The earth is nearly a closed system. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. At some
point, there can be no doubt that it will run out.
What are the range of estimates for the amount of oil remaining given the earth's current
usage trends?
What do you think would happen if the oil suddenly ran out tomorrow (hypothetically)?
Nemesio
the predictions about when it will run out that have been made by experts for decades have all proven wrong.
the dependence on oil is an economic device. we spew the carbon poison without seriously developing and utilizing alternatives, because the economics of oil work so well
fortunately, oil won't run out "overnight." we'll have enough time to move on to biofuels, nuclear, solar, human, and many as yet unknown sources, presumably
Originally posted by coquetteSo, what range of estimates do you think is just? 20 years? 200 years?
the predictions about when it will run out that have been made by experts for decades have all proven wrong.
the dependence on oil is an economic device. we spew the carbon poison without seriously developing and utilizing alternatives, because the economics of oil work so well
fortunately, oil won't run out "overnight." we'll have enough time to move on to biofuels, nuclear, solar, human, and many as yet unknown sources, presumably
While the economics of oil work so well (you are correct of course), oil will without a doubt
become scarcer at some point. While this will obviously drive the market to alternatives,
how long do you think make the alternatives feasible will take?
And, hypothetically, what do you think will happen if oil were to run out 'over night?'
Nemesio
this page includes various interesting graphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production. Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion.
The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and decline. Extraction roughly follows the discovery curve after a time lag (typically about 35 years[1][2]) for development. The theory is named after American geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume. Hubbert's theory was initially greeted with skepticism by many in the oil industry, but has since gained widespread acceptance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. M. King Hubbert first used the theory in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His model, now called Hubbert peak theory, has since been used to predict the peak petroleum production of many other countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.
Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Although predictions as to what exactly these negative effects will be vary greatly, "a growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day."[1]
If political and economic change only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. The Export Land Model shows that the amount of oil available internationally drops much more quickly than production in exporting countries because the exporting countries maintain an internal growth in demand. Shortfalls in production (and therefore supply) would cause extreme price inflation, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives, which would need to be implemented 20 years before the peak.[2]
Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast a peak will happen in the 2020s or 2030s and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.[3]
Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that the peak has already occurred[4][5][6][7] or will occur shortly[8] and, as proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, predict a global depression, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market which might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization. In early 2008 there are signs that the growing recession was made much worse by rising oil prices.[9]
Originally posted by NemesioOne of the good things of having a market for oil is that as oil becomes scarcer, the price will go up as long as the oil producing countries behave in a profit maximizing way. This creates progressive incentives for innovations that replace or reduce the inputs of oil and therefore allows for a likely smoother (not costless, note) transition.
The earth is nearly a closed system. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. At some
point, there can be no doubt that it will run out.
What are the range of estimates for the amount of oil remaining given the earth's current
usage trends?
What do you think would happen if the oil suddenly ran out tomorrow (hypothetically)?
Nemesio
So the scenario of a sudden ending of oil is unrealistic, unless you assume a progressive increase in prices in a longer span of time that would certainly change usage trends and, with almost certain probability, technology as well.
Originally posted by Palynkathis should be true in the case of oil as fuel. but in the case of oil as raw materials for plastics and pharmaceuticals(and other) it is no longer valid.
One of the good things of having a market for oil is that as oil becomes scarcer, the price will go up as long as the oil producing countries behave in a profit maximizing way. This creates progressive incentives for innovations that replace or reduce the inputs of oil and therefore allows for a likely smoother (not costless, note) transition.
So the scen ...[text shortened]... t would certainly change usage trends and, with almost certain probability, technology as well.
one would need oil(and other fossil fuels that are running out too) to make plastics. and we cannot afford for medicine to become more expensive. in my opinion replacement of oil as fuel must begin much sooner that the critical moment of "stuff is running out".
while it is easy to drive an amish speedster(horse and buggy) if gas is too expensive, it is not acceptable to have to pay a year income for medicine or anything containing plastic
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't see why the argument isn't valid for plastic. Plastic is still too cheap and probably overused when you consider the environmental consequences.
this should be true in the case of oil as fuel. but in the case of oil as raw materials for plastics and pharmaceuticals(and other) it is no longer valid.
one would need oil(and other fossil fuels that are running out too) to make plastics. and we cannot afford for medicine to become more expensive. in my opinion replacement of oil as fuel must begin mu ...[text shortened]... it is not acceptable to have to pay a year income for medicine or anything containing plastic
There is no reason to think there can be no possible substitute for the current plastic. It just needs to become expensive to channel more research into alternatives.
Originally posted by Palynkaoh, i am not referring to plastic only as the container coca cola comes in. i am referring that practically all of todays objects contain a form or another of plastic. most of which come from. i am saying that practically all of modern chemical industry relies and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels.
I don't see why the argument isn't valid for plastic. Plastic is still too cheap and probably overused when you consider the environmental consequences.
There is no reason to think there can be no possible substitute for the current plastic. It just needs to become expensive to channel more research into alternatives.
as i said it is ok to up the price on gas(well not that cool) and force the people to walk. but you cannot allow mostly all of todays commodities to get much more expensive and expect to develop in a short time replacements for all of them because civilisation will collapse.
that is why replacement (finding new alternatives) should begin as early as possible because there might be a possibility that some could not be replaced on time.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou still provide no argument as to why that "collapse" should happen or why that time would be short. The pressure for changing the technology on plastics will begin when they become relatively expensive.
oh, i am not referring to plastic only as the container coca cola comes in. i am referring that practically all of todays objects contain a form or another of plastic. most of which come from. i am saying that practically all of modern chemical industry relies and hydrocarbons from fossil fuels.
as i said it is ok to up the price on gas(well not that coo ...[text shortened]... early as possible because there might be a possibility that some could not be replaced on time.
I already explained why it is unlikely for such collapses to happen and now you say that my argument is to "force the people to walk"? That's not my argument at all.
Edit - I DO think that the government should do something about the oil consumption because of environmental concerns, which the market doesn't fully capture. This is another motive, though, and not necessarily related with the shortage of oil.
Originally posted by NemesioLike so-called "global warming," radical environmentalists, anti-Americans and those who are adverse to capitalism have oversold the idea of "peak oil":
The earth is nearly a closed system. There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. At some
point, there can be no doubt that it will run out.
What are the range of estimates for the amount of oil remaining given the earth's current
usage trends?
What do you think would happen if the oil suddenly ran out tomorrow (hypothetically)?
Nemesio
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e8508ae-004e-11dd-825a-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/OPINION02/803310307/1070
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4254875.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4254875.html
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou sound like a broken record.
Like so-called "global warming," radical environmentalists, anti-Americans and those who are adverse to capitalism have oversold the idea of "peak oil":
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e8508ae-004e-11dd-825a-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/OPINION02/803310307/1070
http://www.popularmec ...[text shortened]... com/science/earth/4254875.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4254875.html
Global warming is a fact. Human responsibility in it is accepted by the majority of researchers. This has little to do with capitalism, but with industrialization which is not necessarily the same thing.
Pollution the most common textbook example of an externality, implied in a missing market. This means that without the authorities intervening to create such a market or finding other means of regulation, the economy will pollute more than what is the social optimum. So, even abstracting from subjective considerations about the aesthetical value of nature and a clean environment, unchecked pollution is INEFFICIENT.
That said, I don't see any missing market regarding the limited supplies of oil. Let's not muddle the issues for the sake of clarity. There are enough threads already on global warming.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou've been "greenwashed."
You sound like a broken record.
Global warming is a fact. Human responsibility in it is accepted by the majority of researchers. This has little to do with capitalism, but with industrialization which is not necessarily the same thing.
Pollution the most common textbook example of an externality, implied in a missing market. This means that without th ...[text shortened]... muddle the issues for the sake of clarity. There are enough threads already on global warming.
