America Unsustainable...

[Franc0]

"Not all energy sources are created equal"
"Oil is liquid sunshine."
"Fossil fuels are like a battery in the earth that we have tapped into."
"The advantages of fossil fuels are numerous..."
"No other forms of energy compare to fossil fuels."
"Innovation does not always follow need."
"In fact, it is more common for innovation NOT to follow need."
"It is foolish to depend on technology that doesn't exist to provide for unsustainable needs. Especially when nothing is being done to develop the technology.

With thinking like that, you are the oil industries best friend, and it's thinking like that the keeps the greedy oil companies in power, and innovations in non-petroleum based energy at a standstill.
I'm guessing either you or your parents own stocks in a petroleum conglomerate. You say you're willing to do the things you originally listed, but your views are totally *** backwards when it comes to backing it up.

 

[Makalakumu]

With thinking like that, you are the oil industries best friend, and it's thinking like that the keeps the greedy oil companies in power, and innovations in non-petroleum based energy at a standstill.
I'm guessing either you or your parents own stocks in a petroleum conglomerate. You say you're willing to do the things you originally listed, but your views are totally *** backwards when it comes to backing it up.

Actually, I'm saying Oil has no future...and that means trouble because of nature of oil. This way of life that we call normal cannot last and if you actually study alternative technologies...none of them can supply our current levels of energy consumption. None of them. Not even close. This will change everything about how you live your life...plan for it.

 

[ginshun]

Food Production

If you look at my list, I seem to be very concerned with food production. The reason for this is that our current methods of food production are unsustainable. Sustainable food production is when you put in one calorie of energy and get at least one calorie of food in return. Our current ratio with our current system requires 10 calories of energy for every one calorie of food.

Most of this energy in comes from oil.

Industrial agriculture is a system of large corporate industrialized farms that depend on machinery, fertilizer, pestacides, and transportation in order to function. In fact, every peice of produce you buy at the store has taken an average journey of 1,500 miles before it gets to the store. Organic items included.

As demand on fossil fuels from the world increases and the supply of fossil fuels decreases, the prices will rise sharply. And industrial agriculture will be one of the first victims. The unsustainability of it, will put the system permanently out of business. It is already feeling the squeeze...our government subsidizes agriculture more then any other industry. It can't continue.

Thus, in our future, we will see agriculture return to prominance in our lives. We won't have giant farms that depend on fossil fuels to produce our food. More people will be required to produce food for our population...many many more people. I imagine that the family farm will once again rise to prominance...In the meantime, our economy will pay for the destruction of our efficient decentralized system.

The old will become new.

With that in mind, the native born farmer/labor class will be reborn. Those disaffected by the fossil fuel blowout of the late 20th and early 21st century will comprise this class, relegated to bits of land owned from far away. These people will go from suburbs to serfdom in the span of their lives, suffering from their lack of forethought...finally laying bare the irony of capitalism.

upnorthkyosa

For some reason, I doubt very much that this will ever happen. Regardless of how the farming is done, the amount of land that is being farmed now will need to contiue to be farmed in order to support our population. To keep producing food at current levels without using modern techniques like machinary, fertilizers and pesticides is impossible. Organic farming just plain can't be done on the scale that you are talking about. So unless there is some major disaster that greatly reduces our need for food, your scenario is not a realistic one in my eyes.

Now maybe the disaster in question will be that oil runs out, and the farming all of a sudden can't be done like it is now, in which case millions of people starve to death and the need for food is reduced. I really don't believe this will happen.

Actually, I'm saying Oil has no future...and that means trouble because of nature of oil. This way of life that we call normal cannot last and if you actually study alternative technologies...none of them can supply our current levels of energy consumption. None of them. Not even close. This will change everything about how you live your life...plan for it.

I personally believe that the only reason that alternative energy sorces are not more widespread is that they don't need to be...yet. Once people realize that the oil is running out, and it is well established and agreed upon by the scientific community exactly when it will happen, the developement of alternate energies will greatly increase. Sure they can't produce our current need for energy in there current forms, but to think that alternative energy won't improve greatly by the time the oil runs out is foolish. Once the need becomes eminantly evident, the reasearch will ramp up like you wouldn't believe.
Now, granted this should probably be happening already, and by the time it does start, it might be too late, who knows? I fully believe that eventually our society will function at pretty close to the same level it does now without oil. Now, this probably won't happen in our lifetime, and there might be a huge crash in energy availability before it does, but someday we will get there. If mankind in general plans on making it, it has too. Now dont get me wrong, and think that I am saying this transition will be a smooth one, quite the contrary, sooner or later some major **** is going to hit the fan.
Humans can make great strides in a very short times ... when they are forced to.

 

[Makalakumu]

For some reason, I doubt very much that this will ever happen. Regardless of how the farming is done, the amount of land that is being farmed now will need to contiue to be farmed in order to support our population. To keep producing food at current levels without using modern techniques like machinary, fertilizers and pesticides is impossible. Organic farming just plain can't be done on the scale that you are talking about. So unless there is some major disaster that greatly reduces our need for food, your scenario is not a realistic one in my eyes.

Now maybe the disaster in question will be that oil runs out, and the farming all of a sudden can't be done like it is now, in which case millions of people starve to death and the need for food is reduced. I really don't believe this will happen.

India and China have five times as many people as we do and the produce most of their food by hand...

We will get by just fine with a little hard work. The end result is that there will be less food, less options, and people will probably be thinner.

 

[Makalakumu]

I personally believe that the only reason that alternative energy sorces are not more widespread is that they don't need to be...yet. Once people realize that the oil is running out, and it is well established and agreed upon by the scientific community exactly when it will happen, the developement of alternate energies will greatly increase. Sure they can't produce our current need for energy in there current forms, but to think that alternative energy won't improve greatly by the time the oil runs out is foolish. Once the need becomes eminantly evident, the reasearch will ramp up like you wouldn't believe.

Think about the efficiency of photosynthesis. Think about the implications of Ohm's Law when it comes to transporting energy. Then, think about exactly what alternative energy sources are trying to do.

These technologies are trying to capture the latent energy on the earth in the form of wind, rain, and sunshine.

Plants have already done this and fossil fuels are the accumulation of this energy over millions of years.

The differences in the amounts of energy produced are not off by just a little, they are off by orders of magnitude.

 

[ginshun]

Hmmmm... maybe you are right, only time will tell I suppose. I think most of America could do with being a little thinner.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, I would...I would do most of those things of my own volition because I believe that using/consuming less is a good thing to do.

Then why arent you.....

 

[Cryozombie]

Well... as far as food production goes, you know the song...

"I can skin a Buck, I can run a trout line, and a country boy can survive"

I may not be a country boy, but I learned well from them.

 

[ginshun]

Another thing to consider about going back to farming without the machinary or whatever is this. With a little resaech it can be found that the US uses a larger amount of land than either China or India (as per upnorthkyoso's example) for agriculture.

Numbers I got were 494,000 sq. miles for India, 555,000 sq. miles for China and 678,000 square miles for the US.

Now consider the amount of people from each country employed due to agriculture.

China ~ 50% of the population or ~650 million people
India ~ 62% of the population or ~660 million people
USA ~ 21% of the population 0r ~ 62 million people

So take those stats for what you will, you will have to trust me on them (or don't, whatever) because I looked through a ton of websites to find them.

Does it prove that we are more or less efficient? I don't really know, there are a lot of things that these stats don't address, the amount of products actually produced for one, how much is used domestically and how much is exported for another, and the list goes on and on. Its would seem at a glance, that we produce a lot more per person, but probaly less per amount of area.

What seems to be evident is that agriculture in the US simply can't work the way it does in those countries. Their resepective agriculture industries employ twice as many people each as there are in the US total.

I don't know what my point is exactly, just food for thought I suppose. Maybe all it proves is that upnorthkyoso is right, and our current way of living is completley unsustainable. Without oil anyway or some equally efficeint form of power anyway.

 

[Makalakumu]

Then why arent you.....

It takes time and planning to do some of this stuff.

That is why major efforts in conservation can never happen quickly. If people think that we are just suddenly going to change when it becomes to cost prohibitive, they have got another thing coming. We've got all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak. 90% of our lives is impacted directly or indirectly by the price of oil. Everything about our way of life is predicated on waste.

Cutting our consumption by 50% is very difficult, but that is the only way alternative energy sources will become affordable. It might take me 5-10 years to accomplish this...Ginshun pointed out that at his current level of consumption, it would take an investment of at least 60,000 dollars just to power his house. THAT is an important point to keep in mind.

There are those who want to pretend like nothing is happening and do nothing but drive their Hummers 40 miles to work. They will just have to lump it. When fossil fuel prices skyrocket, they will be left with a bunch of stuff they can't afford to use and no resources or time to make the changes they need.

The bottom line is that they just won't have the resources to make the changes. Then what?

 

[ginshun]

I just want to give credit to this thread for being awesome. It has made me think about a lot of things.

 

[psi_radar]

Being able to produce the same foods wouldn't be problem, the US has plenty of arable land. The real problem will be getting it to where it needs to go within the margin of cost vs. maximum price. At what point will people stop paying 50$ a pound for Wyoming beef or 40$ Mexican canteloupes and eat locally grown, efficiently produced, nutrient-rich soy products instead? The answer is, as long as it's economically feasible, cause beef and winter fruit are tasty.

All you need to know about humanity's attitudes toward consumerism and the environment can be discovered at a buffet table. Generally, people take more than they need. If they are required to pay a la carte, suddenly their plates aren't quite so heaping.

If there's a big oil crash in which suddenly the resource is just removed, then yes, worldwide starvation and chaos will likely ensue. More likely, however, is that as all these resources gradually become more expensive, people will eschew certain luxuries to support a more basic quality of life. We americans love cars, and man, I'll miss the V-8, but we will get over it to maintain a safe, secure, and happy quality of life for our loved ones. Tofu burger anyone?

One practical way to conserve energy, oil in particular, would be to promote telecommuting. We use 2/3 of our oil in our vehicles. Provide initial tax breaks to companies who set up information systems that allow for working at home, and smaller "hub" offices rather than one large, centralized business space. This reduces commuting drastically and supports more localized services networks, which we'll need anyway as resources become more scarce.

 

[Makalakumu]

Being able to produce the same foods wouldn't be problem, the US has plenty of arable land. The real problem will be getting it to where it needs to go within the margin of cost vs. maximum price. At what point will people stop paying 50$ a pound for Wyoming beef or 40$ Mexican canteloupes and eat locally grown, efficiently produced, nutrient-rich soy products instead? The answer is, as long as it's economically feasible, cause beef and winter fruit are tasty.

All you need to know about humanity's attitudes toward consumerism and the environment can be discovered at a buffet table. Generally, people take more than they need. If they are required to pay a la carte, suddenly their plates aren't quite so heaping.

If there's a big oil crash in which suddenly the resource is just removed, then yes, worldwide starvation and chaos will likely ensue. More likely, however, is that as all these resources gradually become more expensive, people will eschew certain luxuries to support a more basic quality of life. We americans love cars, and man, I'll miss the V-8, but we will get over it to maintain a safe, secure, and happy quality of life for our loved ones. Tofu burger anyone?

One practical way to conserve energy, oil in particular, would be to promote telecommuting. We use 2/3 of our oil in our vehicles. Provide initial tax breaks to companies who set up information systems that allow for working at home, and smaller "hub" offices rather than one large, centralized business space. This reduces commuting drastically and supports more localized services networks, which we'll need anyway as resources become more scarce.

Market value replacement works in most cases. In fact, the system can enhance innovation on small scales.

Imagine this, though...

90% of what you own will become too expensive to own and operate. 90% of the food you eat will become too expensive to buy. 90% of things you do and of your interactions will be come too expensive to continue.

Alright, pile this on...

90% of our infrastructure will become obsolete. 90% of our food production systems will be too expensive...it is just too much.

A market didn't create this system and a market cannot solve it.

We have all of our eggs in one basket because of the political hubris of the early 20th century. Our country invested all of our postwar wealth in a living arrangement that has no future.

When oil becomes too expensive, its too late.

upnorthkyosa

 

[ginshun]

Where does the 90% number come from? Is it a pretty agreed upon number, or is it a number that comes from one study done by the people on a particular side of the issue? What kind of research was acctually done to come up with the 90%?

 

[Makalakumu]

Where does the 90% number come from? Is it a pretty agreed upon number, or is it a number that comes from one study done by the people on a particular side of the issue? What kind of research was acctually done to come up with the 90%?

Their has been a lot of diverse research done on this subject. Check the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. They have been collecting it.

 

[psi_radar]

Market value replacement works in most cases. In fact, the system can enhance innovation on small scales.

Imagine this, though...

90% of what you own will become too expensive to own and operate. 90% of the food you eat will become too expensive to buy. 90% of things you do and of your interactions will be come too expensive to continue.

Alright, pile this on...

90% of our infrastructure will become obsolete. 90% of our food production systems will be too expensive...it is just too much.

A market didn't create this system and a market cannot solve it.

We have all of our eggs in one basket because of the political hubris of the early 20th century. Our country invested all of our postwar wealth in a living arrangement that has no future.

When oil becomes too expensive, its too late.

upnorthkyosa

This is all believable within the "Wolf at the Door" pessimistic scenario. However, if you look at the availability of oil as a bell curve rather than a cliff, as we hit Peak Oil availability will slowly decline, increasing prices gradually over the course of years. The nature of capitalism dictates we will pursue alternative solutions as the old ones become too expensive. If we have time, I have faith in mankind's ingenuity that we will prevail in this particular crisis. Our lifestyles will not likely be the same, but we will adapt.

Two points that have been briefly addressed here that bear greatly on this issue and others like it. Earth, as a finite resource, cannot sustain:

--An infinitely growing human population

--Consumerism as a prevailing economic philosophy for an infinitely growing human population

I don't have ready solutions for these, but I thought they're worth discussing in this context.

 

[ginshun]

This is all believable within the "Wolf at the Door" pessimistic scenario. However, if you look at the availability of oil as a bell curve rather than a cliff, as we hit Peak Oil availability will slowly decline, increasing prices gradually over the course of years. The nature of capitalism dictates we will pursue alternative solutions as the old ones become too expensive. If we have time, I have faith in mankind's ingenuity that we will prevail in this particular crisis. Our lifestyles will not likely be the same, but we will adapt.

This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.

The interesting thing about oil and gas fields is that the faster you pump the stuff out and the more efficient it is done, only accellerates the depletion. It makes the curve steeper. Thus, the drop in production becomes precipitous.

We could slow down the drop in production if we started conserving now, but that ain't happening. In fact, our countries policy is to pump the oil out even faster.

Lastly, about capitalism, no free market created the system we have now. There has been collusion of business and government from the beginning of the 20th century until now. Our suburban way of life has been shaped by government forces in the form of subsidies so that almost everything that we do is totally dependent on oil.

We have 200,000,000 cars in this country. Millions of miles of roads. Millions of factories. Millions of farms. Millions of big box department stores that depend on shipping goods 10,000 miles or more from China. And millions of cul-de-sac subdivisions named after the things that they destroyed...ie Oak Hill, Quail Hollow, etc.

When all of this becomes uneconomical, it's too late.

The big secret in this country is that war is the only option if we choose not to change our lives. We MUST steal oil in order to meet our current needs. Our President and Vice President and Administration know this, they are in the business, they've known for years. "Our military action will be paid for with Iraqi Oil," says Paul Wolfowitz. Nobody asked the Iraqis if this was okay. My question is who buys the oil after the government procures it?

Therefore, I prefer conservation...it is the only real long term solution and it is the only thing that will deflect some of the worst predictions above.

 

[Tgace]

This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.

Ditto..some people are a little too defeatist/pessimistic and paranoid IMO.

 

[Makalakumu]

Ditto..some people are a little too defeatist/pessimistic and paranoid IMO.

Then you haven't looked at the literature...like the rest of suburbia...beep beep.

And its not pessimistic in any way to say that we need to conserve more and change our lives.