarbons have allowed us to increase the carrying capacity of the planet in a way that can only last as long as the finite hydrocarbon reserves do. Might it not be the case that, a transition to renewable energy on a massive scale would allow a more or less sustainable increase in the carrying capacity of the planet above and beyond the 200 million tons of terrestrial vertebrate biomass that existed 10,000 years ago? I would argue that, from the standpoint of energy, renewable energy has the potential to yield a far more sustainable increase in carrying capacity than fossil energy has. What the level of that carrying capacity is would require a fair amount of academic research.
I fully concede that there are all sorts of other resource limits that will negatively affect carrying capacity. Maybe I'm just bargaining.Islandboy, there is no doubt that the carrying capacity of human beings can be increased somewhat by the use of organic fertilizers. But it is chemical fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/01/2017 at 2:58 am
Of course when the carrying capacity of humans is increased the carrying capacity of wild species, especially megafauna is decreased.
That is one thing that just drives me up the wall. Everyone is concerned about the welfare of human beings. No one seems to give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species.Hi Ron, I hope your doing well. Thank you for a great post. It sure explains why Costco was so F'n busy last weekend.James says: 11/30/2017 at 8:47 am
"No one seems to give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species"
That's just not all true. I'm pretty sure GoneFishing cares about his dog a lot more than myself.
"the selection of higher output varieties of crops or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would be sustainable indefinitely"
I think you could include the knowledge of harvesting water and controlled irrigation also increasing sustainable capacityHumans evolved to become the equivalent of RNA in cells. We use tools and information, primarily in technological cells and use them with ATP equivalent fossil fuels to do work. Like organisms or cells in the ecosystem, human organizations seek to grow, profit and take market share – to further their existence.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:06 am
The human brain is primarily a reward seeking organ as is most neural tissue in the ecosystem. Since humans are dissipative structures, not seeking rewards is the greatest threat they face. Most other threats, short of being chased by a pack of wild dogs, can be watered down and ignored since the brain must concentrate on getting resources and energy. Even though a human can think about things, it does not substitute for being greedy and gathering as much wealth as possible and reproducing prolifically. We're selected for doing that.
The natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction. Civilization is an explosive cancer that emerged from the ecosystem to consume and destroy the ecological body. Humans are the RNA that can't stop reproducing and stimulate the growth of new cells and distribution systems until the entire consumable earth is covered and the ecosystem dies or at least becomes much less complex.Hi James,James says: 11/30/2017 at 11:29 am
In many wealthy nations total fertility has fallen below the replacement level, in fact for about half the World's population TFR is below replacement (dividing things up by nation state). Generally it is higher income nations where this is the case and correlation between education level and total fertility is very strong.
These facts and the trend in Global education levels for women don't square very well with your theory.
As Ron has suggested, homo sapiens sapiens is not your average species.Even the education occurs in schools, the cellular equivalent of the nucleolus. Instead of pursuing the rewards of children, women are pursuing "wealth" created by the technological system. I'm not sure which one is most damaging.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 10:30 amThe natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:49 am
And out of which orifice did you pull all that BS out of?! Let me guess, you are of the Neo-Liberal Economist school of though, right? Try cracking a few tomes on human evolution and anthropology instead of failed 20th century memes about the nature of man and rationality of markets.Speaking of the rationality of markets:James says: 11/30/2017 at 11:34 am
Whitefish is halting Puerto Rico power repairs, claiming it's owed $83 million
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/us/puerto-rico-power-whitefish-halts-work/index.htmlYou don't see any greed? None in the ecosystem? Why is everyone trying to accumulate more wealth? Why do all organisms struggle to eat and reproduce to the maximum? Look in the cell, it's all happened before, but mostly with sunshine at the base.Cats@Home says: 11/30/2017 at 1:25 pm
Why do we worship the likes of Warren Buffett?
Cooperation exists, but only to enhance competition against a similarly cooperating group.Warren Buffett seems like a good man but Jeff Bezos is the businessman I admire most right now.Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 11:07 pmThe Creepy Religion That Explains All Of Trump's Actions.Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 3:22 pm
"The Prosperity Gospel is quintessentially American. One journalist described it as the "religion of winning," so we have to assume Charlie Sheen is onboard too."
http://www.cracked.com/blog/trumps-bizarre-religion-weirder-than-scientology/Blowing Up the TerritorySurvivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:40 pm
Trump's biggest break came from the Democratic party. Booking Hillary Clinton as the good guy in this match was a colossal error, especially when the most improbable thing in all of politics was waiting in the wings: a legit babyface.
Bernie Sanders came off like Paddington Bear next to Hillary Clinton. Bernie was a nice old Jewish man from Vermont who legitimately meant well, and he got a real pop from his fans. He drew like crazy. Hell, even I sent him money, the first time I have ever contributed to a political campaign -- every time he got on TV and started shooting about marijuana smokers going to jail while Wall Street hoodlums were walking, I Paypaled him five bucks. I had waited my whole life to hear a politician cut a promo like that -- I think he eventually ended up with a Jackson from me, straight from my personal pot budget.
As a face, Clinton just had too much baggage, a lot of it achingly familiar: A partner known for predatory sexual behavior, wicked family ties to big business, an entitled daughter, a family charity fund loaded with foreign money, lies, flip flops. . . . What was good for the goose might have been tolerable for the gander, but all she really got was a cheap pop, and if she had any moral high ground at all, she lost it when former Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working for CNN, leaked potential questions to the Clinton campaign before a debate with Sanders. That was cheating, behavior clearly unbecoming to a babyface. But more important was that she failed to deliver on the only thing that matters: she didn't draw. For a while it looked like there might be a "Dusty finish," a gimmick ending (named for Dusty Rhodes, the legendary wrestler and booker who invented it) in which one wrestler is declared the winner, only to have the decision reversed on a technicality -- for instance, interference from Russian hackers. This was a finish guaranteed to drive crowds insane, but Hillary couldn't put it over.
So who's the best worker? If we are using the Hulk Hogan index, it is indisputably Donald Trump. He won the election. He's the president.
But when it all comes tumbling down, be ready for a fresh wave of Trump-brand kayfabe -- transparently flawed in both conception and execution, except that he actually believes it. He'll ride off in his helicopter claiming that Washington was too dirty to clean up, that he tried but he couldn't drain the swamp, that they wouldn't accept the One Honest Man. He'll blame obstructionist Democrats for staging a witch hunt, and the Republicans for not having the guts to back him. In wrestling parlance this is called "blowing up the territory."
Pundits will argue: How much of it was real, how much reality show? How much was a put-on, how much of it was a guy legit skating at the edges of madness and dementia? Was it a work, a shoot, or a worked shoot? The only thing we can be sure of is that the secular writers will get it wrong. And, existentially, at least, Trump will still wear spandex when he mows the lawn. He can't help himself, that's just the kind of jerk he is.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-art-of-the-heel-edisonOrganisms evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power. With greater power, there is greater opportunity to allocate energy to reproduction and survival, and therefore, an organism that captures and utilizes more energy than another organism in a population will have a fitness advantage.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:50 pm
Individual organisms cooperate to form social groups and generate more power. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.
"Politics" is power used by social organisms to control others. Not only are human groups never alone, they cannot control their neighbors' behavior. Each group must confront the real possibility that its neighbors will grow its numbers and attempt to take resources from them. Therefore, the best political tactic for groups to survive in such a milieu is not to live in ecological balance with slow growth, but to grow rapidly and be able to fend off and take resources from others.
The inevitable "overshoot" eventually leads to decreasing power attainable for the group with lower-ranking members suffering first. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain it. Meanwhile, social conflict will intensify as available power continues to fall.
Eventually, members of the weakest group (high or low rank) are forced to "disperse." Those members of the weak group who do not disperse are killed, enslaved, or in modern times imprisoned. By most estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all the people who lived in Stone-Age societies died at the hands of other humans. The process of overshoot, followed by forced dispersal, may be seen as a sort of repetitive pumping action -- a collective behavioral loop -- that drove humans into every inhabitable niche of our planet.
Here is a synopsis of the behavioral loop described above:
Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.
Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power available to some members of the group, with lower-ranking members suffering first.
Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original group. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain power.
Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share of the remaining power.
Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.
Step 6. Go back to step 1.
The above loop was repeated countless thousands of times during the millions of years that we were evolving. This behavior is inherent in the architecture of our minds -- is entrained in our biological material -- and will be repeated until we go extinct. Carrying capacity will decline with each future iteration of the overshoot loop, and this will cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.
http://www.dieoff.orgwill cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:38 am
Such a optimist!Megacancer?Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:28 am"There's no indication that we're going to do anything philosophically different," said Jim Blackburn, an environmental law professor at Rice University. "With a few modifications, it's business as usual."Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:37 am
As Houston rebuilds from the most expensive hurricane in U.S. history, local officials plan to dredge waterways, build new reservoirs and a coastal barrier to protect against storms that experts say are growing in intensity due to a warming climate. They have asked Washington for $61 billion to pay for it all.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-harvey-floods/hurricane-harvey-makes-houston-reassess-growth-friendly-policies-idUSKBN1DU1KP?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews"Half the inhabitants of Melbourne have probably never seen something like this," Mr Williams said.George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 11:40 am
"This is a vast, intense, high impact event for this state."
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-weather-record-rainfall-and-flash-flooding-to-kick-off-summer-20171129-gzvk4s.htmlApart from our own actions there may be random events that can take us out. There's a report in the Times today of research into super-eruptions. The Toba explosion, 75,000 years ago, almost took out Homo sapiens. The latest research indicates such events (maybe not quite as bad) happen on average every 17,000 years instead of every few hundred thousand as previously thought, and we are currently in an unusually long hiatus from these.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 12:57 pm
The biggest explosion since "civilization" started was probably Krakatoa in the 6th century, which has been proposed as the beggining of the dark ages in Europe and the end of a couple of other civilizations, though there's a bit of controversy about that theory, but it was much milder than an explosion from one of the major calderas would be.
(paywall – but there might be some free articles per month available and the research is to be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters)
Sorry – probably the wrong thread.Continuing from above (this mirrors my own experience in Central Africa where families currently seem to be averaging about four kids each):GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 5:08 pm
POPULATION GROWTH IN AFRICA: GRASPING THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE
"In the past year (2016) the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. This comes to 3.5 million more people per month, or 80 additional people per minute since the early 1990s, family planning programmes in Africa have not had the same attention (as Asia and Latin America), RESULTING IN SLOW, SOMETIMES NEGLIGIBLE, FERTILITY DECLINES. IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES, PREVIOUS DECLINES HAVE STALLED ALTOGETHER AND ARE REVERSING."
WHY HAVE FOUR CHILDREN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE SEVEN? FAMILY PLANNING IN NIGER
" but Hamani is unusual in that three babies are enough for her. Despite having the highest fertility rate in the world, women and men alike in Niger say they want more children than they actually have – women want an average of nine, while men say they want 11."
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-nigerSounds like an explosion that will lead to implosion and migration. Families used to be fairly large in the European and American regions not long ago. Some still are.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 6:02 pm
There are 27.7 million people in Uganda. But by 2025 the population will almost double to 56 million, close to that of Britain, which has a similar land mass. In 44 years its population will have grown by nearly as much as China's.
"You look at these numbers and think 'that's impossible'," said Carl Haub, senior demographer at the US-based Population Reference Bureau, whose latest global projections show Uganda as the fastest-growing country in the world. Midway through the 21st century, if current birthrates persist, Uganda will be the world's 12th most populous country with 130 million people – more than Russia or Japan.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/01/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1"There are 27.7 million people in Uganda."Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:36 pm
That sounds about right and from personal observation almost all 27.7 million of them are school kids who (currently) are quite well nourished and with decent health care. A big problem, as I see it, is that virtually all schools in Uganda are run by "Western" churches who seen determined to increase the size of their flock by NOT teaching their students about contraception and the benefits thereof: sound familiar?"In 2015, the median age of the population in Uganda was 15.8 years."George Kaplan says: 12/01/2017 at 1:48 am
https://www.statista.com/statistics/447643/average-age-of-the-population-in-uganda/Doug – like you I have some sponsorship in Africa – a general women's group rather than an individual. From their letters what they want is education (both formal for the children and also just tips on farming and running a business), enough money (very little) to start a business so they can feed their children, a way to manage HIV if they are infected (many still are) and peace and quiet. What they don't want is more children, forced marriage through kidnap, the return of their husbands to beat them up, interference from the elders (all men) in their business. Often they only realise these options are even possible after they have had contact with the groups set up by the charity.Doug Leighton says: 12/01/2017 at 9:35 amGeorge – My African experiences are mainly restricted to Uganda (the pearl of Africa) where my family visit annually and have done so for almost 20 years; we love the country, the people, the wildlife. Its been a joy watching the girl we assisted progress from kindergarten to medical school; to meet and relate to her extended family who've become our close friends. The country (Uganda) and the people are currently doing well, very well indeed (unless you happen to be gay). Wildlife parks flourish and are well managed. My concerns relate to the future. There are too many kids. In my opinion, without reigning in population growth the country will face immense over-population problems in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Having said that, I agree with your comments -- all of them. And its true, woman's business groups are in many respects the future of Africa.Rob Mielcarski says: 11/30/2017 at 4:00 pm
Cheers,For anyone seeking a plausible scientific explanation for why:George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 4:08 pm
– one species has a uniquely powerful brain
– why the brain of that species is capable of visiting the moon but incapable of understanding or acting on it's own overshoot
– why one small group of hominids exploded about 100,000 to take over the planet
– why religion emerged simultaneous with the behaviorally modern mind about 100,000 years ago
– and more big questions: https://un-denial.com/2017/06/25/why-my-interest-in-denial/
I find this theory by Ajit Varki and Danny Brower very satisfying.
https://un-denial.com/denial-2/theory-video/That's a smart site you have there. I read that book some time ago, it's interesting but I thought a bit of a just-so story, but that's maybe becasue the ideas woud be so hard to prove one way or the other. It's a pity Brower died before his ideas got out to more discussion.Rob Mielcarski says: 12/01/2017 at 1:13 amYour initial reaction to the theory is perfectly reasonable and common.George Kaplan says: 12/01/2017 at 2:08 am
If you dig deeper and start connecting dots I think you may find it is the best available explanation for many big unanswered questions. The theory may not be correct but there are no known facts that slay it, nor any other equally elegant theories that fit the data better.
Varki acknowledges the difficulty of testing the theory, but does point to some promising avenues of research. Unfortunately Varki's speciality and day job is in a different domain so his theory is likely to sit on the shelf until some young scientist with a defective denial gene picks up the baton.I did find it neat and convincing as you say, but that's the point of just-so stories, plus it's difficult to know where to go if it is correct, but I'm going to be visiting your site without question.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 7:39 pmI suppose this 2014 piece is apropos,Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 7:50 pm
WILL OVERPOPULATION LEAD TO PUBLIC HEALTH CATASTROPHE?
"Our new projections are probabilistic, and we find that there will probably be between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people in 2100," Prof. Raftery told Medical News Today. "This projection is based on a statistical model that uses all available past data on fertility and mortality from all countries in a systematic way, unlike previous projections that were based on expert assumptions."
"A key finding of the study is that the fertility rate in Africa is declining much more slowly than has been previously estimated, which Prof. Raftery tells us "has major long-term implications for population."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284619.php?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Medical_News_Today_TrendMD_1Spain's water crisis deepens as Rio Tajo dries upHightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 9:30 pm
(haven't had a wing pawn global cooling update for a while)
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/sahara-moving-north/43959Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate changeFred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 5:09 am
( Nature Geoscience , not Watt Is My Head Doing Up My Ass?No discussion about human evolution or even biological evolution across all species can be considered complete without at least a basic understanding of the biochemical and molecular biological basis of CRIPR-Cas9 gene editing technology and gene drives.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 8:56 am
Sam Harris' latest podcast has a discussion of this technology with Jennifer Doudna.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jennifer Doudna about the gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9. They talk about the biology of gene editing, how specific tissues in the body can be targeted, the ethical implications of changing the human genome, the importance of curiosity-driven science, and other topics.E.O. WilsonOFM says: 12/01/2017 at 10:49 am
I have always been a great admirer of E.O Wilson. I have followed his work for years. I especially liked "Sociobiology" and "Consilience". I have followed his feud with Stephen J. Gould, Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin, and Leon Kamin, (as reported by Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins). (I always came down on the side of Wilson et al.) And I am very proud to say he is a fellow Alabamian.
That being said, there are areas where I must disagree with him. For instance:
From Kirkus Reviews of "Half Earth":
In this final volume of his trilogy, Wilson (The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014, etc.) opens with a compelling proposal on how to slow current species extinction rates: set aside half of the planet (noncontiguously) as wilderness preserves free from human encroachment, a measure that the author claims would stabilize more than 80 percent of species.
Fred Magyar, above, quotes from Edward O. Wilson's New Take on Human Nature:
Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too ..
By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe ..
To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough to be a eusocialist.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous. Which parts of the U.S. would we set aside, parts that make half the land area? Could we convince every African nation to do the same? Or Russia? Or China, South Korea or Japan?
Second, as much as I admire Wilson, I think he is just flat wrong on his new take on human nature. And I think Pinker and Dawkins would agree with that opinion. If you had read Pinker's " The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature ," and I have, you would know exactly what I mean. Our minds are not blank slates to be molded by society, to be made to behave like ants in a colony, like a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. All those traits that Wilson says we must give up are in our genes, human nature.
I will not deny that humans can be ruled. An Iron Fist could compel us to behave in such a matter. But all such Iron Fists carry within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's just human nature.Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:09 am
After reading your eight fifty six am, I'm telling ya straight .. Between your ears, where you live intellectually, you are a TRUE conservative.
The people who we refer to today as conservatives, meaning those who inhabit the right wing politically, are not REAL conservatives, not according to my definition.
Don't forget that I am a follower of the Humpty Dumpty School of Linguistics. Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean, when I use them, rotfl.
To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders .. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers, and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.
I'm just teasing you a little, not making fun of you.
Decent people, left or right wing, want the same things, when you get down to the basics. Peace, dignified life, freedom from unnecessary worries, etc.
I haven't yet read Wilson's latest books. Hoping to get around to it, this winter.
We need to keep it in mind that just because somebody presents a grand plan in a book, and writes as if it might be possible to implement it, he does not necessarily believe there's a snowball's chance on a red hot stove that his plan will ever actually be implemented.
Such books are sometimes intended as sources of inspiration for a new generation of people following along in his footsteps .. and such a plan MIGHT be implemented . a few centuries down the road, lol. Stranger things have happened, historically.
Such a book can be the result of an old man's dreams being put in libraries so as to achieve a sort of immortality . Wilson had that already of course.
I reckon you're even older than I am, and here's wishing you the best at the personal level.To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders .. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers, and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 11:01 pm
Sorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True Liberal.
I am a conservative when it comes to conserving the environment, saving animal habitat and saving species from extinction. But those are qualities held by most liberals and not held by so-called conservatives. Right-wing Republicans call themselves conservatives.
So I just have to accept the lexicon as it exist today. I am a liberal, not a conservative."Sorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True Liberal."Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:12 pm
You DO GET IT, Ron, except you haven't yet quite got around to thinking of labels as jokes or weapons . Labels are for partisans. Labels are clubs we use to pound each other into submission.
People with real working brains generally come to the same basic conclusions, regardless of the way they're labeled by themselves or others. There's usually more than one route by which we can travel and arrive at the truth.
You're a man willing to tell it like it is, as for instance when you have pointed out the realities of the way things work in some countries where you worked yourself. A partisan D just won't repeat that sort of stuff, true or not.
When you say you're a liberal, you're just labeling yourself. What you ARE is something else. You're a man with a working brain, a man who understands reality, a man who tells it like it is, as you perceive it to be.You're a man with a working brain, a man who understands reality, a man who tells it like it is, as you perceive it to be.OFM says: 12/02/2017 at 2:40 pm
You are a goddamn right man, and that means I am a liberal.Ah yes, but liberal is still just a label.OFM says: 12/03/2017 at 5:49 pm
It is however true that the so called liberals are more often right by a substantial margin than the so called conservatives in terms of having objective facts on their side when considering issues such as the environment, public health, and many others.
But they're not always right. Sometimes the liberal camp seems to have it's head as far up its backside as the conservative camp.
The leaders of both camps seem to be more interested in having plenty of foot soldiers to serve as cannon fodder than they are in the actual welfare of the country.
I can provide as good arguments for any sort of truly sound public policy from a conservative pov as you can from a liberal pov.
To me this proves we both have working brains, and are capable of looking the truth in the eye, and publicly agreeing on what IS true, and what is not.
If we could free ourselves of goddamned infernal partisan politics and identity politics , based on our community cultures, we could make things happen politically.
If for instance we could put the question of subsidizing wind and solar power to a referendum, I could easily convince most of the so called conservatives I know that voting in favor of subsidies would be a GREAT BARGAIN for them, long term. Well, the ones with brains enough that they know a little about the business world anyway. That's at least half of them, and more than enough.
They won't ordinarily support subsidizing renewable energy as part of a package deal because they perceive the PACKAGE to be weighted in favor of their political and cultural enemies. Supporting renewable energy subsidies would mean voting for D's and they don't like the overall D agenda.Back to you one more time Ron,Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 11:04 am
I'm not sure WHERE this comment will appear, but hopefully it will be below my two forty pm.
Allow me to approach this liberal/ conservative label thing from a different direction.
Suppose you meet a new person, and get to talking about oh let us say water pollution, and fishing, and having to spend your local tax money on a sophisticated water treatment plant, because there's too much of this or that and the other as well in the river that passes your town to drink the water, without spending a lot of money. .
If you NEVER MENTION anything that LABELS you as a liberal or conservative, you can talk meaningfully to just about anybody about this issue.
Identify yourself as a liberal, or a conservative, you more or less automatically blow your opportunity to say anything to your new POTENTIAL friend who thinks of himself as your opposite and enemy, politically, other than something he already knows and believes, even if what that something is factually incorrect.
Label yourself as a liberal, and the typical serious Christian voter in the state of Alabama automatically thinks of you as a murderer of yet to be born children. Forget labeling yourself, avoid it to the extent you can, and you have an EXCELLENT shot at talking to that voter about supporting only candidates who have a decent record of being respectful to women, immigrants, minorities, etc.
If I label myself as a conservative, I've automatically blown my chance to have a serious conversation with a liberal about the possibility of having some real choice in education . meaning breaking the teacher's unions and government's de facto monopoly control of our educational system.
You may not like this idea, but think about this how much better are your options NOW, given that we have email, fax, UPS, Fed Ex , etc, when it comes to getting a letter or package where it needs to go FOR SURE and RIGHT AWAY?
I have heard lots of liberals say that allowing any real choice in the schools would mean the end of any real opportunity for poor kids, inner city kids, etc, to get a decent education. Sometimes, in the same breath almost, I hear those same liberals admit that the public schools in lots of communities large and small are literal disaster areas, where hardly any of the kids learn anything. I used to know quite a few of this sort , back in my younger days, when I was living in the Fan and hanging out with the older ( grad students mostly ) kids at VCU having a good time, taking a course or two per semester to keep my grad student ID up to date. I spent about ten years there off and on.
Ya know WHAT? EVERY LAST COUPLE I knew among them moved out of town when their OWN kids got old enough to go to school.
Quite a few of them spent their careers as teachers, lol. And my guess is that not more than one out of ten of those couples ever moved to a place where the schools were the sort of hell holes we read about so often these days .. and that tenth couple of course had NO KIDS, lol.
Yet they almost universally believe in the de facto teacher / government educational monopoly as it exists today, as it totally ruins the prospects of millions of kids denying them, or more accurately, their parents, any real choice in the schools their kids attend. If liberal versus conservative comes into the conversation, it's OVER. The liberals aren't going to listen, any more than conservatives listen.
How many members of this forum think Roy Moore ought to be tarred and feathered ? How many have ever had the intellectual integrity to say the same thing about Bill Clinton?
Liberals are liberals, and conservatives are conservatives, and the gulf between can be as vast as the gulf between East and West. Communication is tough to impossible.
But if we avoid the labels . communication can happen.
Incidentally this rant does NOT mean I am a supporter of the Trump administration in general, or the Trump education department in particular. Nothing I know of concerning the Trump administration seems to be about the good of the COUNTRY or of the majority of the people of this country.First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 11:19 am
Even stopping the rape and scrape accelerating is highly unlikely.
This is total fantasy.
At best, the survivors (if any) on the other side of the wall we are about to crash into, will have enough wisdom and intelligence to embrace the condition they are in.First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.GoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 12:01 pm
That isn't what he proposes even though it is the title of his book. May I suggest you read it! What he is really arguing for is more along the lines of a network of ecological corridors that might connect already existing nature preserves, parks and private property and therefore allow isolated pockets of natural ecosystems to be connected with others.
To be very clear, E.O. Wilson is not in any way naive about our predicament and says so.
That's not to say he has thrown in the towel, especially given that he is now in the later portion of his 80's. He apparently doesn't want to go down without a fight.
I have read his book twice already and have the Kindle version on my laptop. To be honest I'm not what anyone might call overly optimistic about the prospects of his proposals coming to pass. Having said that, I do admire his deep knowledge base about the natural world and have the greatest admiration for the man! More power to him for trying!
Cheers!Fred, I read Half Earth and have to agree with E.O. Wilson. I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans can do what is needed. All the gadgetry in the world cannot replace a functioning ecosystem. Those functions are mandatory for the preservation of life on earth. We need to preserve, expand and enhance (if we get smart enough) natural ecosystems around the world.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 12:24 pm
Why not build armies? Armies called the United Conservation and Environmental Protection Corp, whose job is to protect and expand natural areas around the world. It would increase employment and be funded by monies that otherwise go to military purposes. This and other organizations could be doing things that make the people proud to be human, rather than just wheels and cogs in basically destructive system.
This is not naïve, this is just choices. Humans make choices, that is one of our inherent abilities. Our current state and appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old choices, time to make new ones.I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans can do what is needed.Doug Leighton says: 12/01/2017 at 12:38 pm
Really now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed it is goddamn time they got started.
Our current state and appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old choices, time to make new ones.
Those choices were made, and are being made, by 7 billion people. And yes, it is time those 7 billion people changed the way they are behaving, it is time they made different choices. But don't hold your breath.
I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism.Yup, reminds me of China, driving to a restaurant half way across Beijing with a car full of Chinese because they knew about a hot spot where some endangered species or other was on the menu: get it before you're too late. Life in the real world!GoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 2:06 pm
"Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/"If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. "Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 3:21 pm
"I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism."
By destroying the environment we destroy ourselves. I think that will soon become quite apparent and then those who are already on track can leverage that.As Charlie Brown would say: Good Grief!Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 8:44 pmReally now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed it is goddamn time they got started.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:06 pm
Ok, let's assume for a moment using round numbers that there are currently 7.5 billion humans living on this tiny planet as I type these words. How many of those humans do you suppose are actually aware of the fact that we are probably in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess about a couple hundred thousand.
Now most of those couple hundred thousand are in shock and denial of reality. So there are maybe 100,000 humans who are aware and are actually starting to do something.
While that may sound like a minuscule amount I can cite data and research that shows that may be enough to really start to change the current paradigm in a big way.As I quoted Charlie Brown above: Good Grief!Fred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 7:15 amLOL!Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 12:22 pm
Yea, the feud between Gould/Lewontin/Rose VS Wilson/Dawkins/Dennett has been interesting.Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 8:59 pm
Being somewhat Marxist in my orientation, I was kinda presupposed to the Gould camp, but the Wilson/Dawkins have proven to ring much truer.
The Blank Slate puts the nails in the coffin for Marxist view of human nature, as Marx viewed it as totally a function of environment. Pinker buried that view.
Orr was always Gould and Lewontin's go to guy with media, as he had power in the NYT's and Boston Globe, and could often control reviews and and coverage.
It has been interesting.http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blue-dot.htmlGoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 10:03 pm
I'm sure most here are familiar with what Carl Sagan said about our Pale Blue Dot
This excerpt from Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan's suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.
Now guess what?!
At present, the Voyager 1 spacecraft is 21 billion kilometers from Earth, or about 141 times the distance between the Earth and Sun. It has, in fact, moved beyond our Solar System into interstellar space. However, we can still communicate with Voyager across that distance.
This week, the scientists and engineers on the Voyager team did something very special. They commanded the spacecraft to fire a set of four trajectory thrusters for the first time in 37 years to determine their ability to orient the spacecraft using 10-millisecond pulses.
The Voyagers have reached an anniversary worth celebrating
After sending the commands on Tuesday, it took 19 hours and 35 minutes for the signal to reach Voyager. Then, the Earth-bound spacecraft team had to wait another 19 hours and 35 minutes to see if the spacecraft responded. It did. After nearly four decades of dormancy, the Aerojet Rocketdyne manufactured thrusters fired perfectly.
"The Voyager team got more excited each time with each milestone in the thruster test. The mood was one of relief, joy, and incredulity after witnessing these well-rested thrusters pick up the baton as if no time had passed at all," said Todd Barber, a propulsion engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
Humans can do some pretty incredible things!
Cheers!Yes, they can even teach their young to love the life of the planet and help keep it safe.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/01/2017 at 10:59 pmNot if your born in the South and damaged by religionFred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 7:14 amWell, E.O. Wilson was born in Alabama into an evangelical family.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 11:14 amSo was I. Well, sort of. My dad was a Deacon in the Primitive Baptist Church but he was not a crusading evangelical.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/02/2017 at 6:01 pm
I have told this story before but I will do it again here.
I was about 17 or so when I sidled up to my dad who was sitting in his easy chair. I asked: "Dad, how did them kangaroos get from Australia to over there where Noah's Ark was? And how did they get back?" Dad jumped up from his chair, stuck his finger right in my face and yelled: "Son, that is the word of God and that is not for you to question."
I never questioned my Dad again about religion.It takes character and courage not act like sheep. My hat goes off to you. Ron, I'm sure you understood exactly what I meant by my earlier comment.Hickory says: 12/02/2017 at 12:15 amWhen countries begin to hit the wall economically ( as happened in Germany in the 1930's for example), the populace will often out of desperation (and ignorance of course) enable a dictator to come to power. This is with the false hope that grandiose promises of prosperity will be fulfilled.George Kaplan says: 12/02/2017 at 2:59 am
This explains why Trump was elected, even though the American has yet to be tested by disruption, much.
As the world hits the wall of growth limits, the risk is for more and more leadership failures, the rise of warlords, the failure of functioning democracies.
Violent choices and dysfunctional government will serve to be a mechanism of population decline, ugly population decline. Current events can be seen through this lens as time unfolds.
Hard to watch.
May be better to have no TV.
The de-evolution will be televised, will be televised, will be televisedThe general population in Germany did not really enable Hitler to come to power. He was appointed as a compomise by the two leading parties in an election who had split the main vote. They both thought he would make such a mess of it that they would sweep the board at the next election. As soon as he was appointed he started killing or imprisoning these smart opposition leaders, and there wasn't another clean election. It was more like an extended coupe, admittedly with a large number of supporters, often ex WW-I soldier thugs, in the general population.OFM says: 12/02/2017 at 2:23 pmGeorge is in the bullseye about how Hitler came to power, considering he was painting fast with a broad brush in such a short comment. I have devoted many a long evening to reading the history of war in the twentieth century, so as to better understand the history of my time.Hickory says: 12/03/2017 at 1:17 am
Wars are usually the result of politicians either wanting them, or being boxed into situations where they either can't avoid them or consider them the best of an assortment of bad options.Point taken George. Despite that the general notion that as crunch time develops, there will be a trend towards extremist and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Along with pockets of failed states, anarchy and warlords. 'Have nots' will take big risks.GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 8:25 amNo devolution involved. Just human nature.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 9:43 am
The loose knit groups with similar hates, anger and dislikes were temporarily brought together. It was an inverse election that utilized the negative and more volatile side of human nature. it only hangs together with constant stirring and occasional negative results (pound the enemy). Finger pointing and passing the buck is not enough, the groups start fracturing.Lose the Tee Vee -- -HuntingtonBeach says: 12/02/2017 at 8:18 pm
The more you watch, the less you know.The difference between the "Tee Vee" and the Internet is exposing your ignorance to the worldRon Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 1:36 pmA question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse, at least for the next 200 years or so.islandboy says: 12/02/2017 at 2:36 pm
Dennis, I understand your very optimistic outlook for the welfare of future human populations. I don't agree with it but I understand your argument. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, your entire argument deals with the human population of the earth. I don't remember reading your predicted outlook for the rest of the animal kingdom? Perhaps you did make one and I just missed it.
That being said, you have read my outlook many times. And it was all repeated in my post above. Do you agree or disagree? Just where do you see the large wild animal population in the year 2100? Please elaborate.
Edit: Dennis, I know you do not consider yourself a cornucopian, however, I was just comparing your outlook for the future of civilization to mine. And using that comparison?Nice! I was just thinking about a response to a comment following one of mine further up and this pops up, which dovetails nicely into what I've been thinking. In my comment I mention using wind power to make ammonia as a foundation for chemical nitrogen fertilizer and you (Ron) in you reply stated that, " But it is chemical fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity." I don't know if you realized this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical fertilizer using excess wind (and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity by allowing us to continue the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in the absence of oil and NG.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:18 pm
This can be viewed as a downside to the ongoing exponential increasing capacity of renewable electricity generation. If renewables grow big enough fast enough, there will be incentives to use any excess to do things like manufacture fertilizer allowing mankind's expansion into wild habitats to continue. I think it is important that the existing population of the planet continues to have more or less adequate food supplies in order to avoid the sort of situation that exist in Haiti but, the real problem as I see it, is to get poor people in less developed countries to believe that they would be better off not having as many children. Based on utterances I have heard in my neck of the woods, as recently as last night, many of these people do not see any problem with having lots of kids. There seems to be an attitude abroad that there is a great big world out there, just ready for the taking. No limits. I wonder whatever gives people that idea?
I wanted to post some pictures of garbage, sitting in open storm water channels, just waiting for the next big shower of rain to be washed out of existence. At least that must be what the people who dump this stuff into the drains think. I have to wonder if they ever bother to think about where it's going to end up but, it seems to be a simple case of out of sight, out of mind. I guess some readers will have figured out that if you visit any area of the Jamaican coastline that does not have a regular, structured clean up crew, you will see where the trash ends up. I have seen it and it is depressing.I don't know if you realized this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical fertilizer using excess wind (and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity by allowing us to continue the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in the absence of oil and NG.islandboy says: 12/02/2017 at 3:45 pm
Errr . I don't know if you realize it but you cannot make nitrogen fertilizer without natural gas . or some other source of hydrogen. Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive.
Fertilizer Made with Natural Gas Is Lifting Our World
Referred to by some as the most important technological advance of the 20th century .Between 3 and 5 percent of the world's annual natural gas production – roughly 1 to 2 percent of the world's annual energy supply – is converted using the process to produce more than 500 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer, which is believed to sustain about 40 percent of the world's 7 billion people. Approximately half of the protein in today's humans originated with nitrogen fixed through the Haber-Bosch process."Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive."Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 2:59 pm
Not if you are experiencing negative electricity prices as has happened when there's lots of wind and no demand or transmission capacity for the electricity being generated. I think OFM has alluded to this a few times in his ramblings, suggesting that hydrogen production via electrolysis or desalination might be useful ways of avoiding otherwise wasted electricity when the resource is available but, there is limited demand or transmission capacity.
If we ever get to the point where wind and solar generators are ubiquitous and abundant this could be a distinct possibility. In case you missed it in my earlier post here's The University of Minnesota's Wind to Nitrogen Fertilizer project :
We are pursuing a Grand Challenge – the challenge to feed the world while sustaining the environment. In the spirit of this grand challenge, a team of researchers across the University are pursuing an elegant concept in which wind energy, water, and air are used to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
WCROC energy from the windEnergy generated from the wind is used to separate hydrogen from water. Nitrogen is pulled from air. The hydrogen and nitrogen are then combined to form nitrogen fertilizer that nourishes the plants surrounding the farmer.
Next to water, nitrogen fertilizer is the most limiting nutrient for food production. Minnesota farmers import over $400 million of nitrogen fertilizer each year and are subjected to volatile price swings. Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer is currently produced using fossil energy which contributes significantly to the carbon footprint of agricultural commodities.
and from https://www.siemens.co.uk/en/insights/potential-of-green-ammonia-as-fertiliser-and-electricity-storage.htm
"Green" ammonia demonstration programme:
Siemens is participating in an all electric ammonia synthesis and energy storage system demonstration programme at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford. The demonstrator, which will run until December 2017, is supported by Innovate UK. Collaborators include the University of Oxford, Cardiff University and the Science & Technology Facilities Council.Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:53 pm
I do not know much about the subject so I should probably not offer an opinion, but because you asked
I agree that humans are the problem and believe that fewer humans (as in reduced population) will improve the situation. Will humans choose to protect some of the mega fauna, until population falls to a more sustainable level? I have no idea.
Is it possible? I would say yes.
High probability? My guess would be no (less than a 66% probability).
So I do not have a prediction for the Earth's megafauna in 2100, except to say I doubt your prediction that we will be reduced to rats and mice, etc. is correct. This is no doubt because I believe there will be a gradual transition to a more sustainable society. I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200). Most likely in North America, Scandanavia, and Siberia, and perhaps in the Himalaya and parts of South America. The rapid expansion of population in Africa makes it less likely the megafauna will survive there.
I am using the 40 kg cutoff for megafauna, though there are many definitions.
Note that some would consider cornucopian an insult.
Certainly I do not think fossil fuels are as abundant as those who believe scenarios such as the RCP8.5 scenario (with about 5000 Pg of carbon emissions) are plausible.
I also do not believe resources are unlimited or infinitely substitutable, which tends to be the cornucopian viewpoint. There is great need to utilize resources more efficiently and to recycle as much as possible (cradle to grave manufacturing should be required by law).
Now if you define cornucopian as someone who is less pessimistic than you, then I am by that definition a cornucopian.
I am certainly more optimistic than you, but if we all agreed there would be little to discuss.
Clearly the future is unclear.
The outlook for the wild megafauna is tragic and we should do what we can to preserve species diversity. Getting human population to peak and decline would improve the situation of other species, but I share your pessimism that this will be enough, I am just less pessimistic than you.I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200).GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 4:19 pm
Okay, let's do the math. It looks like the world will reach 9 billion people by 2050. Then if it were to fall to 1 billion by 2150, that would be a decline of 80,000,000 per year or 219,178 per day. That is deaths above births. That would be a catastrophic collapse by any stretch of the imagination. And of course, most of those deaths would be by starvation. And for sure, as I said before, we would eat the songbirds out of the trees.
Hell, if that scenario takes place, there will likely be no rats left. No, no, no, Dennis, please forgive me. You are definitely not a cornucopian. Oh God, how could I have been so wrong?The most rapid population decreases have been from disease. A few bouts of virulent diseases in a world with little medical help and control could dramatically reduce population.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 5:14 pm
Population Collapse in Mexico (Down to about 5% in a century)
Hi Ron,Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:27 pm
See chart below. If total fertility ratio (TFR) falls to 1.5 by 2050 then population can fall from 9 billion to 4.5 billion by 2125 and to 2.25 billion by 2200 and to 1 billion by 2300, a fall in TFR to 1.25 (South Korea is about 1.26) would result in more rapid population decline. It is not clear how low TFR can go for the World, it was cut in half in 40 years, whether that can continue so that 1.27 is reached in 2055 is unknown. This scenario assumes life expectancy rises to no higher than 90 for the World.
Deaths would be natural rather than from starvation, this is just a matter of people choosing to have fewer children as is the case today in many East Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan and in many European nations as well.
Education for women and access to birth control and electrification (watch tv, instead of other forms of entertainment leading to increased family size), and empowerment of women in general will reduce population growth. Higher income also helps.
Chart from paper linked below
Keeping things in perspective, why not go with the experts until they're proven wrong?Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:36 pm
WORLD POPULATION LIKELY TO SURPASS 11 BILLION IN 2100
"American Statistical Association. "World population likely to surpass 11 billion in 2100: US population projected to grow by 40 percent over next 85 years."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150810110634.htmTHERE'S A STRONG CHANCE THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL PEOPLE WILL BE AFRICAN BY 2100Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 7:52 pm
The combination of declining mortality and relatively high fertility is the driver of rapid population growth in Africa. Even if fertility would continue to decline, as assumed by the UN medium scenario, it will not bring down the growth rate in the near future, let alone halt population growth. This is because of "demographic inertia". And this is because Africa has a high proportion of young adults of reproductive age. Even if each one had very few children, the number of births would remain high.
http://theconversation.com/theres-a-strong-chance-that-one-third-of-all-people-will-be-african-by-2100-84576We are all African– it's just some of us have been gone for a while.Synapsid says: 12/03/2017 at 12:24 pm
(well if you are east of the Wallace Line, you are part Denisovan, and west, part Neanderthal and a species we haven't discovered yet)Hightrekker,Doug Leighton says: 12/03/2017 at 12:47 pm
The Neanderthals and Denisovans are of African descent too, so African we are.
It's turtles all the way down."It's turtles all the way down." LOL Exactly!GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 9:22 pmHere is how the year 2000 looked like to the people of 1900.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 6:32 pm
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-boston-globe-of-1900-imagines-the-year-2000-97021464/Dennis, you are assuming that the population will alter their fertility rates to a lower value. Yes, that has already happened in developed countries. The fertility rates in undeveloped countries are still controlled by what their economy and environment will bear.Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:38 pm
The vast majority of the human population lives in undeveloped countries. They will continue to push, push, push against the very limits of their existence. And that will still be the case 50 years from now, and 100 years from now, and 150 years from now.
There are reasons the fertility rate is dropping in developed countries. Female empowerment, contraception, and so on. There are entirely different reasons the fertility rate is dropping in undeveloped countries. Poor nutrition, almost no prenatal care and so on. Also, much higher infant death rate helps keep the population in check. Please check my chart above from the Population Reference Bureau.
I think that if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely different outlook. You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses.
Again, check the Population Reference Bureau chart above." if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely different outlook. You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses."Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 9:07 pm
Wouldn't take a year, one week would do it: even keeping the rose-colored glasses on.I spent a bit of time on leave in "Liberated Burma"/Karen State shortly after the fall of Manerplaw. A week would do it, however I was there for about 3 months. I haven't had a bad day since.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 10:03 pmGot chased out of Myanmar by someone with a AK, lucky I wasn't a captive. Walked across from Masi.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 10:44 pm
It wasn't the best idea I've ever had.I linked up with some folks in Mae Sot on the Thai side. It was well planned before hand. There's was a lot of back and forth across the border in those days. Did some long range mobile medical patrols in Karen and Karenni State. Got chased around by Tatmadaw/SLORC a bit. When I was 25 that was my idea of a good time. Yeah, kinda fucked I know.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 10:58 pmYea --Dennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 11:09 am
I was the only Farang around in Masi, and everyone else was going back and forth.
Very interesting place.
That was a long time ago, in a land far, far away.
It would be impossible in the homogeneous police state we are currently inhabiting.Hi Doug and Ron,GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 2:32 pm
I spent about 5 months hitchhiking through North and West Africa in 1981-2. Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Gabon, Republic of Congo, and Zaire (as it was known in 1982).
The TFR of half the World's population as of 2015 is less than 2. The World TFR decreased from 5.02 in 1965 to 2.51 in 2015.
Different experts have different opinions
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/WorldPopulation/News/170109-GSDR.htmlThe problem I see with fertility rates is the same problem I see with planting trees. Even though I support a foundation to plant trees I realize that future changes could allow people to wipe out those and other trees very quickly, thus rendering the effort useless. I also realize the preserved areas of nature and wilderness could quickly disappear or be irreparably harmed by government decree, war and material/food pressures.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 2:51 pm
The same goes with lower fertility rates. Since they are only based on decisions and not biological, the lower rates could reverse quite quickly. Just stress the population and see how fast it will change.
Once people realize that technological progress is an empty dead system that moves us to an empty dead world, birth rates will climb quickly.
Rather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make us dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the logic of that cell phone has been imposed on us.
"The computer is a mechanism for acceleration, it accelerates economic activity and this is eating up the world. It's eating up resources, it's processing, it's manufacturing, it's distributing, it's consuming. That's what the computer's real work does and it does that 24/7, 365 days a year, non-stop just to satisfy our own narrow needs."
Tompkins foresees a dark future dominated as he puts it by more ugliness, damaged landscapes, extinct species, extreme poverty, and lack of equity and says humanity faces a stark choice; either to transition now to a different system or face a painful collapse.
"The extinction crisis is the mother of all crises. There will be no society, there will be no economy, there will be no art and culture on a dead planet basically. We've stopped evolution."
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/technology-stopped-evolution-destroying-worldRather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make us dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the logic of that cell phone has been imposed on us.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 3:35 pm
So put the damn cell phones to better use. They can also make us smarter They can be used to track illegal logging in endangered rain forests. The fact that I have a device in my pocket that gives me access to all of human knowledge and access to GPS does not make me dumber.
When a tree calls for help | Topher White | TEDxCERNReally? You have cell service in the rain forests? I barely have cell service where I live and it disappears totally between the mountains near me. I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 5:26 pm
Let the rest feel nervous as they get out of touch. For many it's a disaster if they lose their phones, fully dependent.I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 8:44 pm
I actually learned how to use a sextant and a compass but GPS is available so I admit that I do use it upon occasion.
In any case my point was that it is possible to use technology for purposes other than tweeting or posting selfies of oneself to Facebook every ten minutes.Fred, they are highly capable machines but just machines. How they are used is determined by the machine and the operator interface.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 8:57 pm
I could go on for hours how they have had very bad effects on personal time and personal interactions. For many people life is a series of texts and phone calls with real time life being the background now. Interruptions are the norm now. Sacrilege is when they have to turn them off.You won't fix stupid no matter how hard you trynotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 9:56 pm
Texting and walking fails compilation@FredFred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 3:13 pm
I come close to nailing a textwalker or walkytalky nearly every time I am out on my bike. SOP, watch out for the buggers. It amazes me that people are unable to move about (foot, moto, car, bus, truck) without a phone in their hand.
NAOMA question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse, at least for the next 200 years or so.david higham says: 12/03/2017 at 7:28 pm
Ok, I'll take a nibble!
First of all, why do we have to accept the current definition of what the economy has to be? All of nature has existed on renewable energy since the beginning of life on this planet 3.8 billion years ago, so obviously the problem isn't renewable energy. If it were, life wouldn't even exist. The extractive, linear growth based neo liberal idea of the economy that we have come to accept as normal, is a relatively recent construct that was created by a small group of people at the beginning of the 20th century and it certainly is an aberration! Personally I don't think it is worth saving.
That economy will certainly collapse and no energy source can ever make it sustainable. Therefore it will by definition collapse. However there is nothing that says we need to continue on that path. There are indeed choices that people and societies can make. Even to the point of something that is considered radical and taboo like limiting population growth. (that is a separate dissertation from my point here)
With regards alternative economic thinking maybe start with Kate Raeworth. Not everyone in the world who has ideas that are out of the box are automatically naive cornucopians.
How to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. 45:00 minutes.
What is the goal of economics? Does GDP really tell us all we need to know about a country's wealth and well-being? Our guest in this show argues that our economic system should be designed to meet everyone's needs, while living within the means of the planet.
Kate Raworth is the author of the acclaimed book 'Doughnut Economics', and she will join us in the studio for an exploration of a new 21st century economic model and why she believes so many economists have got it wrong for so long.
The implications of her Doughnut Economics are profound and and can be read and embraced as a roadmap for change not just by experts or economists, but by everyone! This is a chance to challenge her with your questions and critiques.
If you want to think a bit more about how ideas like E.O. Wilson's Half Earth might look here's a TED talk that touches on it.
Nature is everywhere -- we just need to learn to see it 16:00 minutes
How do you define "nature?" If we define it as that which is untouched by humans, then we won't have any left, says environmental writer Emma Marris. She urges us to consider a new definition of nature -- one that includes not only pristine wilderness but also the untended patches of plants growing in urban spaces -- and encourages us to bring our children out to touch and tinker with it, so that one day they might love and protect it.
Emma Marris is a writer focusing on environmental science, policy and culture, with an approach that she paints as being "more interested in finding and describing solutions than delineating problems, and more interested in joy than despair."
I agree with Gone Fishing, we do have choices! There are people all over the world who are making them.Regarding the first paragraph of your reply. Conflating the functioning of ecosystemsnotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 8:49 pm
using the renewable energy from the sun with the 'Renewable Energy' required by industrial civilisation is a common mistake. The energy from the sun is renewable.
The infrastructure required to collect and store that energy requires the mining of the
requisite minerals,transportation,smelting,manufacturing,installation. The energy
required for all of that is supplied by fossil fuels. All of that infrastructure,and all of the
rest of the human-constructed industrial world,has to be rebuilt. Solar panels last
about 25-30 years. Wind Turbines about 50 years. Our industrial constructed world
has an immense amount of embedded fossil fuel energy. The mineral density of many ores are declining now,which means that the energy required to extract a given amount of mineral is increasing. I haven't done much reading on this site. No doubt someone has posted this link before. It gives a good idea of the scale of the construction required.
Natural ecosystems are quite different. The energy collection occurs using biodegradable
and recyclable materials,without the energy input of fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oilYou don't seem to have come across the concept of recycling.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 9:20 pm
NAOMThis is just the typical FF anti-renewable blurb slightly rewritten. It has more holes in than Swiss cheese.david higham says: 12/03/2017 at 9:50 pmHave a read of the numbers in the link. All recycling requires energy. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis of the amount of energynotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 11:03 pm
required,but it would be very large. It is also worth remembering that some of the minerals in that infrastructure are difficult to separate and
recycle.Plenty of people have investigated recycling and are doing it. You obviously haven't. Even the Giga-Factory is building a recycling facility.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 11:04 pm
On the personal level, I have just replaced my washing machine and stove as the old ones were falling apart – literally. The stove is ready to go to the local recycler where it will be separated and then sent to be melted back to new steel. The washer will be checked over by a refurbisher who will decide if he can use it or it's parts and what is left will go to the recycler. Simple. All my waste metal goes to the recycler but, unfortunately, we have no glass recycling so that just has to go to land fill.
NAOMDiet pills?Hillary says: 12/03/2017 at 12:44 am
Kinda makes sense.
Elton John blares so loudly on Donald Trump's campaign plane that staffers can't hear themselves think. Press secretary Hope Hicks uses a steamer to press Trump's pants -- while he is still wearing them. Trump screams at his top aides, who are subjected to expletive-filled tirades in which they get their "face ripped off."
And Trump's appetite seems to know no bounds when it comes to McDonald's, with a dinner order consisting of "two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted."
In another episode, Lewandowski describes how staffer Sam Nunberg was purposely left behind at a McDonald's because Nunberg's special-order burger was taking too long. "Leave him," Trump said. "Let's go." And they did.
Trump's fast-food diet is a theme. "On Trump Force One there were four major food groups: McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, pizza and Diet Coke," the authors write.
The plane's cupboards were stacked with Vienna Fingers, potato chips, pretzels and many packages of Oreos because Trump, a renowned germaphobe, would not eat from a previously opened package.
The book notes that "the orchestrating and timing of Mr. Trump's meals was as important as any other aspect of his march to the presidency," and describes the elaborate efforts that Lewandowski and other top aides went through to carefully time their delivery of hot fast food to Trump's plane as he was departing his rallies.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.de/2017/12/hes-got-to-be-on-diet-pills.html"two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted."GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 11:01 am
Oh let there be a godOne of the biggest problems we face as population and industry grows is obtaining enough fresh water. Sure there is a lot of water on the planet, but it is mostly salty.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 11:36 am
Marcia Barbosa talks about the many anomalies of water and how exploiting them with nano-tubes could help address the problem of freshwater shortages.
Marcia Barbosa has a PhD in physics from Brazil's Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, where she is now the director of its Physics Institute. She studies the complex structure of the water molecule, and has developed a series of models of its properties which may contribute to our understanding of how earthquakes occur, how proteins fold, and could play an important role in generating cleaner energy and treating diseases. She is actively involved in promoting Women in Physics and was named the 2013 L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science Awards Laureate for Latin America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OLFwkfPxCgTks, GF!Doug Leighton says: 12/03/2017 at 4:36 pm
LOL! I'm head over heels in love with her!
I kept imagining her giving her talk to this sound track
Can you see all the dancers dressed as raindrops on a Samba Float in a Carnival Parade?Fred – As you know my bag is astrophysics, with climate change denial being merely irritating BUT when I see science news headlines like the following then I really get pissed off, or feel sick. Who gives a shit if Earth can "carry" 7 or 9 or 11 billion people when dolphins & elephants are relegated to "bush meat" and when species are disappearing at increasingly alarming rates. You're probably the only one here qualified to assess this issue so please give us your thoughts.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 5:37 pm
CURRENT EXTINCTION RATE 10 TIMES WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
"Life on earth is remarkably diverse. Globally, it is estimated that there are 8.7 million species living on our planet, excluding bacteria. Unfortunately, human activities are wiping out many species and it's been known for some time that we are increasing the rate of species extinction. But just how dire is the situation? According to a new study, it's 10 times worse than scientists previously thought with current extinction rates 1,000 times higher than natural background rates."
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/current-extinction-rate-10-times-worse-previously-thought/Doug, if you get a chance, watch the ASU Origins project debates to which I have posted links recently addressing the topic of extinction. This is a very serious cross disciplinary discussion and can't really be done justice in a quick response here. It probably necessitates a full post of similar length to Ron's.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 7:53 pm
Here is a very short teaser.
Origins Project Highlight: Elizabeth Kolbert on Climate Change & Mars
Link to ASU Origins Project home page:
https://origins.asu.edu/I look on space habitats as being trapped inside a giant iron lung. Exploration is one thing, but actually thinking of Mars as a possible home for humans is just sad.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 8:19 pmCouldn't agree more! And that's from someone who lived and worked in a hyperbaric chamber as a saturation diver on oil rigs. I'd say that is pretty close to living in an iron lung as wellGoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 9:17 pm
The part about going to Mars that has always bothered me is the radiation exposure.Plenty of dangerous and exciting exploring, work and research to do right here on Earth.
Nov 10, 2017 | oilprice.com
For the oil markets, the implications are pretty significant. Venezuela has already lost an estimated 20,000 bpd each month for the past year, according to Reuters estimates. And in September, Venezuela's output plunged by more than 50,000 bpd compared to a month earlier. Production could fall by an additional 240,000 bpd in 2018, a decline made worse by U.S. sanctions.
But that isn't even the worst-case scenario. A default could set off a scramble to seize Venezuela's overseas assets. That could lead to much steeper production declines. One OPEC source told Reuters that they see a potential for production declines on the order of 300,000 to 600,000 bpd next year.
Oct 29, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher says: 10/27/2017 at 10:44 am
Not gonna scroll. Found some ECB corporate bond buys. Specific companies.
Deutsche Bahn no idea what that is
The specific bond serial number (in the US it would be called CUSIP-like) of each purchase is known. The buy takes place on the secondary market. Much the same way the Fed never bought Treasury issuance direct from Treasury. There was always a go between -- which essentially means nothing. This was never discussed about Mort. Backed Securities. Bought them from who had them -- at about 1000X market price.
And this is cool. As of July of last year, 35% of all ECB bond buys (aka lending to private companies with money from nothingness) were of individual bonds with -- get this -- negative yields. They not only loaned money to the company, they paid the company interest for holding the bond.
And y'all think money is a meaningful metric for the overall circumstance of oil flow. hahahahahhaah How can it be? Schlumberger!!! Hell, they are funding US shale flow with money from nothingness.
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.comGeorge Kaplan says: 05/24/2017 at 9:57 amThere's a plausible sounding theory, even though posted on Zero Hedge, that the Chinese have been filling their SPR over the last two years, and that is about to stop. This would mostly account for why OECD storage levels only took about 35% of the supply-demand imbalance. If they do stop then about 1 mmbpd of demand would suddenly be lost, but it might also imply that the real economy demand growth in the period since January 2015 has only been half what it looks to have been. Taking account of the sudden drop and a slower growth in demand would mean a longer time would be needed to draw down OECD stocks. However if the China SPR scenario is correct then almost all the drawdown would come from OECD. By my reckoning this would push a balancing out to late 2018 (although by then we may be seeing some bigger supply drops as the pipeline for new project start-ups will be drying up). But if the balancing is pushed out then the chances of many FIDs this year or next will decline and the possibility of a sudden supply crunch in 2019 through 2022 would be greater. The green curve below gives possible drawdown under this scenario. The red one was a previous assumption that the OECD stocks would be drawn down at only about 35% of the imbalance (as happened when they were rising). I seemed a bit iffy when I fitted it that way, and I think the China SPR filling is a better explanation.Watcher says: 05/24/2017 at 6:00 pm
SPRs in general try to have 90 days of domestic consumption in them. This was a standard put into place mostly in Europe. China has embraced it.Dennis Coyne says: 05/25/2017 at 12:30 pm
The US at 750ish million barrels and having a consumption (net of production) of about 11 million bpd (remember, this is real stuff . . . consumption, no refinery gain BS allowed) and so not quite 70 days domestic consumption.
China, at net consumption of about 7 million bpd X 90 needs an SPR of 630 million barrels. That's about what they have, but of course with 5% consumption growth they'll have to adjust up, but for now . . . all is well.
There probably is no flow in or out of China for SPR reasons. Already full. Have been for a while.Hi Watcher,George Kaplan says: 05/25/2017 at 2:29 pm
Crude inputs to refineries and blenders was 16.2 Mb/d for the 2016 average.
So 700/16.2 is 43 days for SPR alone. For commercial crude stocks plus SPR it is 1200 Mb so 1200/16.2=74 days.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_stoc_wstk_dcu_nus_m.htmThis is the chart Zero Hedge had, or linked to – the key is Xinhua CFC, who have Chinese data not otherwise available and charge a lot of money for it. I don't know how you'd go about checking if it's correct.Energy News says: 05/26/2017 at 4:26 am
Hello, don't forget that Xinhua doesn't publish China's SPR figures. The SPR figure in the chart is an estimate based on (Production + Imports – Refinery Inputs). I'm not sure if all the teapots are included in the official refinery data.Energy News says: 05/26/2017 at 8:49 am
I think Zero Hedge borrowed the chart from here:
Scotiabank pdf file: http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/scpt/gbm/scotiaeconomics63/SCPI_2017-04-12.pdf
Latest figures from Xinhua news agency
2017-05-26 Chinese oil inventories month/month April changes: crude +1.64%, oil products -7.87% (gasoline -0.27%, diesel -14.4%) – OGP/BBG
Chart showing March
China's April diesel stocks fall for second straight month -XinhuaGeorge Kaplan says: 05/26/2017 at 1:54 pm
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4N1IS2EJSo are the numbers you are posting supporting or not the Zero Hedge theory and/or my projection based on it? And if not why?Energy News says: 05/27/2017 at 1:34 pmI guess that Chinese demand must be higher than estimated. Like this article was suggesting
Bloomberg – October 11th 2016
China's appetite for oil.
Fuel use grew by about 5 percent in the first half of 2016, according to China's biggest oil refiner, faster than the 0.4 percent derived from government data. That "official" number is clouded by rising gasoline exports - blends that don't show up in official figures, according to the International Energy Agency, Sinopec Group and Energy Aspects Ltd.
Chinese authorities are also having trouble tracking refinery activity because of the surge of processing by independent refiners, known as teapots, according to Energy Aspects' Meidan.
Apr 17, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.comEnergy News says: 04/15/2017 at 10:35 amChina crude oil imports increased to a record 9.21mb/day in March 2017 versus 8.32mb/day in February 2017 (7.33 barrels per ton conversion) – Chinese customs data. I guess China is still filling it's SPR.
Before I had read this I had been wondering why news articles were saying that world oil inventories had decreased a little. Inventories often build into April. Also news agencies estimates are still saying that OPEC oil exports are holding steady and have not decreased in line with their production cuts, I guess that they have been exporting from their inventories.
inventory declines, news clips
Reuters Apr 11, 2017 – Nordic bank SEB said global oil inventories in weekly data have dropped by 42 million barrels in the last four weeks.
Bloomberg 2017-04-04 – Since mid-February, between 10 million and 20 million barrels have left the Caribbean
Clipper Data Apr 6, 2017 – This week we have seen Iranian barrels drop to 5 million barrels, while barrels offshore of United Arab Emirates have halved in the last week, dropping to just under 10 million barrels.
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Reuters calculated Chinese oil demand growth of 2.5% in 2016, based on official data-a three-year low-down from 3.1% in 2015."> > > > > > > >
Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com, Despite the near record increase in U.S. oil inventories last week – an increase of 13.8 million barrels – oil prices traded up on February 8 and 9 as traders pinned their hopes on a surprise drawdown in gasoline stocks, which provided some evidence of stronger-than-expected demand. The abnormal crude stock increase took inventories close to 80-year record levels at 508 million barrels, and is another bit of damming evidence that should worry oil bulls. But the oil markets were not deterred. In fact, that has been a defining characteristic of the market in recent weeks – optimism even in the face of some pretty worrying signals about the trajectory of the market "adjustment" process. More signs of optimism abound. Wall Street is pouring the most money into oil and gas companies in the U.S. since at least 2000, according to Bloomberg. In January alone, drillers and oilfield service companies raised $6.64 billion in 13 different equity offerings. "The mood is absolutely different," Trey Stolz, an analyst at the investment banking firm Coker & Palmer Inc., told Bloomberg. "Go back to a year ago and the knife was still falling. But today, it feels much, much better."
blogs.barrons.comIf you were hoping crude oil prices would end the week on a positive note after yesterday's rally, you're likely to be disappointed.
U.S. and brent crude futures fell Friday as worries about U.S. drilling activity once again weighed on the market following the release of data showing that the number of active rigs rose for a second consecutive week.
Light, sweet crude for March delivery recently fell 90 cents, or 1.67%, to $52.88 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Meanwhile, brent, the global benchmark, dropped $1.02, or 1.8%, to $55.22 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe.
Crude prices have oscillated between gains and losses over the past several weeks as investor sentiment has shifted almost daily. OPEC and its allies have so far followed through on promised production cuts, yet fears linger that U.S. drilling will hurt efforts to curb global supply.
Crude prices settled Thursday at their highest prices in several weeks. But today's decline pushed futures contacts into the red for the week. If U.S. and brent crude contracts settle at current levels, prices will fall more than 0.6% for the week.
But Vikas Dwivedi and his team at Macquaire recommend increasing oil exposure, pointing to a tightening sour crude market and storage trends. But he warns that 2018 looks challenging.
We believe the market will soon get the catalyst it has been waiting for to push higher – better inventory stats. Getting ahead of this catalyst is a good risk-reward proposition in our view. However, we caution against turning a rally into a structural trade. Our balances indicate the market is oversupplied again in 2018. Key 2018 drivers include the return of approximately 1.2 MM BPD of post-deal (OPEC and NOPEC ex U.S.) supply and 0.6 MM BPD of U.S. supply growth + global.
The Energy Select Sector SPDR Energy ETF (XLE) fell 1.3% in recent market action, while the iShares U.S. Energy ETF (IYE) dropped 1.2%.
Elsewhere in the ETF realm, the United States Oil Fund (USO) declined almost 1.8% and the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL lost 2%. The U.S. Brent Oil Fund (BNO) also fell 2%.
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.comWatcher says: 01/10/2017 at 11:36 amWhat % of US oil consumption is food transport? This got tricky quickly.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 12:26 pm
Average US person eats about 5.4 pounds of food a day. That's just the food. Average meal travels 1500 miles to reach your mouth.
First tricky item - packaging. It has to transport, too. Amazing variance on this. Glass jar of pickles vs paper around candy bars. The only estimate out there is numbers for municipal solid waste and estimates of % of that is food packaging. Year 2000 US waste generation 4.5 pounds/day/person, and growing. Probably over 6 by now based on the curve, but will use 5 lbs/day cuz round number.
31% of that is packaging and half of that number is food packaging. Some 2006 study. So 15% of 5 lbs a day is 0.75 pounds added to the 5.4 pounds of food is 6.15 pounds shipped a day per person.
For 1500 miles.
Eyeballing some charts looks like typical/average truck hauling weight for stuff hauled is 60,000 lbs. Typical diesel mileage 6 miles/gallon.
6.15 pounds X 320 million mouths = about 2 billion pounds of food moved each day
1500 miles / 6 = 250 gallons truck burned
2 billion lbs / 60,000 lbs = 33,333 truck trips X 250 gallons/truck trip = 198.4K bpd to move food.
Ain't much. Maybe there's an error in there. Top of my head . . . things not included, hauling spare parts for the food moving trucks, spare parts for the packaging gizmos, plastic packaging, agricultural consumption itself.
[Edit] Blurb says 17% of total US oil use is agricultural, up and downstream (fertilizer plus fuel). This would be far more than food transport.I am suspicious of that fifteen hundred mile figure, but it may be accurate. Or it may have assumed a life of it's own, after being tossed out by one or two people who really just guessed at it.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 1:58 pm
Most of the food that is produced in truly huge amounts, staple food, is shipped by water, and or by rail, if it travels a LONG way. A VERY limited amount of food, in relation to the total amount, is air freighted.
Here in the USA, it's not too likely that very much in the way of unprocessed or processed staple food is shipped more than a thousand miles by truck. Exceptions will be mostly fresh high retail value produce, shipped as directly and quickly as possible from grower to retailer.
The REAL food miles come at the very tail end of the distribution chain. I never owned an eighteen wheeler, but I did once own a C70 Chevy which would legally haul about sixteen thousand pounds of apples to market. The farthest local growers usually go with their own truck of this sort is about a hundred miles, one way. Thirty gallons of diesel would take me that far, and home again.
The people who actually bought my apples at retail, after they were picked up at the wholesale market and delivered around town in smaller trucks, usually bought no more than five pounds at a time.
I'm guessing, pulling numbers out of my hat, but I suppose a typical shoppers average grocery purchase weighs from about twenty five to thirty pounds, up to a hundred pounds,depending on family size, and is made on roughly a weekly basis, on average.
And I'm guessing that the average trip to the super market is at least six to ten miles, round trip. THAT's where the food miles really pile up. A liter of gasoline burnt to get fifty pounds home, the last five miles, times around a hundred million households, times fifty weeks, adds up. FAST.Maybe. The pickle jar weighs a LOT and there's not much food weight part of that. The whole packaging thing is a significant thing, and that's another food item I didn't include, disposal of it.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 3:20 pm
I'm going to guess the 1500 mile thing came from the coasts' pop centers and their daily bread from Iowa and Nebraska. The various websites talking about this like to talk about a head of Imperial Valley California lettuce going to England. X calories burned for 1 or two calories delivered to the mouth. But that sort of thing definitely would drag the average up. 1500 miles maybe is legit.
I am surprised the total transport is south of 1 mbpd, if it truly is. As for shipping, I can't see Iowa bread going to NYC any way but by truck. Not going to fly it there. And the canals don't reach.
Everybody driving the last 5 miles to the store . . . maybe that really doesn't show in the diesel calc. Oh! Of course. The issue is not diesel. It's the 60,000 pounds per trip. A car is carrying the much lower weight per your estimate. Will redo.14 billion pounds of food move the last 5 miles by car per week, probably at 150 lbs per weekly load (family of 4 at 6 lbs/day/mouth incl packaging)Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 8:07 pm
14 billion / 150 lbs = 93 million car trips per week.
5 miles in a 25 mpg car is 0.2 gallons. X 93 million /7 and /42 = an additional 63,000 bpd from the car trips added to the trucks above. About 260K bpd for food transport.
Hmmm of course if it's 5 miles each way that's a X 2 on the 63K. And SUVs for that trip, not a Datsun. Might be up nudging 400K.It occurs to me that Pepsi and Coke may not be food, and they are heavy.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 5:18 pm
I'm having problems with this 400ish K number because the famous 2004 pie chart of US oil consumption said 65% transportation, and of that 65% it was only 37% passenger cars, 18% heavy trucks and 27% light trucks (sums to 45%), and that was before SUVs (called light trucks) had swept up sales. Though F-150s may have arrived.
0.37 X 0.65 is only 24% of consumption. Trucks light and heavy rather more. So what are they hauling. Food as a daily consumable would seem to be the dominant hauled stuff, but apparently not.Most of the grain or flour that goes from the midwest to the northeast probably gets there by rail, where it will then be baked into bread, packaged, and shipped by truck to food distribution centers, or directly to supermarkets. But the distribution center food warehouse seems to rule these days, because it's better to load a truck up to the doors with a variety of stuff all destined for one address or maybe two or three, than it is to have a truck stop to deliver bread and nothing but bread to a bunch of different stores. That means a lot more total time and miles invested in stop and go driving, compared to the one stop load. That still happens, but not as often as in the past.clueless says: 01/10/2017 at 2:08 pm
Grain is milled into flour near where it's grown, when possible, because this reduces total shipping costs, being that the weight and volume of flour is less than the weight of whole unprocessed grain, plus the tailings are used mostly in livestock rations, and customer for that product is most definitely NOT in NYC, lol.
Most of the cows,hogs and chickens we eat are raised in confinement, and are raised in the mid west and southeast, closer to the feed supply, and where land and water are cheaper, and neighbors less fussy, and mostly in localities where neighbors are relatively few in number.
Nobody's ever going to operate a modern supersize hog farm anywhere close to the BIG APPLE,Watcher's conclusion is probably right – not much fuel used to transport food compared to the total available. On the other hand, some random thoughts. 5.4 pounds/day/person is too high. Babies, young children, seniors, etc. Second, the 1500 miles is too high. Some of the basics make up a significant amount of the weight – like liquid milk, along with other dairy products, cheese and eggs. These products generally will never go 1500 miles. Vegetables, seafood, fruit, etc yes. But, chicken, pork and beef – I think that 1500 miles is too high.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 3:16 pm
OOPS! Of the 5.4 lbs, 30% – 40% is wasted.Pre oil, railroad cars had no refrigeration to speak of in summer months. That's where the term cattle car came from. Had to ship beef alive to the cities.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 6:04 pm
40-50% of a steer by weight is not edible.I am not at all sure just HOW much of a cow winds up as nekkid ape chow these days, but YOU most definitely don't WANT to know much about what goes into processed meat products, if you plan on eating them.
Fifty years ago when I had the "insider tour" of a huge and extremely famous hog slaugher plant that you get only by personal invitation from management,even back then, they bragged about selling everything but the squeal.
I'm pretty sure that well over fifty percent of the live weight of a cow winds up as nekkid ape chow these days, but how much over I can't say. Fifty to fifty five percent would be a reasonable guess. Farmers have been breeding cows for more milk and meat, and less waste, since the beginning. For the last seventy five years or so, this breeding has been based on high tech such as artificial insemination, a solid understanding of genetics, and very sharp pencils. So a typical cow TODAY is going to yield significantly more more than she did a decade or two back.
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.comtexas tea says: 01/05/2017 at 5:00 pmhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/05/energy-and-society-from-now-until-2040/
long carbon based energy
Key conclusions of the report:
Developing countries, like China and India are urbanizing and their populations are becoming more affluent, this will increase global energy demand 24% by 2040. This includes the ExxonMobil prediction that energy use efficiency will double (figure 4).
The world population will increase from 7.3 billion today to over 9 billion in 2040, with a much larger middle class population (defined as >$14,600 and <$29,200 yearly for a family of 4) using energy than today. World GDP will effectively double by 2040. Living standards will rise dramatically, especially in the developing world.
Natural gas consumption will increase 54 quadrillion BTUs by 2040. Nuclear and renewables will increase 24 and 20 quadrillion BTUs, respectively. The 2040 energy mix will remain about the same as today (figure 5 and Table 1).
Rising electricity demand will drive the growth in global energy between now and 2040. The increase in the number of homes with electricity, industrialization of the developing world and our increasingly digital and plugged-in lifestyles will drive this growth. Half of global electricity demand is from industrial activity; thus good jobs can be lost if electricity costs are too high. Jobs will move to locations where electricity is cheap, an example is the new Voestalpine steel plant in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Crude oil and natural gas will remain the world's primary energy source. Even in 2040 oil and natural gas will supply 57% of all energy demand, this is an increase from 56% today. Oil demand will grow 18% through 2040 and natural gas demand will grow 44%. The developing world will account for the largest increases. Unconventional ("fracked") oil and gas, oil ("tar") sands, and deep water oil production will account for over 25% of the liquid supply in 2040.
Carbon dioxide emissions will increase, at least until 2030."
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.comHigh taxes create a "tax shield". The price at the pump in Europe is approx. 1/3 oil and refining and 2/3 tax and duty (see http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ ). Consumption is therefore less responsive (inelastic) to the international oil market price compared to the USA. Also, Europeans have adapted to this over time and drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars.
Several oil producers have cut back on subsidies during the last couple of years. This should restrict domestic demand increase. Most oil exporters' oil consumption/capita will probably level off and never come close to the US figure. However, given the level of population growth and demographics (young people) in MENA their domestic consumption is unlikely to reduce significantly (slight increase seems more likely).Watcher says: 01/04/2017 at 11:47 am"Most oil exporters' oil consumption/capita will probably level off and never come close to the US figure."Jeff says: 01/04/2017 at 2:58 pm
US per capita consumption 0.061 bpd.
The only major exporter not there is Russia at 0.02, but President Trump will help them increase. Not an exporter, but FYI Singapore is highest I've seen at 0.24._most_ oil exporters.Watcher says: 01/04/2017 at 7:19 pm
In 2012 ( http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91000 ): Ecuador (0.11), Libya (0.051), Kazakhstan (0.12), Iran (0.23), Iraq (0.22), Venezuela (0.27), Oman (0.46)mazama says Ecuador may drop to imports this year. They don't list any Libya exports. Kazakhstan and Iran are legit. And the bible doesn't track Iraq.AlexS says: 01/04/2017 at 4:09 pmWatcher says: 01/04/2017 at 7:11 pm"The only major exporter not there is Russia at 0.02, but President Trump will help them increase."
How? Will he help to increase car fleet in Russia? KSA and its neighbours use a lot of oil for electricity generation. Russia uses natural gas, nuclear, hydro and coal.Chris says: 01/05/2017 at 12:58 pmHow? Will he help to increase car fleet in Russia?
Just to add information, in Europe, taxes are split in two parts: excise (typically fixed amount) and VAT (variable amount). For gas in Belgium, excise are about 0.60 per litre or half the price of gas.
So price variations due to oil international prices are attenuated. Add to these that taxes decreases when oil price increase and increase when oil price decrease. This is a way to guarantee revenue for the State when oil prices decrease.
Dec 26, 2016 | www.calculatedriskblog.comby Bill McBride on 12/26/2016 09:53:00 AM The automakers will report December vehicle sales on Wednesday, January 4th.
Note: There were 27 selling days in December 2016, down from 28 in December 2015.
From WardsAuto: December Light-Vehicle Sales to Push U.S. Market to New Record
December U.S. light-vehicle sales are forecast to finish strong enough for 2016 to top 2015's record 17.396 million units. However, actual volume largely will be determined by results in the final third of the month, because a major portion of December's deliveries typically occur after Christmas.Here is a table (source: BEA) showing the 5 top years for light vehicle sales through November, and the top 5 full years. 2016 will probably finish in the top 3, and could be the best year ever - just beating last year.
The forecast 17.7 million-unit seasonally adjusted annual rate is below November's 17.8 million, but above December 2015's 17.4 million.
Despite the drop in December's volume, total 2016 sales will end at 17.41 million units, barely edging out the all-time high set last year.
Light Vehicle Sales, Top 5 Years and Through November Through November Full Year Year Sales (000s) Year Sales (000s) 1 2000 16,109 2015 17,396 2 2001 15,812 2000 17,350 3 2016 15,783 2001 17,122 4 2015 15,766 2005 16,948 5 1999 15,498 1999 16,894
...in 2016, 96 percent of all new vehicle sales featured a combustion engine. IHS Markit estimates the average vehicle life globally to be about 15 years, which means that the impact of new vehicle technologies is expected to take time to materially affect the vehicle fleet and overall fuel demand.
Dec 13, 2016 | oilprice.comby Dan Dicker
Dec 11, 2016 | OilPrice.com
The OPEC production agreement, which we called correctly, has already helped hoist the profitable oil stocks we held, but what about 2017? One way I've looked at oil and oil stocks is by looking at the crude curve – the differentials between monthly contract prices. And a recent big move in the curve makes 2017 look very positive indeed.
I've seen all kinds of futures curves in my 30+ years of trading oil, and many analysts believe that the crude curve is really predictive of the future –but more often than not, it is merely an outline of what traders and hedgers are thinking.
here's a look at Thursday's curve:
... ... ...
These numbers represent an enormous change from the numbers we saw even two weeks ago, before the big OPEC deal in Vienna. Since 2014, we had been seeing a deep contango market, where oil prices in the future were a lot higher than where they were trading in the front (present) months. But what does a contango market mean?
Many like to look at contango markets as a signal of crude storage, and that has merit – but I like to look at the curve through the eyes of its participants: when the oil market is collapsing, as it has been since 2014, players in the futures markets know that the costs of oil recovery fall well above the trading price, and will buy future oil contracts banking on a recovery. This drives buying interest away from the present and into the future and creates our contango. This kind of market is dominated by the speculators, who are willing to buy (bet) on higher prices later on.
In contrast, the hedging players are in retreat in busting markets, dropping capex and working wells and trying merely to survive to see the next boom. It's when prices begin to recover and they gain confidence in future prices that they try to hedge and plan for the coming up-cycle. This is when speculators, if they are buying, are likely to move closer to the front months if they're buying while producers (commercials) are looking to sell futures 12-24 months out. Suddenly, you have a curve that is being more dominated by commercial players, selling back months and creating the backwardation we're starting to see right now.
You may remember that I was able to nearly predict this year's bottom in oil prices by looking for that flattening move of the crude curve in February. This latest move from a discount to a premium curve has moved more than two dollars in the last week alone. This gives me added confidence in oil prices for 2017:
Let's look, as a practical matter, why a premium (backwardated) market is absolutely REQUIRED to see a long-term recovery in oil.
Imagine you're a shale producer and you've seen prices move from $45 to $52. You've been waiting for a move like this to restart some non-core acreage that you could have working by the middle of 2017. With a deep contango market, you might have gotten $55 or even more for a hedged barrel of crude in June of 2017.
But you're not alone in looking to come out of your bunker, hedge some forward production and restart some idle wells – every other producer is trying to do the same thing. If all of you could depend on a future premium, every producer would hedge out new production and ultimately add to the gluts that have been already slow to disappear.
Related: The OPEC Effect? U.S. Rig Count Spikes Most In 31 Months
If you think about it, a premium market works to DISCOURAGE fast restarts and quick restoration of gluts that a two-year rebalancing process has only slowly managed to fix – and this is a good thing. Producers have to be wary of adding wells so quickly, even in a market that is clearly ready to again rise in price. In a truly backwardated market, the futures work to keep the rebalancing process on track and production increases slow. That governor on production is the key to keeping a rallying market strong, and the frantic addition of wells at a minimum.
The proof of all this is in the type of curves we see depending on how the markets are trading.
Now, take another look at the December-December spread chart I put up and you'll see that a Contango market was a critical component to the bull markets we saw in oil prior to 2014. Unless something very strange is happening, a Contango curve is indicative of a strong market, while a backwardated one indicates a market under pressure. It's something I've watched closely for more than 30 years to help me find major trends.
And convinces me today that oil will have a constructive 2017.
By Dan Dicker for Oilprice.com
Dec 13, 2016 | peakoilbarrel.comshallow sand, 12/13/2016 at 12:05 amRead on CNBC that both China and India experienced record crude oil demand in November, 2016, with China up 3.4% yoy and India up 12.1% yoy.Boomer II, 12/13/2016 at 12:28 am"Read on CNBC that both China and India experienced record crude oil demand in November, 2016, with China up 3.4% yoy and India up 12.1% yoy."Watcher, 12/13/2016 at 2:48 am
I went looking for something about this and have found nothing on CNBC or anywhere else. Do you have a link?China's consumption growth was 5% last year. India 7%.likbez,, 12/13/2016 at 10:52 am
Of course it's growing, maybe even accelerating. Population does.
There really isn't much doubt how this ends, once ppl get past the pearl clutching.According to Yahoo ( http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iea-ups-oil-demand-forecast-095410829.html ):
IEA also upped its forecast for global oil demand for this year and next year due to revised estimates for Russian and Chinese demand. It saw growth of 1.4 mb/d for 2016, 120,000 barrels a day above the previous forecast. Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.3 mb/d, an increase of 110,000 barrels a day from its previous estimate.
likbez, 12/13/2016 at 11:40 am
Realistically the only country that can substantially increase its oil production in 2017 in Libya. But that requires the end of the civil war in the country which is unlikely. Iran card was already played.
Iraq is producing without proper maintenance. At some point they might have substantial difficulties.
...OPEC ... crude output in November was 34.2 million barrels per day (mb/d) - a record high - and 300,000 barrels a day higher than in October.
The IEA also upped its forecast for global oil demand for this year and next year due to revised estimates for Russian and Chinese demand. It saw growth of 1.4 mb/d for 2016, 120,000 barrels a day above the previous forecast. Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.3 mb/d, an increase of 110,000 barrels a day from its previous estimate.
dclonghorn , 07/13/2016 at 1:46 pmMaybe my imagination has become to active, but I believe the story of the NDA attacking Mobile's Qua Iboe terminal should be getting more interest. Monday night the NDA announced they had blown up the 300,000 bpd export line. Exxon was quick to deny that an attack had taken place. Someone is lying and it is not clear who.dclonghorn , 07/15/2016 at 12:23 pm
Although it seems almost inconcievable that Exxon would lie about this, there are a couple of things that make you consider the possibility. One is that in May there were reports of a militant strike on the facility, which was denied by Exxon. Shortly after that Exxon reported that a malfunctioning rig had caused damage to the facility, and it was shut down for a short while.
Another is that after the latest attack claimed, Shell reportedly shut in the trans-Niger pipeline, and there have been reports of oil companies evacuating 700 staff.
It remains unclear what the status is of the Qua Iboe terminal, and other facilities in Nigeria. But it is clear that they have some big problems.It took a while, but Exxon has decreed force majeure on Qua Iboe. That's the export terminal they have repeatedly said was not attacked first of this week. 300,000 bpd that will not be exported, for a while
peakoilbarrel.comFreddyW, 07/16/2016 at 9:42 amHere is an update on Chinese oil production if you have not seen it already:
"China, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumped 5.6% less crude year-on-year in April"
"The Asian nation reduced oil output in May by 7.3% from a year ago"
"In June alone, China pumped 8.9 percent less crude than a year earlier"
8,9% in June and the decline just continue to increase!! Lets see what happens in the future, but right now it certainly looks like its collapsing.
Doug Leighton, 07/16/2016 at 9:51 amSome Chinese production is very expensive and they will get their oil from the least costly source. I know this because I've worked there with their senior resource people and had the discussion. Of course, China is facing serious oil depletion as well.AlexS, 07/16/2016 at 10:17 amIn fact, China's production increased 62 kb/d in June vs. May to 4.03 mb/d. But y-o-y decline accelerated to 8.5% in June 2016 (not 8.9% as says Reuters article quoted by oilprice.com). June 2015 was the peak month for China's oil production (4.41 mb/d).AlexS, 07/16/2016 at 10:35 am
I am using original data from the National Bureau of Statistics and conversion factor of 7.3 barrels/ton
China oil production (kb/d) and year-on-year change
China has seen in the past significant drops in monthly oil production, most likely related with maintenance.Dave P, 07/16/2016 at 6:01 pm
But this time is different. I agree with Ron that China has peaked.
What's makes this time different for China? I'm curious to hear what you base your thoughts on (as you seem to have a good understanding of what's going on).FreddyW, 07/16/2016 at 12:26 pmOk good to know. But 8,5% is still huge. Looking at the graph I see that the number will continue to increase untill end of year unless production levels out or start to increase.
Jul 15, 2016 | OilPrice.com
China's crude oil output over the first half of the year stood at 101.59 million metric tons, down 4.6 percent and the lowest six-month figure since 2012, Bloomberg reports. The decline reflects China's stated shift from an industry-focused economic model to a more service-oriented one. It is also related to a drive by the government to cut the country's environmental footprint, struggling with a reputation of China as one of the most polluted places on earth. Low oil prices were also a factor in the production trend.
In June alone, China pumped 8.9 percent less crude than a year earlier, with state-owned giants such as PetroChina and CNOOC shuttering unprofitable fields and turning to low-cost imports instead.
Crude oil imports in January-June jumped 14 percent, China's national Bureau of Statistics said, with June recording the weakest growth.
SatansBestFriend, 07/02/2016 at 8:35 pmhttps://www.rt.com/news/348986-putin-resource-rivalry-rules/Watcher , 07/03/2016 at 10:56 am
Off topic, but definitely relevant.
If Ron's 2015 prediction is correct ( I think it is, and I never get this kind of stuff wrong … lol)
These are the types of articles we should be seeing.
"The world is seeing ever-stronger competition for resources, and some players try to disregard all the rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said , adding that potential for conflict is growing worldwide. "
If there was any doubt what Putin was thinking, I don't think there should be any more.
Even AlekS can't disagree with this.The new release of BPs data on oil statistics is getting too little focus.Petro , 07/03/2016 at 11:22 pm
Consumption globally was UP last year. 1.9%. 1.9ish million bpd.
Lotsa talk about global reductions in production . . . sometimes. Other times we hear about new records from someone.
But pay heed here. THERE IS NO DELAY IN THIS. If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn't get the oil they ordered.
Cushing has about 100 million barrels of capacity. If there were 1 million bpd shortfall on US imports, you got basically 3 months before . . . someone . . . some truck driver at a gas station . . . doesn't get the diesel he ordered. The SPR would be another few months, but tapping it for such an emergency would pretty much announce to the world . . . there ain't enough."…If production falls under consumption (as opposed to demand) then the result is not a shrug and the price goes up. The result is someone doesn't get the oil they ordered…" ~Watcher
WWlll…here we come….
Peak Oil BarrelBrad B , 06/15/2016 at 12:23 pmJust a note to correct a popular misconception; production DID NOT drop in Bakken due to SHUT IN wells. The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells. This is a critical distinction because if wells were shut, they could be turned back on. If wells deplete, generally, new ones must be drilled to replacement them, implying radically different time, service intensity and capital requirements. The popular press is ate up with the concept that when prices rise, all this production will magically reappear, once again swamping the market with excess supplies.Ves , 06/15/2016 at 12:54 pm
The reality is that the only way this production comes back (or stops decreasing) is the application of massive amounts of new capital, the redeployment of tens of thousands of service workers laid off during the crash, and billions of dollars of equipment. This is even more true internationally. As large mature projects deplete, of which there are thousands in decline, new large projects must be developed to replace them.Fernando Leanme , 06/16/2016 at 7:38 am"The production drop is 100% DEPLETION of existing wells. This is a critical distinction because if wells were shut, they could be turned back on."
Yes. So essentially oil price does not matter at this point at the end of the game for these marginal and high depletion plays. Price could go even higher but drop in production will just continue.I think it's a mix. I've been in these circumstances before. The typical approach would be to shut in low rate high water cut producers, and any other wells that have been experiencing high costs. When prices rise and wells have been shut in for months they will have built up some pressure. And some of them will come in at 100 % water due to self injection. It can be a real crap shoot.
R DesRoches , 06/13/2016 at 11:41 amI know that this presentation is about production, but on the other side of production, that is demand, according to the IEA demand tables, going from Q2 to Q3 increases demand by about 1.5 million barrels a day.AlexS , 06/13/2016 at 12:08 pm
There is also a additional small increase going from Q3 to Q4.
With supply decreasing and demand increasing looks like oil prices may be headed higher over the next six months.
The Alberta fires along with Nigeras problems came at the right time yo tighten things up a bit."according to the IEA demand tables, going from Q2 to Q3 increases demand by about 1.5 million barrels a day"R DesRoches , 06/13/2016 at 12:36 pm
This is a normal seasonal pattern. Demand in Q3-4 is always higher than in Q1-2Yes it is the normal cycle pattern, but going into Q3, we have been seeing draws over the last few weeks, and world S/D has been close to being balanced.
It is normal for Q2 to have storage builds, and this year the builds were on the low side.
The market is not expecting to see higher demand than supply, and the next step in prices may be soon than expected.
peakoilbarrel.comAlexS , 06/13/2016 at 12:46 pmGlobal demand is indeed strong. All key forecasting agencies are still projecting annual demand growth of 1.2mb/d, but it may surprise on the upside (~1.4mb/d).
But supply/demand rebalancing is mainly due to declining non-OPEC output and supply outages.
Quarterly global oil demand (mb/d)
source: IEA Oil Market Report, May 2016
AlexS , 06/13/2016 at 12:05 pmChina oil production decline is accelerating.
According to data from National Bureau of Statistics released today, oil output in May was down 7.3% from a year ago to 16.87 million metric tons (3.97 m/d, using 7.3 ton/barrel conversion factor). Daily output declined 1.6% from April and 10% from June 2015 peak of 4.41 mb/d.
I think the decline is a result of both ageing onshore oil fields and reduced infill drilling due to lower upstream investments.
China oil production (kb/d) and year-on-year change (%)
source: National Bureau of Statistics
peakoilbarrel.comAlexS , 06/09/2016 at 5:39 amJohn Kemp's new article in Reuters:
Oil market is back in balance
peakoilbarrel.comAlexS , 06/02/2016 at 6:40 pmInteresting trends in transportation fuel demand:AlexS , 06/02/2016 at 6:44 pm
OPEC's Cheap Oil Strategy Lures Drivers Back Into Gas Guzzlers
• Decade-long improvement in fuel efficiency in U.S. seen ending
• Light trucks, vans, SUVs account for 60% of U.S. vehicle sales
Last year, SUVs outsold any other type of passenger vehicle in Europe for the first time, according to auto industry consultants JATO Dynamics. The trend has continued in 2016, with demand for SUVs … accounting for a quarter of sales in the biggest European countries.
Europe is a mirror of what's happening across the world. From China to the U.S., drivers are buying bigger vehicles, while sales of fuel-efficient hybrids struggle.
[In the U.S.] the average car sold in April achieved a fuel economy of 25.2 miles per gallon, down from a peak of 25.8 set in August 2014, just before oil prices crashed, according to data from the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan. At current trends, this year will mark the first drop in average U.S. fuel economy since at least 2007, the data show.
"Fuel-economy improvement is really flatlining," said Sam Ori, executive director of theEnergy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. "The gains completely stopped right at the same time that oil prices started to decline."
Today in the U.S., light trucks, vans and SUVs account for 60 percent of total vehicle sales - a level only reached briefly in 2005, when Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, averaged $55 a barrel. It's now around $50. The International Energy Agency said in May that less-efficient vehicles, including four-wheel drives, "remain very much in vogue, a consequence of persistently lower retail pump prices."
In 2008, when oil prices averaged $100 a barrel, the share of gas guzzlers in U.S. total vehicles sales dropped at one point to just 43 percent.
With larger vehicles hitting the roads and Americans driving longer distances as the economy recovers, U.S. gasoline consumption is set to rise to a record in 2016, according to the Energy Information Administration. U.S. gasoline demand will average 9.3 million barrels a day this year, surpassing the peak set in 2007, the EIA said in its most recent monthly report.
The EIA forecast U.S. drivers will enjoy the cheapest gasoline this driving season in 12 years.
In China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, drivers are also opting for larger vehicles as never before. While cheaper gasoline and diesel helps, analysts said it's higher incomes - and a desire to impress relatives and friends - that's driving the purchases. According to official data, vehicles such as light trucks and SUVs accounted for almost 35 percent of total Chinese passenger sales in April, up from 10 percent in 2010 and less than 5 percent a decade ago.
U.S. average sales-weighted fuel-economy rating
chart 2GoneFishing , 06/02/2016 at 7:03 pm
You are right AlexS, Americans need to be more frugal and forward thinking.Lightsout , 06/02/2016 at 10:26 pm
My town wants to allow a gas station to be put in near the highway, there is a gas station a short drive away. Not only will the gas station be mere feet from a Category 1 trout stream, it will be almost at the level of the stream. The three large tanks will be actually buried in the aquifer for the town and have to be held down from floating. Everything runs off wells here, so contamination will effect much of the town and wreck the aquifer.
To top it all off, the land is now a ride-sharing lot, something that reduces fuel use and pollution as well as reduces the wear and tear on cars (slowing down the need for vehicle replacement and all the energy/pollution that involves).
There are gas stations just a few miles in either direction along the highway.
Sound dumb to you?I think the market share argument was always a smoke screen and this was always the Saudi's real intent.
peakoilbarrel.comEulenspiegel , 05/19/2016 at 4:21 amSinking rig counts worldwide doesn't correspond to these fantastic planned production increases – if it was that easy to crank up production, why has everyone hasn't done it before?likbez , 05/19/2016 at 10:07 am
And opening the chokes, damaging the oilfied only works short term before new infills / CO2 or other expensive stuff is neccessary.Sinking rig counts worldwide doesn't correspond to these fantastic planned production increases – if it was that easy to crank up production, why has everyone hasn't done it before?Oldfarmermac , 05/19/2016 at 11:35 am
A relevant quote:
Financialization is the lubricant that makes it possible to think of everything as an asset that could immediately be liquidated at near full value, including hypothetical growth options. When everything is fully financialized and real world frictions are removed, it will always make more sense to buy and sell the assets and their affiliated options that to actually invest and improve anything.
This is one of the most straightforward ways to visualize how increased financialization can harm the economy. Although simply calling bankers parasites is arguably even more straightforward.
see also http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtmlWe may still have a choice of a prez candidate who is neither the property nor the owner of big business interests.
peakoilbarrel.comAlexS , 05/20/2016 at 5:30 amshallow sand , 05/20/2016 at 8:25 am
"In fact the price has collapsed hasn't it, in spite of steadily worsening EROI and now virtual cessation of exploration and development. Gail's explanation fits the evidence we have in front of us today. Simple EROI or depletion models don't so well. "
The 2014-16 price collapse was due to over-production, which was a result of a 4-fold increase in upstream capex over the previous 10 years. It's a cyclical event, like in 1982-86, 1998, 2001-02 and 2008-09. The global supply and demand are gradually rebalancing. Prices are already recovering (+80% since Fenruary lows) and will rise much further in the next several years due to the current sharp decrease in exploration and development spending.AlexS.Dennis Coyne , 05/20/2016 at 9:58 am
I agree with you.
One point I would like to make is that, unlike in response to prior cyclical downturns, OPEC, thus far at least, has not cut production. I question if anyone has spare capacity, outside of that caused by war/political strife.
It took massive amounts of leverage for the US and Canada to ramp up production, along with a relatively stable oil price band of $85-$105.
It remains to be seen if that type of leverage will occur again in the immediate future.
I note, despite the price improvement, the rig count we all follow, North Dakota, is down to 24, with one still listed as stacking.
I will tell you how "sane" companies react to down turns like we are going through. They batten down the hatches, cut costs to bare minimum. When prices recover, they do not immediately go great guns. They first get caught up on the maintenance that was delayed due to the downturn. Then, once that is done, they slowly begin to spend money on new wells.
Early on, most companies were hoping for a quick recovery. 2015 persistent low prices, followed by the hammer of $20 oil in Q1 has really taken a toll, IMO. This is why we are now seeing many BK. Q1 knocked them out.
If OPEC's goal is to finish off US companies, they will figure out a way to keep a lid on prices this summer, and then drive prices back down into the $20s again. However, I am not sure if this can be accomplished, or if OPEC members can even handle that. Further, it is clear to me that Russia can ride out low prices better than most, but not $20s. The Q1 price collapse caused Russia to act.
We are still here, and cautiously optimistic, but it is a very, very cautious optimism.
What I think should worry many people is that those of us considered "marginal" are weathering this storm better than many of the large companies. We are operating stuff that the majors/large independent companies got rid of decades ago, that was deemed to be too costly for them to continue to operate.
Now, those majors/large independents are finding there is almost nothing left of "cheap" to develop oil. Deep water, no. Shale, no. Tar sands, no.
The shale companies are spending over $5 million per well to obtain 150-400K BO over a period of 20+ years. Folks, they have sold off assets all over the world to go after this stuff. That should be a big concern.
This point has been made here repeatedly. Despite this severe price downturn and the alleged glut, I think it is still true. There may be a lot of oil out there left to produce, but it will cost a lot per BO to get it out of the ground.Hi Shallow sand,Ves , 05/20/2016 at 10:52 am
Agree with all you say.
…but it will cost a lot per BO to get it out of the ground.
Can you define "a lot" ?
I think $75/b (2015$) will allow a fair amount of oil to be produced profitably, but agree it will take 6 to 12 months before there will be much of a production increase (say 1 Mb/d Worldwide) in response to oil prices at $75/b. I imagine the slow response will result in a price spike to $100/b as supply starts to run short (probably in 2018).Alex, SS,Dennis Coyne , 05/20/2016 at 11:03 am
In December 2008 oil price was $40. Shale started expansion around that time with the free money from the banks. Today in mid 2016 price of oil is $48 and it is evident that Shale is gradually closing the shop with just additional life-support from the banks to scrape the bottom of the barrel in the remaining sweet spots.
So the price in Shale case did not play ANY role. So where is that "cycle" that you see it? There is no cycle. Shale was drilled regardless of price to kick the can just for few years to mask over-leveraged economy.Hi Ves,Dennis Coyne , 05/20/2016 at 11:36 am
Prices did not remain between $40 and $48 per barrel.
The cycle is the large swings in the oil price from $40/b to $120/b to $30/b and now headed back up.
If you believe the change in the oil price does not make a difference, I would disagree.Also from Dec 2008 to March 2008 only 27 wells per month were added in the Bakken/Three Forks. Other LTO plays didn't really get going until 2010.Ves , 05/20/2016 at 11:55 am
By August 2009 Brent was up to $72/b, from March 2009 to July 2009 the average wells added per month in the Bakken was 40 wells/month.
Also it was the high prices earlier in 2008 that got things started, oil prices were over $80/b from Oct 2007 to Sept 2008, the dip in oil prices was relatively brief, the oil price was under $60/b for only 7 months from Nov 2008 to May 2009. The oil industry takes some time to react to oil price changes. Chart with annual average Brent oil price in nominal dollars below. The price has been above $70/b for all but 2 years from 2007 to 2015 (2009 and 2015).
There is no free market CYCLE if OPEC cuts 4.2mbd in January 2009 and then it does not cut single barrel in November 2014. Of course there is always a "cycle" in long term.
"Prices did not remain between $40 and $48 per barrel"
That just shows you that price points are irrelevant. In 2008 when price was $40 did Shale had crystal ball to know that price will go $100 in the next 6-7 years?
400 rigs that are drilling right now in US do they know where the price will be next year? Reply
May 19, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com
by Yves Smith
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has a must-read article on what may be the beginning of the end of the China-as-economic-wunderkind story. The reason for the hesitancy is that the lengthy article that appeared in early May on the front page of the house organ of the Politboro may either be an official declaration or an effort by a powerful minority to press for a meaningful, sustained effort to stop the growth in debt levels. Particularly since the global financial crisis, China has relied heavily on increases in private-sector debt to keep growth levels up. Mind you, borrowing to invest is not necessarily a bad idea if it goes into projects that are sufficiently productive. But as readers know well, China has had investment at an unprecedented proportion of GDP for years, and most of it has gone into assets created for speculation (housing that sits vacant and is seen by investors as an alternative to the stock market) or unproductive increases in industrial capacity. Consider this extract from a March article in the South China Morning Post:
At the peak of its cement production in 2014, China turned out more cement in just two years than the United States had produced in the previous century.
As the first chart shows, the trend finally topped out last year but it still indicates almost 30 times as much cement production in China as in the US, a much larger economy. Is this huge volume of cement really needed? Is this sustainable?
There is certainly an argument for more cement production in China than in the US, which has largely built its cities and its transport infrastructure. China is still in the process of doing so. Its cement requirements are thus proportionately much greater.
True, but 30 times as great with as much cement production in two years as the US recorded in 100 years? That's pushing things.
And while economic growth in China is faster than in the US, much of it represents just this pouring of cement. Fixed capital formation accounts for 45 per cent of gross domestic product, about twice the average of the rest of Asia, and higher multiples yet than the rest of the world.
This sort of excess crashes if demand turns sour. And it could take a lot more with it than just cement and steel plants
The story is told in many more sectors than just cement. The second chart shows you that China's steel production is topping out but is still running at five times the rate of all 28 countries in the European Union combined and almost 10 times steel production in the US.
This steel is still being used but there are reasons to doubt the continued demand. Car production last year of 12 million units, for instance, was three times the equivalent of domestic production in the US.
Yes, I know Americans are importing ever more cars as they begin to share the rest of the world's doubts about their own Chevrolets and Chryslers and, yes, car ownership ratios are still much higher in the US than in China, but three times as much car production in China as in the US still has a feeling of unreality. China is not rich enough yet to afford so large a car market.
AEP recaps the well-known-if-you've been-watching signs that China is in the advanced stages of a monster debt binge. The problem with bubbles, as anyone who has lived through them knows so well, is they typically run much further than clinical observers imagine possible. So the nay-sayers look like gloomy Gusses while the momentum traders party until the whole thing goes kaboom. AEP's danger signals, from his Telegraph account :
China's debt is approaching $30 trillion. The fresh credit alone created since 2007 is greater than the outstanding liabilities of the US, Japanese, German, and Indian commercial banking systems combined…
To put matters in context, leverage rose by roughly 50 percentage points of GDP in Japan before the Nikkei bubble burst in 1990, or in Korea before the East Asia crisis in 1998, or in the US before the subprime debacle. This gauge is an almost mechanical indicator of a future credit crisis.
As we all know, China is in a class of its own. Debt has risen by 120 to 140 percentage points. The scale of excess industrial capacity – and China's power and life and death over commodity markets – mean that any serious policy pivot by the Communist Party would set off an international earthquake.
Yet that is what at least an important group of the officialdom is prepared to do. The logic for a crackdown now is that delaying a day of reckoning will only make the inevitable contraction worse:
China watchers are still struggling to identify the author of an electrifying article in the People's Daily that declares war on debt and the "fantasy" of perpetual stimulus…
The 11,000 character text – citing an "authoritative person" – was given star-billing on the front page. It described leverage as the "original sin" from which all other risks emanate, with debt "growing like a tree in the air".
It warned of a "systemic financial crisis" and demanded a halt to the "old methods" of reflexive stimulus every time growth falters. "It is neither possible nor necessary to force economic growing by levering up," it said.
It called for root-and-branch reform of the SOE's – the redoubts of vested interests and the patronage machines of party bosses – with an assault on "zombie companies". Local governments were ordered to abandon their illusions and accept the inevitable slide in tax revenues, and the equally inevitable rise in unemployment.
If China does not bite the bullet now, the costs will be "much higher" in the future. "China's economic performance will not be U-shaped and definitely not V-shaped. It will be L-shaped," said the text. We have been warned.
The article also describes how China put its foot on the accelerator in recent quarters, so if this article represents a policy change, it would be a real gear shift:
The latest stop-go credit cycle began in mid-2015 and has since accelerated to an epic blow-off, with the M1 money supply now growing at 22.9pc, by the fastest pace since the post-Lehman blitz.
Wei Yao from Societe Generale estimates that total loans rose by $1.15 trillion in the first quarter, equivalent to 46pc of quarterly GDP. "This looks like an old-styled credit-backed investment-driven recovery, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the beginning of the 'four trillion stimulus' package in 2009. The consequence of that stimulus was inflation, asset bubbles and excess capacity," she said.
House sales rose 60pc in April, despite curbs to cool the bubble. New starts were up 26pc. Prices jumped 63pc in Shenzhen, 34pc in Shanghai, 20pc in Beijing, and 18pc in Hefei. Panic buying is spreading to the smaller Tier 3 and 4 cities with the greatest glut.
There is still some fiscal spending in the pipeline, so the robust times will continue at least through the summer. But liquidity is already starting to dry up despite all the money creation as investors are getting more and more evidence that the government will not rescue wealth management products (which are often invested in real estate projects sponsored by local government entities) or the bond issues of state owned enterprises (SOEs). Again from AEP's report :
Moody's warned this month that China's state-owned entities (SOEs) have alone racked up debts of 115pc of GDP, and a fifth may require restructuring. The defaults are already spreading up the ladder from local SOE's to the bigger state behemoths, once thought – wrongly – to have a sovereign guarantee…
The rot in the country's $7.7 trillion bond markets is metastasizing. Bo Zhuang from Trusted Sources said more than 100 firms cancelled or delayed bond issues in April due to widening credit spreads…
Ten companies have defaulted this year, with the shipbuilder Evergreen, Nanjing Yurun Foods, and the solar group Yingli Green Energy all in trouble this month. But what has really spooked markets is the suspension of nine bonds issued by the AA+ rated China Railways Materials, the first of the big central SOE's to signal default. "This has greatly weakened investors' long-standing expectation of implicit government support," he said.
Bo Zhuang said investors have poured money into bonds in the latest frenzy. The stock of corporate bonds has jumped by 78pc to $2.3 trillion over the last year. It is the epicentre of leverage through short-term 'repo' transactions, and it is now coming unstuck.
Financial crises are always ultimately credit crises. Even when the proximate cause seems to be a stock market crash, the amount of damage done depends on how much leveraged speculation took place and how that affects critical lending and payment systems. Even though Japan's payment system was never at risk in the implosion of its colossal credit bubble, its banks and economy have been in a zombie state for a full quarter century. Japan's massive bubble took place through a mere 11 massive "city banks" and another three "long term credit banks". By contrast, China has a large shadow banking system. Just like our officialdom in 2007 and 2008, it's very unlikely that they have a good grasp of the extent and the interconnectedness of the risks. They may find out very soon.
I urge you to read Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's important article in full . Even with my extensive excerpts, there's a lot more unsettling information to ponder. PlutoniumKun , May 19, 2016 at 9:55 amMinnie Mouse , May 19, 2016 at 10:43 am
There is no evidence that cement is being stockpiled to my knowledge – its all being poured. The problem is that the construction projects just don't have a productive return any more.
However, there is a serious point to be made about concrete in China – it is generally low quality. This is ok for regular engineering, but for specialist needs, such as High Speed Rail, it seriously reduces the life span of the structure. I can't find a link to it now, but a few years ago an engineering journal was estimating that Chinas High Speed Rail network would have to reduce its speed limits by several mpg per year as the structures were degrading very rapidly. It estimated that in 20 years the HSR network would be no faster than a conventional railway network.David , May 19, 2016 at 9:35 am
Remember the shoddy construction in schools – earthquake collapse. Then there is the bubble in unoccupied "ghost cities" that go on forever.jsn , May 19, 2016 at 9:40 am
Our imports from China fell big last month and the department stores that sell the junk are gone down even faster so if we lost half or 200 billion of their junk I an not sure it would be missed or replaced. I do think that this China implosion is important. I have some questions. China has a pork shortage and owns Smithfield but is not importing. Why?
Why did Xi burst the bubble. I had suspected the smog and pollution have done more damage in death and disability than admitted. I wonder if the population is even in decline not just the labor force.
Please keep covering whatever it is that is going on in China.TheCatSaid , May 19, 2016 at 9:54 am
If China is suddenly officially ready to countenance a huge rise in unemployment, one presumes they have some plan to socialize the pain, to take care of the population.
If this is true, what's in store may be something like IIRC Lambert proposed in comments the other day: nationalize the financial institution, file the Chinese equivalent of RICO charges, impound the wealth and tie the former elite up in jail/litigation for the next decade.
I'm a hopeless optimist…PlutoniumKun , May 19, 2016 at 10:08 am
"impound the wealth" –including all the wealth offshore? including the wealth Chinese oligarchs have invested in foreign real estate? Are Chinese oligarchs any more likely to go against their own class than Western oligarchs?vidimi , May 19, 2016 at 10:28 am
I missed that Telegraph article – it really is quite alarming. I have to say though that anecdotally, my Chinese friends are no more pessimistic than usual, so I don't think that ordinary Chinese are feeling worried yet – property prices are still going up, which is reassuring to most middle class there, and there is no evidence I've heard of any panic in the various 'informal' or shadow investing markets (lots of Chinese run what amount to unofficial banks, borrowing and investing on behalf of friends).
As one Chinese friend put it to me 'everyone in my town owes more money than they have to everyone else'. I've always suspected its the informal/shadow system that would show stress before the formal system. The only thing I do know is that a friend of mine who runs a business helping Chinese people move to Europe using 'investment' visas has found more and more people of very modest means attempting to do it – its not just the rich who are buying properties.
The usually reliable Michael Pettis also seems his usual gently bullish, but steady self, I'd expect him to write something if there was something nasty growing.
AEP suggests that Xi may not be the firm hand on the tiller that everyone assumes – his overt confidence may well be a front for some very confused ideas. I think there is increasing evidence that this may be the case. For all the sound and fury, there is little real evidence of reform from within. But I think the safe bet is that the CCP has enough of a firm hand that they can prevent an outright crash – much more likely is the sort of crippling slow motion collapse that we saw in Japan a quarter of a century ago. But the longer they insist on shovelling fuel on to the fire, the less likely that happens. As Pettis constantly points out, economists consistently underestimate the speed and severity of crashes.
let's try to imagine the global impact of a Chinese implosion.
as china is the main source of global export demand, if they hit a brick wall it would devastate all but the most diversified or isolated economies. from Australia to Zaire, the impact would be devastating to employment.
Given the huge amount of foreign investment in china and how much it is likely leveraged, the global financial system will collapse again triggering the collapse of many states. proposals of bailouts would be likely met with violent resistance, even revolution. far right politicians would seize power and, where they haven't been politically neutered, maybe some leftists would, too. were it to happen before november, we could welcome into office president trump in january.
domestically, Chinese job losses would be enormous causing mass discontent and protests. indeed, the only thing to do with legions of disgruntled, unemployed, unmarried men would be to draft them into the army. but so much fodder requires cannons, and so, the likelihood of war would be very high.
it's interesting to think about.
peakoilbarrel.comAlexS , 05/14/2016 at 4:55 amChina oil production decline is accelerating:
China April crude oil output lowest since July 2013
China, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumped 5.6 percent less crude year-on-year in April, official data showed, as oil firms struggled with cost pressures with crude prices hovering around $40 a barrel.
Data from the National Bureau of Statistics released on Saturday showed China produced 16.59 million tonnes of crude oil last month, or about 4.04 million barrels per day (bpd), the lowest rate since July 2013 on a daily basis.
Production in the first four months was down 2.7 percent over the same year-ago period to 68.14 million tonnes, or about 4.11 million bpd.
PetroChina, the country's top producer, recorded a 0.2 percent drop in oil and gas production in the first quarter and Sinopec scaled back domestic crude production by 10.35 percent in the same period, companies said in April.
Offshore specialist CNOOC Ltd, however, delivered a 5.1 percent rise in total net oil and gas production in the first quarter over a year ago, thanks to new Chinese offshore fields.
Natural gas output last month rose 5.6 percent on the year to 10.6 billion cubic meters, with production up 5.3 percent in the first four months, the data showed.
peakoilbarrel.comdclonghorn, 05/15/2016 at 7:24 pmChina has reported April 2016 production at 4.04 mbpd. A 5.6% decline year on year. It's down 380,000 bopd (8.6%) from the 4.42 mbpd JODI lists for June 2015.
Depletion seems to be wining more and more.
Americans are driving more than ever before. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reached an all-time high of 3.15 trillion miles in February 2016 (Figure 2). VMT have increased 97 billion miles per month (3 percent) since the beginning of 2015 and gasoline sales have increased 187 kbpd (2 percent). The rates of increase are not proportional.
... ... ...
From April 2015 to March 2016, oil production decreased 660 kbpd (-7 percent) but net crude oil imports increased 800 kbpd (+10 percent) (Figure 5).
Is Gasoline Demand the Biggest Red Herring In Oil Markets naked capitalismJack Heape , May 5, 2016 at 8:41 amJack Heape , May 5, 2016 at 8:43 am
Perhaps Igor Sechin is right (Sechin is head of the Russian energy company Rosneft and a close ally of Putin). In a Telegraph article on 2/2/15, discussing Sechin and the remarks he made at an oil consortium, the author comments that, "However, the real "haymaker" punch he ( meaning Sechin ) aimed at the global energy system came with the accusation that oil futures markets in London and New York, which set the price of the world's most vital energy commodity, are essentially being rigged by a feral cabal of speculators and traders." That would explain the obvious disconnect discussed by the author here concerning the red herrings put out by the oil sector. Interesting as well, in the article mentioned above the author also notes, "Mr Sechin warned last week that the current shale boom could be another "dotcom bubble" about to burst after drillers, loaded up on risky debt, and hedge funds piled in to make a quick buck over the last five years." Seems like he was prescient in that observation as well.tegnost , May 5, 2016 at 9:58 am
The link to that article I mentioned is here .Jim Haygood , May 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Berman implies as much, but puts a kinder spin on it
"The collective consciousness that drives the oil market is fed up with low oil prices"likbez , May 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm
We're fed up, ain't gon' take it no mo.
June crude is up 2.5% to $44.87 today.
Celebrating Cinco de Mayo … free money, free beer, free gasoline!The elephant in the room is the cost of production which for most countries including the USA and Canada is far higher then the current prices. That means that the wave of bankruptcies and drop in the USA production will continue unabated. The total loss might be above 1 Mb/d for the 2016. Canada also lost some production (currently 0.5 Mb/d due to fires) and needs about $80 for tar sand production to be profitable. Chances that oil price will reach this level in 2016 are slim, so the future of Canadian tar sand oil production is grim.
Several oil producing countries are on the verge of bankruptcy (Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq). Saudi are losing around 100 billion a year in currency reserves while still playing a role of Trojan horse of the West in oil markets.
This situation is unsustainable and speculator/HFT driven suppression of oil prices at some point might break and will be replaced by a new price boom. It in highly probable that the price of oil will reach, at least temporary, the level of $55 this year.
But oil is a strategic product and high oil prices mean stagnation of Western economies. The key problem is that high oil prices threaten neoliberalism as a social system and derail neoliberal globalization. So they will be fought tooth and nail by the US and the EU elites. That's why agreement to freeze oil production by OPEN was derailed. Another victory of western diplomacy.
Arthur Berman was a very keen observer of shale bubble in the USA until recently. Then something changed.
Alberta Oil Magazine
The surplus in early 2016 was closer to about 500,000 b/d, he says, and should continue to fall. "The oversupply in the market is grossly overstated," King says.
A lag in output data is partly due to the high estimates, King says, and surpluses are likely to be much lower in the coming months as surplus numbers begin to catch up with the real decreases in supplies. "People are still suggesting it's one million or two million barrels per day-it's nothing even close to that."
FirstEnergy sees prices for West Texas Intermediate averaging $55 for 2017, then rising to $66.25 over 2018 and $74 in 2019, according to its quarterly market update. "In 2017 you'll start to see things look a little bit better," King said. "The market in our view is reaching a balanced position. Inventories are starting to roll over, demand is doing great and supplies are coming off-the three basics you need for better pricing."
Some analysts have suggested the gradual rise in WTI prices could trigger a simultaneous rise in U.S. shale oil production, which would ultimately offset any gains in prices. King said this scenario was unlikely, as many producers have already locked in their 2016 spending programs, and capital markets remain tight and the high-yield debt market continues to sputter.
peakoilbarrel.com05/02/2016 at 8:15 amBob Nickson , 05/02/2016 at 9:06 am
Differences of opinion are what make discussion interesting.
72% of petroleum used is for transportation. 63% of that is light duty vehicles. So of 90mbod, 40 million barrels are subject to potential substitution by electric vehicles. The adoption curve need only stay ahead of the decline curve.
Why worry about Caterpillars first when transportation is the biggest slice of the petroleum pie, and the most readily subject to supercession by other energy sources?
Transition may be improbable, but that's different than impossible.
Assuming that an ICE is 20% as efficient as an EV, which seems reasonable as one barrel of oil is energy equivalent to 1628.2kWh, and will produce 19 gallons of gasoline, and 12 gallons of diesel. Assuming 30 mpg economy for each, the barrel of oil provides 930 miles of travel, while 1628.2 kWh at 3mpkWh will provide 4,884 miles of travel.Nick G , 05/02/2016 at 1:31 pm
So if the light duty transport fleet was replaced 100% with electric vehicles, 40.8 mbo/day would require 13.3 TWh of electric power substitution.
We have increased global annual renewable power production by 3,250 TWh's in the last decade, so to increase renewable power production by 2030 to produce 13TWh/day to offset 40.8 MBO/day used in the transportation sector would require that we accomplish in the next fifteen years what we have accomplished in the last ten (+3,250TWhp/decade).
As for the vehicles, all we must do is replace 100% of the light duty fleet with EV's in that same 15 years. Easy as pie, right? :-)Heavy duty vehicle can be electrified too. SUVs and pickups are considered heavy duty.ChiefEngineer , 05/02/2016 at 2:17 pm
Heck, Chinese buses are going heavily electric: there are projections that they'll be 100% electric in 10 years.Hi Nick,
As an ex Mack Trucks sales person. I always considered SUVs and pickups as light duty. I agree they will be electrified but it's going to take a little longer than passenger vehicles. Right now hybrids are much more feasible because of the more extreme workload they preform. Towing a 10k trailer a couple of hundred of miles is going to take a lot of juice.
America already runs hybrid buses if you consider that electric. To get were the world needs to be, we're going to need a lot of f'n batteries. Once the world solves the battery issue, there is not much reason class 8's can't be electrified starting with local delivery trucks.
April 15, 2016 | OilPrice.com
the fundamentally unsustainable pricing that we've seen for much of 2016, particularly after the 2nd failed OPEC meeting, has been much more dependent upon speculative short positions in the market, particularly from algorithmic momentum funds. We could track the speculative short positions against the price of crude almost exactly as prices dropped below $40 the first time, with long positions decreasing to their lowest levels in five years as crude dropped under $30 a barrel.
Ron Patterson , 04/26/2016 at 10:59 amThe EIA's Monthly Energy Review is out. US C+C production was down 74,000 bpd in March to 9,038,000 barrels per day.likbez , 04/26/2016 at 1:37 pm
Ron,Dennis Coyne , 04/27/2016 at 10:52 am
Looks like you was right about timing of peak oil. The trend of production down is becoming more clear with each month. It might be disrupted by some noise (end of Libya civil war, etc), but still with no new major deposits discovered I do not see factors that can change it.Hi Likbez,likbez , 04/27/2016 at 8:39 pm
Higher oil prices might change things and that chart is US only.
IEA expects non-OPEC output to fall 750 kb/d in 2016, some of this may be made up by increases in Iranian, Iraqi, and Libyan output. On an annual basis 2016 may be pretty close to average annual output in 2015 for C+C. It will be interesting to see how things play out, I still like the plateau scenario which I will define as World C+C output remaining between 79 and 81 Mb/d on average for any 12 month period from now until 2025.Hi Dennis,
Higher oil prices might change things and that chart is US only.
I understand that the chart is the US only but it is the harbinger of things to come globally. As for higher oil prices, they need to get into $70-$80 range first where high cost oil projects including US LTO became profitable to change the current trend. Before that "recovery of oil prices" does not change much for non conventional oil producers. For some (for example the USA) conventional oil producers the lower range you provided before might be OK, but most oil producing countries with national oil companies could not balance budget below $90.
IMHO prices below $70-$80 mean for non conventional producers the continuation of "survival mode" or "extend and pretend". With the only difference that the dates of renewal of credit lines coming closer. And that magic range of prices $70-$80 probably will not be reached this year. So I would say your expectations are too optimistic.
When you cite IEA it make sense to provide some information of their track record of production forecasting accuracy during previous sharp reversals of oil prices trends. My impression is that they are way too "linear extrapolation" type of animal.
This conclusion strengthen considerably if we take into account that this is 50% propaganda agency which needs to support "low oil price forever" regime as a part of their institutional agenda. In other words this an agency that is serving G7 countries interested in low oil prices. That creates certain limits on what they can say so it is natural for them to try to downplay any possible drop in oil production. It would extremely stupid to expect from them any other behavior. So IMHO you can safely double their estimates in such cases.
Reality is pretty grim now for oil producers and you need to understand that a lot of skeletons in the closet (including financial skeletons) remain hidden. So actual situation can be much worse then we assume and another quarter of low prices by which I mean prices below which conventional oil production in the USA is unprofitable (let's say $55) might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
So there is a hope that neoliberals lose control over oil prices at some point.
I agree with you about wild cards like Iran and Libya. But the US is ambivalent about allowing Iran to recover oil production and there are moves directed at confiscation part of their "frozen" funds without which this is almost impossible with the current prices. But still we can expect that both of those cards be played to slow down price recovery (and ayatollahs proved to be extremely stupid, if you ask me; not much different from Wahhabis sheiks. why they did not cooperate with oil price freeze (for six months; only six months!) is beyond me. But even Iran ayatollahs arrogant stupidity can't change general trend, which is down.
Iraq can't meaningfully increase production right now as this is an almost bankrupt by civil war country and chances to restore peace this year are slim. Saudis and friends continue to finance Sunni insurgency. It was inertia from "good old times" that drove their production up in 2015. This is over.
Shale card was already played once (and it was played very well) but that's it. Now "carpet drilling" trick will not be repeated again even if price reach magic level of $80: unlimited financing of shale drilling is gone for good.
My impression is that there are powerful forces that are not interested in oil price recovery and do not care about negative long term consequences of waiting so much oil instead of extending conservation technologies.
Unless those forces (of neoliberalism) are somehow suppressed I doubt that prices can recover to the level that allow expansion of production. And in oil prices world the tail still wags the dog: Wall Street still determine oil prices in a sense that it is able vastly amplify the moves via HFT.
Also oil producers also now are disorganized mob unable to protect their own interests, so I would not expect meaningful actions from OPEC unless there is a coup d'état in KSA that removes the young gambler prince who almost halved country currency reserves.
Caelan MacIntyre ,04/27/2016 at 5:25 am" The scenarios most closely reflecting the reality of our world today are …R Walter , 04/27/2016 at 7:59 am
…found in the third group of experiments (see the scenarios for an unequal society in section 5.3), where we introduced economic stratification. Under such conditions, we find that collapse is difficult to avoid , which helps to explain why economic stratification is one of the elements consistently found in past collapsed societies. Importantly, in the first of these unequal society scenarios, 5.3.1, the solution appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate () and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature. Despite appearing initially to be the same as the sustainable optimal solution obtained in the absence of Elites, economic stratification changes the final result: Elites' consumption keeps growing until the society collapses . The Mayan collapse -in which population never recovered even though nature did recover- is an example of a Type-L collapse, whereas the collapses in the Easter Island and the Fertile Crescent -where nature was depleted- are examples of a Type-N collapse.
In scenario 5.3.2, with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites. It is important to note that in both of these scenarios, the Elites -due to their wealth- do not suffer the detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners. This buffer of wealth allows Elites to continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe . It is likely that this is an important mechanism that would help explain how historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases). This buffer effect is further reinforced by the long, apparently sustainable trajectory prior to the beginning of the collapse. While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."
"It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. 'A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil', reports the Sierra Club's Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.
Tilford cites a litany of sobering statistics showing just how profligate Americans have been in using and abusing natural resources. For example, between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17. ' With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal , 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper', he reports. 'Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.'.
He adds that… Americans account for only five percent of the world's population but create half of the globe's solid waste.
Americans' love of the private automobile constitutes a large part of their poor ranking . The National Geographic Society's annual Greendex analysis of global consumption habits finds that Americans are least likely of all people to use public transportation-only seven percent make use of transit options for daily commuting. Likewise, only one in three Americans walks or bikes to their destinations… the U.S. remains the per capita consumption leader for most resources.
Overall, National Geographic's Greendex found that American consumers rank last of 17 countries surveyed in regard to sustainable behavior. Furthermore, the study found that U.S. consumers are among the least likely to feel guilty about the impact they have on the environment…" ~ Scientific American
"The American way of life is not up for negotiation." ~ George Bush Sr.China uses a little more than forty percent of the world's coal.Jef , 04/27/2016 at 8:15 am
The US uses about twelve percent of world coal production, not 23 percent.
906 million tonnes for the US, China consumes 3.87 billion tonnes, total is 8.1 billion tonnes per year.Yes but China is burning that coal to make all of the "stuff" that the US buys so you could argue that the US is consuming that coal. I may even be greater than 23%.Ves , 04/27/2016 at 9:04 amexactly Jef. this whole globalization is just a buzzword to hide what is really trashing the mother earth by the global 1%. Pointing fingers who trash more is illusion fed to us so we can chew on it and be distracted because the real game is played between 1% versus 99% no matter where they live.Caelan MacIntyre , 04/27/2016 at 3:37 pmYou are definitely greater than 23%, except maybe with ethanol.
U.S. gasoline consumption, averaged over four weeks, rose 3.9 percent from a year earlier to 9.39 million barrels a day through April 15, Energy Information Administration data show. Demand this summer will increase 1.4 percent to a record, the EIA said April 12. Americans drove 232.2 billion vehicle miles in February, up 5.6 percent from a year earlier, Transportation Department data show.
"Gasoline demand is quite strong and that's all price driven," said Thomas Finlon, director of Energy Analytics Group LLC in Wellington, Florida. "Demand for gasoline should provide support for crude."
The average price of regular gasoline at the pump nationwide was $2.136 a gallon on Sunday, down 15 percent from a year earlier, according to data from Heathrow, Florida-based AAA, a national federation of motor clubs.
Speculators' net-long position in WTI gained by 30,357 futures and options combined to 245,987, CFTC data show. Long positions, or bets that prices will rise, increased 4.8 percent, while shorts tumbled 19 percent.
In other markets, net bullish bets on Nymex gasoline climbed 15 percent to 23,357 contracts. Gasoline futures declined 3.5 percent in the period. Net bearish wagers on U.S. ultra low sulfur diesel decreased 11 percent to 7,773 contracts, the least since June as futures slipped 1 percent.
In the first quarter of this year China diverted about 787,000 barrels per day into its strategic stockpile, the highest rate since Bloomberg has been tracking the data in 2004. Overall, as of March, China was importing around 7.7 million barrels per day.
... ... ...
Another source of additional demand comes from a policy change in the downstream sector. The central government recently loosened the rules on oil imports, allowing smaller refineries to import more crude oil. These so-called "teapot refineries," with capacities of around 20,000 to 100,000 barrels of production per day, struggled under the old restrictions, producing at only 30 to 40 percent of capacity because of an inability to import oil. That has changed, and domestic refining production is set to rise, and with it, so are imports.
December 29, 2014 | www.counterpunch.org
"Saudi oil policy… has been subject to a great deal of wild and inaccurate conjecture in recent weeks. We do not seek to politicize oil… For us it's a question of supply and demand, it's purely business."
– Ali al Naimi, Saudi Oil Minister
"There is no conspiracy, there is no targeting of anyone. This is a market and it goes up and down."
– Suhail Bin Mohammed al-Mazroui, United Arab Emirates' petroleum minister
"We all see the lowering of oil prices. There's lots of talk about what's causing it. Could it be an agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to punish Iran and affect the economies of Russia and Venezuela? It could."
– Russian President Vladimir Putin
Are falling oil prices part of a US-Saudi plan to inflict economic damage on Russia, Iran and Venezuela?
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro seems to think so. In a recent interview that appeared in Reuters, Maduro said he thought the United States and Saudi Arabia wanted to drive down oil prices "to harm Russia."
Bolivian President Evo Morales agrees with Maduro and told journalists at RT that: "The reduction in oil prices was provoked by the US as an attack on the economies of Venezuela and Russia. In the face of such economic and political attacks, the nations must be united."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the same thing,with a slightly different twist: "The main reason for (the oil price plunge) is a political conspiracy by certain countries against the interests of the region and the Islamic world … Iran and people of the region will not forget such … treachery against the interests of the Muslim world."
US-Saudi "treachery"? Is that what's really driving down oil prices?
Not according to Saudi Arabia's Petroleum Minister Ali al-Naimi. Al-Naimi has repeatedly denied claims that the kingdom is involved in a conspiracy. He says the tumbling prices are the result of "A lack of cooperation by non-OPEC production nations, along with the spread of misinformation and speculator's greed." In other words, everyone else is to blame except the country that has historically kept prices high by controlling output. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Especially since–according to the Financial Times - OPEC's de facto leader has abandoned the cartel's "traditional strategy" and announced that it won't cut production even if prices drop to $20 per barrel.
Why? Why would the Saudis suddenly abandon a strategy that allowed them to rake in twice as much dough as they are today? Don't they like money anymore?
And why would al-Naimi be so eager to crash prices, send Middle East stock markets into freefall, increase the kingdom's budget deficits to a record-high 5 percent of GDP, and create widespread financial instability? Is grabbing "market share" really that important or is there something else going on here below the surface?
The Guardian's Larry Elliot thinks the US and Saudi Arabia are engaged a conspiracy to push down oil prices. He points to a September meeting between John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah where a deal was made to boost production in order to hurt Iran and Russia. Here's a clip from the article titled "Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia":
"…with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by ﬂooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with…
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.
The Saudis did something similar in the mid-1980s. Then, the geopolitical motivation for a move that sent the oil price to below $10 a barrel was to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime. This time, according to Middle East specialists, the Saudis want to put pressure on Iran and to force Moscow to weaken its support for the Assad regime in Syria… (Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia, Guardian)
That's the gist of Elliot's theory, but is he right?
Vladimir Putin isn't so sure. Unlike Morales, Maduro and Rouhani, the Russian president has been reluctant to blame falling prices on US-Saudi collusion. In an article in Itar-Tass, Putin opined:
"There's a lot of talk around" in what concerns the causes for the slide of oil prices, he said at a major annual news conference. "Some people say there is conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and the US in order to punish Iran or to depress the Russian economy or to exert impact on Venezuela."
"It might be really so or might be different, or there might be the struggle of traditional producers of crude oil and shale oil," Putin said. "Given the current situation on the market the production of shale oil and gas has practically reached the level of zero operating costs." (Putin says oil market price conspiracy between Saudi Arabia and US not ruled out, Itar-Tass)
As always, Putin takes the most moderate position, that is, that Washington and the Saudis may be in cahoots, but that droopy prices might simply be a sign of over-supply and weakening demand. In other words, there could be a plot, but then again, maybe not. Putin is a man who avoids passing judgment without sufficient evidence.
The same can't be said of the Washington Post. In a recent article, WP journalist Chris Mooney dismisses anyone who thinks oil prices are the result of US-Saudi collaboration as "kooky conspiracy theorists". According to Mooney:
"The reasons for the sudden (price) swing are not particularly glamorous: They involve factors like supply and demand, oil companies having invested heavily in exploration several years ago to produce a glut of oil that has now hit the market - and then, perhaps, the "lack of cohesion" among the diverse members of OPEC." (Why there are so many kooky conspiracy theories about oil, Washington Post)
Oddly enough, Mooney disproves his own theory a few paragraphs later in the same piece when he says:
"Oil producers really do coordinate. And then, there's OPEC, which is widely referred to in the press as a "cartel," and which states up front that its mission is to "coordinate and unify the petroleum policies" of its 12 member countries…. Again, there's that veneer of plausibility to the idea of some grand oil related strategy." (WP)
Let me get this straight: One the one hand Mooney agrees that OPEC is a cartel that "coordinates and unify the petroleum policies", then on the other, he says that market fundamentals are at work. Can you see the disconnect? Cartels obstruct normal supply-demand dynamics by fixing prices, which Mooney seems to breezily ignore.
Also, he scoffs at the idea of "some grand oil related strategy" as if these cartel nations were philanthropic organizations operating in the service of humanity. Right. Someone needs to clue Mooney in on the fact that OPEC is not the Peace Corps. They are monopolizing amalgam of cutthroat extortionists whose only interest is maximizing profits while increasing their own political power. Surely, we can all agree on that fact.
What's really wrong with Mooney's article, is that he misses the point entirely. The debate is NOT between so-called "conspiracy theorists" and those who think market forces alone explain the falling prices. It's between the people who think that the Saudis decision to flood the market is driven by politics rather than a desire to grab "market share." That's where people disagree. No denies that there's manipulation; they merely disagree about the motive. This glaring fact seems to escape Mooney who is on a mission to discredit conspiracy theorists at all cost. Here's more:
(There's) "a long tradition of conspiracy theorists who have surmised that the world's great oil powers - whether countries or mega-corporations - are secretly pulling strings to shape world events."…
"A lot of conspiracy theories take as their premise that there's a small group of people who are plotting to control something, to control the government, the banking system, or the main energy source, and they are doing this to the disadvantage of everybody else," says University of California-Davis historian Kathy Olmsted, author of "Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11″. (Washington Post)
Got that? Now find me one person who doesn't think the world is run by a small group of rich, powerful people who operate in their own best interests? Here's more from the same article:
(Oil) "It's the perfect lever for shifting world events. If you were a mad secret society with world-dominating aspirations and lots of power, how would you tweak the world to create cascading outcomes that could topple governments and enrich some at the expense of others? It's hard to see a better lever than the price of oil, given its integral role in the world economy." (WP)
"A mad secret society"? Has Mooney noticed that - in the last decade and a half - the US has only invaded nations that have huge natural resources (mainly oil and natural gas) or the geography for critical pipeline routes? There's nothing particularly secret about it, is there?
The United States is not a "mad secret society with world-dominating aspirations". It's a empire with blatantly obvious "world-dominating aspirations" run by political puppets who do the work of wealthy elites and corporations. Any sentient being who's bright enough to browse the daily headlines can figure that one out.
Mooney's grand finale:
"So in sum, with a surprising and dramatic event like this year's oil price decline, it would be shocking if it did not generate conspiracy theories. Humans believe them all too easily. And they're a lot more colorful than a more technical (and accurate) story about supply and demand." (WP)
Ah, yes. Now I see. Those darn "humans". They're so weak-minded they'll believe anything you tell them, which is why they need someone as smart as Mooney tell them how the world really works.
Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? On top of that, he gets the whole story wrong. This isn't about market fundamentals. It's about manipulation. Are the Saudis manipulating supply to grab market share or for political reasons? THAT'S THE QUESTION. The fact that they ARE manipulating supply is not challenged by anyone including the uber-conservative Financial Times that deliberately pointed out that the Saudis had abandoned their traditional role of cutting supply to support prices. That's what a "swing state" does; it manipulates supply keep prices higher than they would be if market forces were allowed to operate unimpeded.
So what is the motive driving the policy; that's what we want to know?
Certainly there's a strong case to be made for market share. No one denies that. If the Saudis keep prices at rock bottom for a prolonged period of time, then a high percentage of the producers (that can't survive at prices below $70 per barrel) will default leaving OPEC with greater market share and more control over pricing.
So market share is certainly a factor. But is it the only factor?
Is it so far fetched to think that the United States–which in the last year has imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia, made every effort to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, and toppled the government in Kiev so it could control the flow of Russian gas to countries in the EU–would coerce the Saudis into flooding the market with oil in order to decimate the Russian economy, savage the ruble, and create favorable conditions for regime change in Moscow? Is that so hard to believe?
Apparently New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman doesn't think so. Here's how he summed it up in a piece last month: "Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war underway pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?"
It sounds like Freidman has joined the conspiracy throng, doesn't it? And he's not alone either. This is from Alex Lantier at the World Socialist Web Site:
"While there are a host of global economic factors underlying the fall in oil prices, it is unquestionable that a major role in the commodity's staggering plunge is Washington's collaboration with OPEC and the Saudi monarchs in Riyadh to boost production and increase the glut on world oil markets.
As Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis last March, the Guardian wrote, "Angered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Saudis turned on the oil taps, driving down the global price of crude until it reached $20 a barrel (in today's prices) in the mid-1980s… [Today] the Saudis might be up for such a move-which would also boost global growth-in order to punish Putin over his support for the Assad regime in Syria. Has Washington floated this idea with Riyadh? It would be a surprise if it hasn't." (Alex Lantier, Imperialism and the ruble crisis, World Socialist Web Site)
And here's an intriguing clip from an article at Reuters that suggests the Obama administration is behind the present Saudi policy:
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped the issue (of a US-Saudi plot) after a trip to Saudi Arabia in September. Asked if past discussions with Riyadh had touched on Russia's need for oil above $100 to balance its budget, he smiled and said: "They (Saudis) are very, very well aware of their ability to have an impact on global oil prices." (Saudi oil policy uncertainty unleashes the conspiracy theorists, Reuters)
Of course, they're in bed together. Saudi Arabia is a US client. It's not autonomous or sovereign in any meaningful way. It's a US protectorate, a satellite, a colony. They do what they're told. Period. True, the relationship is complex, but let's not be ridiculous. The Saudis are not calling the shots. The idea is absurd. Do you really think that Washington would let Riyadh fiddle prices in a way that destroyed critical US domestic energy industries, ravaged the junk bond market, and generated widespread financial instability without uttering a peep of protest on the matter?
Dream on! If the US was unhappy with the Saudis, we'd all know about it in short-order because it would be raining Daisy Cutters from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, which is the way that Washington normally expresses its displeasure on such matters. The fact that Obama has not even alluded to the shocking plunge in prices just proves that the policy coincides with Washington's broader geopolitical strategy.
And let's not forget that the Saudis have used oil as a political weapon before, many times before. Indeed, wreaking havoc is nothing new for our good buddies the Saudis. Check this out from Oil Price website:
"In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The "oil price shock" quadrupled prices.
It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt.
The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect, that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in "petrodollars". In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel." (Did The Saudis And The US Collude In Dropping Oil Prices?, Oil Price)
1973, 1986, 1990, 1998 and 2008.
So, according to the author, the Saudis have manipulated oil prices at least five times in the past to achieve their foreign policy objectives. But, if that's the case, then why does the media ridicule people who think the Saudis might be engaged in a similar strategy today?
Could it be that the media is trying to shape public opinion on the issue and, by doing so, actually contribute to the plunge in oil prices?
Bingo. Alert readers have probably noticed that the oil story has been splashed across the headlines for weeks even though the basic facts have not changed in the least. It's all a rehash of the same tedious story reprinted over and over again. But, why? Why does the public need to have the same "Saudis refuse to cut production" story driven into their consciousness day after day like they're part of some great collective brainwashing experiment? Could it be that every time the message is repeated, oil sells off, and prices go down? Is that it?
Precisely. For example, last week a refinery was attacked in Libya which pushed oil prices up almost immediately. Just hours later, however, another "Saudis refuse to cut production" story conveniently popped up in all the major US media which pushed prices in the direction the USG wants them to go, er, I mean, back down again.
This is how the media helps to reinforce government policy, by crafting a message that helps to push down prices and, thus, hurt "evil" Putin. (This is called "jawboning") Keep in mind, that OPEC doesn't meet again until June, 2015, so there's nothing new to report on production levels. But that doesn't mean we're not going to get regular updates on the "Saudis refuse to cut production" story. Oh, no. The media is going to keep beating that drum until Putin cries "Uncle" and submits to US directives. Either that, or the bond market is going to blow up and take the whole damn global financial system along with it. One way or another, something's got to give.
Bottom line: Falling oil prices and the plunging ruble are not some kind of free market accident brought on by oversupply and weak demand. That's baloney. They're part of a broader geopolitical strategy to strangle the Russian economy, topple Putin, and establish US hegemony across the Asian landmass. It's all part of Washington's plan to maintain its top-spot as the world's only superpower even though its economy is in irreversible decline.
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at email@example.com.
www.nakedcapitalism.comMoneta , April 23, 2016 at 7:56 amJef , April 23, 2016 at 10:19 am
This short term glut will probably accentuate the coming problems because it gives the impression that there is no peak oil. People have trouble understanding that there are short-term cycles within a long-term cycle. This bad signal is giving us the impetus to continue investing in energy intensive projects instead of reshaping our economy. And this will make things even worse in 5-10 years.
If the total cost of extraction is more than 40$ and consumers are paying $40 or less, then somewhere along the way, someone is subsidizing the cost. It could be low tax rates, eZ money, growing deficits, underfunded pensions, underfunded restoration funds, etc.
A country's most important asset is energy and historically, countries have never willingly cut total energy consumption. They might increase efficiencies but the total does not drop. This means that most countries, as long as there exist other sectors that can be squeezed, will continue to subsidize the energy sector squeezing out these sectors that are deemed less important or simply those with less clout.
It is quite obvious that our lives are even more energy dependent than they were when this monetary cycle started in the early 70s. And our system is still based on growing this even more. With NIRP, we are getting very close to the end of this cycle.Eduardo Quince , April 23, 2016 at 11:23 am
There is no glut. All the oil is being bought. The problem is that there in not yet enough of a shortage to drive the price up. A small distinction but huge ramifications if you understand it. And by the way higher prices is not a solution to what ails us.
Fantastic tour de force article.
The author blames the oil patch bust on a geophysical crisis. There is some truth to this argument but by far the biggest driver of the bust is Fed policy. Artificially cheap debt financing led to overcapacity and a vicious cycle of continued overproduction as drillers desperately try to avoid defaulting.
peakoilbarrel.comshallow sand , 04/16/2016 at 11:20 pmThe Telegraph has a story indicating Chinese oil imports are jumping from 6.7 million barrels per day in 2015 to 8 million barrels per day in 2016. Estimated to be 10 million barrels per day in 2018. Barclays estimates. Chinese production is set to fall slightly in 2016.
US production looks to fall to 8 million bopd by end of 2016. US oil demand is also rising.
Yeah I'm biased. I'm sick of sub $40 in the field. We have been below $40 in the field since 7/15. Haven't seen above $55 in the field since 11/14. Havent seen these oil prices since 2003-2004.
Great weather here today. People driving all over the place in our little burg. Didnt see one electric car today. Still know of one Tesla in town. There is, however, also one used Leaf. That is new in the past year. It is driven by a teenager to and from school. Her father has an F350 diesel, her mother has a Chevy Suburban. The Tesla owner also has two gasoline powered vehicles.
Oil is still very low, yet gasoline has popped up over $2. Low here was $1.29.
Refining friends say US gasoline demand will be very high this summer. Their turnaround is winding down, they are going to refine a record number of barrels this year. Just observations.
Amatoori, 04/17/2016 at 11:58 amKuwait Oil Company (KOC) has lowered crude output to 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) from its normal production level of about 3 million bpd, company spokesman Saad Al-Azmi said in a posting on the KOC Twitter account.JN2 , 04/17/2016 at 12:39 pm
Now thats a cut to write home about. So not sure about that how much the "glut" is but if they take of 2mb/d does it mean we are below daily demand now.
Some talk about freeze – the are definitely not talking, :-)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/kuwait-oil-strike-idUKL5N17K0GXAmatoori, due to a labor strike. You forgot to mention that. But with 2 mbpd less and Doha, tomorrow's markets should be interesting!Amatoori , 04/17/2016 at 2:42 pmOh sorry. Just copied a slice of the article and missed that vital information. Anyway, let the market party start. It will definitely test the fundamentals of the oil market. Words vs. Supplyshallow sand , 04/17/2016 at 1:12 pmThis could be a really big deal. First sign that the people of the GCC are not going to take reduced living standards easily.Doug Leighton , 04/17/2016 at 2:45 pmDOHA OIL PRODUCERS MEETING ENDS WITHOUT AN AGREEMENTclueless , 04/17/2016 at 3:12 pm
"A summit in Doha between the world's largest oil producing countries ended without an agreement on Sunday, as country leaders failed to strike a deal to freeze output and boost sagging crude prices."
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/17/doha-oil-producers-meeting-ends-without-an-agreement.htmlGood! I will go with Ron. They are all maxed out anyway. If they had signed a freeze agreement, then everyone would say that the price is rigged and blame the oil companies. I am willing [lost my ass on a lot of oil stock investments] to just wait and see how everything plays out without artificial agreements, that, in my opinion, would have meant nothing.shallow sand , 04/17/2016 at 4:32 pm
I wonder if Shallow Sand agrees?Clueless. I understand where you are coming from. Given early signs from Kuwait, there may be no need for a cut or freeze. Assuming Kuwait just went down about 2 million, wouldn't it be prudent for the rest to wait and see what happens? I think austerity in the kingdoms maybe is not going so smoothly?
As for us, we are kind of like Russia, don't want to see another sub $30 test. Would like to get to $55-60 WTI and see how shale, tar sands, etc react. So, if freeze talk is why we had a bounce, and we drop back below $30 WTI, we wont be happy campers about no freeze deal.
In retrospect, costs got out of hand at $100 oil. Pretty much everything is cheaper now, except for electricity.
$55-60 WTI would be wonderful. It would better if the market achieves it than through a cut. However, history is that a cut is necessary to get the traders to dump their shorts.
There are a lot of John Kilduff's out there who are almost maniacal in their desire to drive WTI back below $26.
I long ago quit trying to figure out why oil trades like it does, or how it can get so high or low for periods of time.
I'd say the new Saudi prince who is apparently now in charge seems to be taking a different approach than his predecessors.
We will see.
A victory for the US diplomacy. Using KSA as a Trojan horse again and again.
The GuardianThe world's major oil producing nations failed to strike an agreement on Sunday night to freeze production, saying they needed more time to agree a deal to try to buoy the price of oil.
What producers had hoped would be the first deal in 15 years ran into difficulty after Saudi Arabia – the largest exporter of oil – demanded that Iran join an agreement to freeze output.
Iran has been reluctant to agree to hold back on oil production while it attempts to return its market share to pre-sanction levels.
The meeting in Doha had been called on Sunday for 18 countries to sign off on a deal that would helped to put a floor on the price of crude oil which, at $45 a barrel , has risen 60% from its lows in January.
But Reuters quoted sources saying that Saudi Arabia wanted all Opec members to attend talks, despite insisting earlier on excluding Iran, its political rival in the region, because Tehran had refused to freeze production.
If a deal cannot be struck soon, it is possible that recent rises in the price of oil will stall.
Economists at French bank Société Générale said: "When it comes to oil, the principle of Goldilocks applies in full. Too low a price raises fear of a vicious circle of default, spillover to bank balance sheets, eroding financial conditions and a new headwind for the real economy.
"Too high a price, on the other hand, erodes the welcome boost to purchasing power. But, if higher oil prices are driven by stronger demand, then this is good news."
They noted that a recent report by the International Energy Agency warned that a mere production freeze would have a limited effect on physical oil supply.
Even so, expectations had been high before the Sunday meeting that a deal could be struck between Opec and non-Opec oil producers to hold output at January's levels until October. Reuters was reporting that producers were instead agreeing to freeze oil production at "an agreeable level" as long as all Opec countries and major exporting nations participated.
"If there is no deal today, it will be more than just Iran that Saudi Arabia will be targeting. If there is no freeze, that would directly affect North American production going forward, perhaps something Saudis might like to see," Natixis oil analyst Abhishek Deshpande told Reuters.