Peak Oil And Depopulating Asia

Posted on Monday, October 04 at 12:08 by sthompson
Sly: Depopulating?

Stan: "Depopulating" is the euphemism for killing all the livestock affected by a disease as a preventive business measure to preserve markets, etc. The "depopulating" of all Fraser Valley poultry operations because of the chicken influenza outbreak is a recent example.

Depopulating Asia means using modern weapons to kill off the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Muslim--Russian maybe--peoples in an attempt to head off the coming war of resources predicted with the end of oil and Wilson's Bottleneck.

When Bush seized Iraq - using Saddam as an excuse - it was the first step in an endgame for the remaining oil reserves necessary for our way of life. Peak oil is upon us, but very few understand the consequences. Very few understand the importance of the signal that the US is sending about how the US is going to react to peak oil.

Sly: Hold on just a minute Stan old man - Killing all the people in Asia? Peak oil? What's peak oil?

Stan: M. King Hubbert was a US oil geologist. He looked at records for oil discovered, wells dug and production and predicted in the 50s that production of oil in the continental States would peak around 1970. It did. Since 1970 US wells have produced less and less oil even with new discoveries and increasing technology for better oil recovery.

A school (for lack of a better word) of oil geologists and other oil production experts have used Hubbert's methodology to try and predict the peak of global oil production - there is a finite supply of oil. The range of predictions for when we will reach peak production - followed by a steep decline in production - begin with 2002 in the worst case scenario, through a spectrum of predictions to a very optimistic 2050.

What does this mean? - I can see your distress with what I'm saying Sly. Will we instantly run out of oil tomorrow or next month or in a couple of years? Should you switch to gas?

Oil industry expert Andrew McKillop - check out his wisdom on the net - has tried to think through the complex consequences and, to simplify, he sees little chance of cooperative restructuring from our fossil fuel economy; he predicts first a mini-boom as oil prices rise to $75+ a barrel then another great depression.

The problem I was trying to draw attention to when I was cheaply misquoted was that human history doesn't point to a reasonable or scientific solution to the serious, global-scale, problem of the end of oil.

Jared Diamond - you've read Guns, Germs and Steel Sly? No - well Jared Diamond is a learned American scientist and he has been researching the collapse of civilizations like Easter Island and the Mayan civilization in Mexico and one of his unsurprising conclusions is that you get a lot of warlord infighting when resource depletion or climate change gets severe. And this warfare gets in the way of possible cooperative solutions such as migration or better organized irrigation.

Sly: Well you're sure a downer this morning. So our civilization is going to collapse? Stan, don't we live in the best world ever?

Stan: Yes we do but at enormous expense.

Sly: Enormous expense? To who?

Stan: To future generations. Maybe even to us. Richard Heinberg, who is a peak oil expert, put a great sci-fi description of our present unbelievable waste of an incredibly precious resource up on the net called A Letter from the Future. Look it up. We are completely submerged in an oil economy and most of us have not a clue how special and transient the oil economy is.

The best depiction of the past century of human endeavor is exponential growth of the world's population based on an exponentially growing world economy based on the utilization of this incredibly cheap fuel. What happens when there isn't enough oil to keep growing?

Americans use 25 barrels per capita yearly (BCY). A Japan or Italy size economy has a 10-12 BCY. The global average is less than 4.7 BCY. China and to a lessor extent India are following the US in rapidly expanding their economies using the technologies of cheap oil. The high prices for oil today are a dawning understanding that there isn't enough oil being pumped today to supply everybody. Poor Third World countries are already priced out of the market.

Sly: But higher prices and the market mechanism will mean more oil found in the future..

Stan: Bullshit. Sorry, bull tweety, the market mechanism will mask the onset of peak oil until the steep decline of production can't be hidden any more. If you read

Sly: Look Stan we already went through a scheduled break - we can do that folks on laid back Creeker radio - but we're running out of time and I'm still really confused. Are you predicting that the US and China will fight it out over oil, over declining oil, after Hubbert or whatever his name was?

Stan: The US has signaled that it won't cooperate in finding possible multilateral solutions and what I've been trying to get on the menu for public debate is that down the road, down the unilateralist policy path the US is taking today, the US might not even wait for end-of-oil wars. Bush has acted peremptorily in Iraq as part of a geo-strategic foreign policy to use the US military to secure needed resources -oil, for now, - for America's future. People today have to think through where this unilateralist path takes us in the future.

The end of oil or severe resource depletion is predicted as part of the Bottleneck analogy developed by the esteemed American scientist Edward O. Wilson in his book The Future of Life.

Sly: The future of life...?

Stan: Look Sly the universe is now figured to be at least 13 billion years old; the Earth 4 1/2 billion - the odds against Armageddon have never been better, but a good many people out there are preparing rapturously for naked bottoms floating up to join Christ. Don't sell your season tickets.

Now look, I'm no apocalyptic person. Nor am I paranoid that Cheney was behind 9/11 or any of that crazyness. Wilson is perhaps America's foremost scientist and super reasonable. Read his wise little book. Life in some form will go on, but the present human-caused Sixth Extinction could easily include us.

As Wilson points out in his Bottleneck chapter - available to everyone on the net - when humanity exceeded 6 billion people we had achieved at least 100 times the cumulative biomass of any previous animal species. Biologically we should anticipate some return to equilibrium.

The 21st century will be a turbulent time even without the coming end of oil. Even if we can find enough oil or mine methane hydrates or new solar technology. Whatever. And we are heading into trouble with the international rule of law in shreds, with our nascent multilateral organizations like the UN marginalized, with

Sly: Hold it! Hold it! Hold on Stan. More doom and gloom. This is where you get to depopulating Asia?

Stan: What was the last book you read Sly? You think your opinion is equal on subjects you know nothing about. You've always been much more concerned with hustling Smogs or our local braided armpit variety, with - God knows its been a while since we been in Club Zero together - bisexual erect slugs out in the rainforest now Sly? Obviously peak oil or Wilson's Bottleneck or Jared Diamond aren't searches you do on the net.

Sly: What's this slander got to do with anything?

Stan: You're just like my fellow buds at work at Termoil completely caught up in cheque to cheque living and shopping. You don't know what service sector path dependence is cause you can't get away from paying the shadows to get out of the cave and look around in the real world.

You laugh at me as a "futurist" but I just read and have freed up my life so I can get out of the rat race and look around. We both smoke a little bud, but, as the gentleman used to say, you still got your mind up your bum.

We are all caught up in the tyranny of the present. We all have jobs, mortgages and cars with confidence that the future will be the same as it is now but better. How many kids you got now Sly? How far..

Sly: I've got three. What's the matter?

Stan: How far do any of us look into the future and what information do we use? Reasonable people, highly trained experts, predict a very difficult near future unprecedented in our million year existence 'cept perhaps for the previous Bottleneck that probably reduced the human population to less than ten thousand of us 70,000 years ago.

The average guy can't deal with these timeframes, with anything but right now. He/she is incredibly sophisticated and knowledgeable today, but that knowledge is day to day or within specialized disciplines predicated on day to day. Both a knowledge of history or even a good bridge player's skilled planning for alternative card possibilities, an ability to conceive of alternative futures, are sadly lacking.

As a species we learn in our individual upbringing the particular skills needed to survive right now and reproduce. Whether you live in Dahka, for example, or like most of us here in the Burbs you learn what you need to know to survive- driving, using a cash machine; how to change channels, etc., etc., And this preoccupation with the present - combined with $ 500 billion + globally worth of positive feedback in the form of advertising - means that only a very few are aware and thinking about alternative possible futures.

By the way there's this new movie out called The End of Suburbia 'cause suburbs are only possible thanks to cheap oil.

Sly: We gotta go. We're almost at news time.

Stan: What we need is a much strengthened global framework for cooperation and governance. We desperately need a strengthened international rule of law.

Sly: We have to go now Stan...

Stan: And Bush is taking us in precisely the opposite direction and the path he is choosing for us all will be very hard to back up and get out of if we go much further

Sly: Bye Stan. Nice having you on again.

Stan: And depopulating Asia is a possible move down the path Bush is taking us.

Sly: Bye Stan. Good luck as a futurist.

--------------
by Bill Henderson
www.pacificfringe.net

604-886-8036

[Yes, folks, the radio show is fictional, but unfortunately, peak oil might be a true story.--Ed.]

Note: Bottleneck Peak oil M. King Hubbert his wisdom on the net Jared Diamond A Letter from the Future The End of Suburbia www.pacificfringe.net

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:08 pm
    Stan's prescription for our times - that we need 'global governance and regulation' is exactly the wrong one, especially if he's right about 'peak oil' even though he's wrong on that too.

    The UN, a chat room for dictators, is a prime example of an attempt at being a global government and its incompetence and corruption are legendary - the world doesn't need more of that.

    Innovative free market energy solutions are currently expensive but getting cheaper all the time - strangling the global economy will result in less funding for R&D into alternate energy sources and would leave the population fighting over the only usable resource.

    If 'depopulating' refers to genocide then it is a plainly ignorant use of the word.

  2. Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:04 pm
    In Alberta, where have a good portion of the world's oil, our own energy and utilities board (AEUB) has released data showing that conventional oil reserves are already declining. If you divide the numbers, which they won't do although they provide them, there is less than a decade of oil left. Our tar sands, or unconventional oil reserves, will last much longer than the conventional reserves but at some point even they will be used up, according to the utilities board. What's happening? Production is going up, and so are prices. Rather than evening production out over a longer period so that we will have oil for a longer amount of time, the industry is quite happy to get the oil out of the ground as fast as possible and damn the consequences--after all, in the short term they're making scads of money. Do we see alternative energy development at the same time? Yes, but wind turbines won't replace the plastics we use for so many products, and you don't see many hydrogen cars or even hybrids out on the market yet--let alone fuel efficency, which government regulation could certainly improve--because oil and gas consuming cars are just too damn profitable for now. <p> Not to mention that under NAFTA Canada, and Alberta, is unable to keep reserves aside for our own use once the oil starts running out because once we export at a certain level we have to keep exporting at a certain level even as supplies dwindle. So in Alberta we'll all be freezing in the dark even as we ship our crude south of the border and our oil companies rake in the all the profit from the high prices, which of course regular folks will have the hardest time paying. <P> Governments could indeed step in and start changing things, but their hands are tied by trade agreements like NAFTA and of course, greed, such as in our provincial govt here in Alberta. On the larger scale, talking about conflict and fighting for oil, the UN is not effective because the US still has veto power and refuses to pay its UN dues, seriously compromising the organization. The US has also withdrawn from any number of international treaties, threatening the framework of interantional governance and cooperation because when the US pulls out, from say the Kyoto Accord, that accounts for a significant portion of all the world's resources and consumption and therefore makes the treaty far less effective. We COULD have effective global governance but having one superpower has seriously compromised our ability to do it. The catch 22 being that the only way to reign in that same rogue superpower is through that same global governance. <P> Lastly, markets are not God, and I still don't understand where this blind faith in "the market" comes from. They sure as hell don't care what happens to people as long as $$ is involved. We CAN balance market economies with some government regulation to protect us all without "strangling" them and in fact I believe we need to do that to build a better quality of life for people on everything from health care to oil. In Canada we've historically been able to do that, ie social democracy, but globalization and harmonization with the U.S. is changing things. Here's hoping we can reverse, or at least slow, that process. <P> We are, after all, ALREADY squabbling over the world's oil resources, which I think is the whole point. <p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf <br />

  3. Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:31 pm
    Totally agree with everything you say, Susan, but I think it`s important that Canada scrap NAFTA! Why hold on to a trade agreement that handcuffs all levels of government? NAFTA is what is killing public health care, and when public health care is gone, it`s all gone!

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  4. Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:43 am
    Stating that the UN is not effective because of the US is laughable. The only reason the situation in Darfur is even in the media today is because the US has been pressing the issue trying to get the government of Sudan to stop killing black africans. But the UN sits on its hands and does nothing, along with other governments of the world of course, like ours. Canada can still make nice speeches at 'the world body' but unfortunately even the other countries that show up to hear them can't stay awake.

    Anti-Americanism is a populist notion that unfortunately blinds too many otherwise intelligent people to reality.

  5. Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:25 am
    Oh, like the reality that the US refused to help Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda? Sorry we are not as blind as some think we are.

  6. Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:40 am
    huh? it was the UN(United Nations) that refused to help in Rwanda, they paid no attention to Dallaire and wouldn't answer his calls.

  7. by avatar Milton
    Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:25 pm
    Blah blah blah, stick to the topic at hand mr propaganda troll. The US administration is backing the global corporate elite and they are the problem. Markets are not living entities and saying that they can be strangled is therefore silly. We need to develop alternative energy infrastructures while we still have the resources to do. Global corporations are doing nothing other than talking about alternative energy sources. They have become incompetent parasitic organizations and they should be stripped of their charters.

  8. Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:41 pm
    To the Anon who blindly supports free-marketism, I think you should stop and think for a second how it works. Suppose some relatively important material is in finite supply. Lets take rubber as an example. The idea of the free-market is that when we start running out of rubber, it gets too expensive and some random person sees an opportunity to make money and uses technology to create a replacement for it. The problem, of course, is that the replacement for rubber is synthetic (ie: oil-based). And in all honesty, getting synthetic rubber into the marketplace wasn't that difficult. There isn't much infrastructure to the rubber industry.

    See, for the last 50 or so years, every time there has been a supply problem, demand has forced us to turn to petroleum based products. Metal extraction got expensive so we started using cheap oil-based plastics.

    Our food supply started to feel the pressures of an ever-expanding population, so we started using petroleum-based fertilizers to boost production. And to transport the products.

    It's now difficult to walk into just about any store and find something that DOESN'T contain petroleum products. Want some rope? It used to be hemp, but now it's nylon. How about that polyester fleece jacket you're wearing? It's made from plastic. Or that coke bottle? The computer you're reading this on... what's it made of? Am I making a point here?

    Now, there are some products that don't use plastic. Maybe you have wood furniture in your house. And MAYBE it doesn't have a finishing coat of petroleum-based oils. But non-petroleum products are purely luxury items now.

    So, if every product on the market is petroleum-based, and the population keeps growing, we must be using more and more petroleum. And we know that it takes millions and millions of years for nature to produce it. We MUST be consuming faster than it can reproduce. And at some point, we will stop discovering more oil than we consume. This is peak oil, and by all current data, it occurred in the year 2000.

    In terms of graphs and charts, right now could be a little blip on it, or it could genuinely be peak oil. But either way, the curve is levelling off, and after it levels off, it drops. And it drops REALLY fast. And even faster if you divide oil production by population (oil per capita). But it is NOT something we should screw around with. Because the population keeps growing and so consumption keeps growing and if supply suddenly drops, we're going to be left competing for a severely limited supply of essential products.

    Imagine going to your corner store and being unable to get milk because the packaging is made of petroleum products. And the cows are all dying off because there isn't enough grain to feed them AND us. In fact, there's no bread either because with the lack of petroleum-based fertilizers, we can't grow enough grain to even feed the richest of the rich. And even if there WAS bread and milk, we don't have any method of transporting it to the corner store, since all vehicles are petroleum-based. Not that it matters, because if there WAS milk it would go bad in the refrigerators that don't have any power, because most electricity in the US is from oil-burning power plants.

    Now, at current rates, we could be looking at a global economic collapse (ie: depression) as early as maybe 2010 and as late as... who knows? I've heard the year 2050 a lot as a late estimate. Either way it's in MY lifetime. And if you happen to be a generation ahead of me, it'll be in your childrens' lifetimes. Or their childrens'. But not later than that. And the struggle to secure remaining oil reserves will probably lead to war. Hopefully not nuclear war, but that sort of depends on who happens to be in power in the key countries at a particular time.

    That new SUV you just bought? How much did it cost you? Because that's the price you just paid to have your children and/or grandchildren suffer a long, painful, hopeless death. And maybe, just maybe, you'll still be around to watch them starving to death in the streets, fighting over some scrap of bread. If, that is, the US doesn't happen to think their country has some valuable resource, in which case they'll die cowering in fear in some corner of an apartment building basement while bombs level their school, church, and all their friends' houses.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. The baby-boomer hippies sold us out. All their talk about peace and love is totally undermined by their lack of foresight. Their extravagant lifestyles are my death warrant. And I'm not happy about it.

    And to anyone who say that peak oil is a farce, take another f*cking look. It's right in front of your noses. The invasion of Iraq, the high oil prices, the sudden interest in developing oil sands or offshore drilling on the West Coast. If they're in the oil sands, we're out of conventional reserves. THINK ABOUT IT...

    And to those who believe that Bush invaded Iraq because of Saddam. Let me ask you this, if Bush is willing to disregard UN decisions to invade Iraq (thereby making the US an international terrorist by all meanings of the word, including international law), why won't he do it in Sudan? Or China? Or any other place that happens to be in the midst of human rights violations. I guess democracy is reserved for oil-producing nations.

    -KY

    ---
    Kory Yamashita

    "What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

  9. Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:49 pm
    well put, Kory!

  10. Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:09 pm
    It isn't "anti-Americanism" (which has about the same meaning these days as "communism" once did), it's just a simple fact that in general the U.S. has a lot of $$ and that the country has been very lax in paying its UN dues, which makes it difficult for the UN to conduct business; it's also a fact that the U.S. (along with the 4 other members of the security council) still has veto. There were also well-publicized and credible reports when the U.S. bugged U.N. offices running up to the war in Iraq, and it is an open fact that the U.S. often threatens to withdraw aid to dependent countries unless they vote the way the U.S. wants. The UN is certainly flawed in other ways, but there's no disputing the fact that the U.S. exerts a unique and undue amount of influence and control over the body thanks to its superpower status. Which brings us back to the actual point of the argument, which is that the U.N. is flawed largely because of that U.S. power and control--meaning that criticizing the U.N. while supporting the U.S. is very hypocritical. <p> As for Rwanda, yes, the U.S. played a key role there too--and it wasn't a good one. <p> From <a href="http://www.fpif.org">Foreign Policy in Focus</a>:<br> "The U.S. government under President Bill Clinton played a key role in stopping the UN force present in Rwanda in 1994 from doing anything to prevent the genocide, and Washington is widely considered to share responsibility for what happened. Clinton later made a public apology to Rwandans for his role, and the U.S. under his administration became one of the key Western allies of the post-1994 Rwandan government. The U.S. has given and continues to give Rwanda substantial aid, particularly military assistance, and has been a strong defender of Rwanda's intervention in the DRC. The current U.S. administration has so far shown very little interest in Rwanda, or indeed the entire African Great Lakes region, and is apparently content to allow France to guide UN Security Council policy in this regard. This has dismayed many observers, since France has a highly partisan track record in the region and is generally hostile to Rwandan interests. There is considerable scope for the U.S. to display more interest in Rwandan and Great Lakes politics and to pay closer attention to the motives underlying France's policy there. At the same time, U.S. support for Rwanda gives the administration the leverage to encourage the Rwandan government to allow more openness in public political discourse, which could help avert possible future horrors in the country."<br> <a href="http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/rwanda.html">http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/rwanda.html</a> <p> For documents and why and how the U.S. chose to remain bystanders and how the country actually lobbied the UN to withdraw its troops see: <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html</a> and (subscribers only) the Atlantic Monthly article: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm">http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm</a><p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf <br />

  11. by hoopoe
    Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:02 am
    The strongest proponents of free markets, ie. corporations and privateers, are only interested in using this term as a PR tool. The idea behind free market economics is primarily that supply and demand will automatically balance each other out to provide goods at a price acceptable to both buyer and seller. As with so many ideas, it is good in theory but in actual practice has never existed (at least not for very long) as there has always been someone or some group that has sought to control the market in some way; generally by controlling the supply in some way to raise the price, gain more profit for themselves, and drive as many competitors out of business as possible. Look at every major industry in the industrialized world and they are all oligopolies, which are industries that are operated as de facto monopolies when a few companies are left.

    If someone is truly interested in having a market economy, it requires regulation to ensure true competition is maintained, ie. no mergers or takeovers. As I see it, the choice for this regulation is that it be done by either government or business (in reality business working behind the scenes to control policy decisions). It is clear that business "leaders" do not actually believe in that invisible hand but want to be that invisible hand. It is clear that the role of regulation should go to government and not business since business is a player in this game and who ever heard of allowing the player of a game to make the rules for how it is played.

    Also, peak oil is a proven reality. In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that the US would reach its peak oil production in 1970 and he was right on the nose.

  12. Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:19 pm
    In case some missed the cartoon on the editorial page of The Star last week, I found it to be right on.

    The cartoon showed a small person that appeared to be sitting with a bowl on their lap, and the intent was to make you think they were asking for a hand outs.

    When a person walked by, the small person sitting with the bowl was saying something like "we discovered oil in Sudan", and the person walking by said "nice try."

    What does that tell you ?? The cartoonist had it exactly right.

    OIL is EVERYTHING to the US war machine !!! All else fails the test.



    ---
    "Most politicians 'can't hold a job anywhere else...I mean, you're not dealing with top-drawer individuals.'" - Jeff Lyons, Toronto lobbyist.

  13. Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:30 pm
    I really liked most of what you had to say, Kory, but I have to take issue with you blaming us old hippies. I was never a strong flower-power type, but they did have a clue. Remember a lot of that was about the whole "back to nature" thing, which is where we're going now anyway! You may recall that Jimmy Carter pressed hard on energy issues, he put solar hot water collectors on the White House. Reagan had them ripped off and carted off to the dump. And that was the beginning of the end right there. Happy-talk gets people elected, not "grim reality". It's the "conservatives" who ignore science and insist that we can continue on like this forever based on some belief that we are sooooo good we can't possibly harm ourselves. Not that "liberals" are any better informed. A major failing here is our lack-of-education system. Not only are we not taught how to think properly, the main purpose seems to be to churn out non-thinking drones only suited for menial tasks like flipping burgers. We're too busy playing with our video games and watching the latest mindless offering from Hollywood to bother with anything real.
    The hippie movement died when hard drugs got into the scene. And given the CIA's involvement with drugs (read Michael Ruppert!!) they are probably responsible for that!
    "Pull your head out of the sand before your ass freezes..."

  14. Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:36 pm
    "Free market"? Pullllllleeeeeeze.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news