Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[His Divine Shadow]

Fuck if I had money I'd try and get in on that gas futures stuff

I'd buy forrest I think with it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The thing is, that money will mean nothing if the economy goes into depression, which is going to happen from mortgage issues alone, PO will just end it even harder.

Get the money now. Invest it in something useful, like renewable power for yourself in a house in the country or at least near a city centre that won't be left to the dogs when TSHTF. At least then, your money will be working for you by lowering your energy reliance on external sources.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Invest in copper. If we have to convert the entire US railnet to electrical power over the space of a few years on an emergency government basis to prevent mass starvation, then the price of copper is going to shoot through the roof.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uh-oh...this summer's going to be really interesting...

On the bright side our oil & gas futures are doing quite well, and the profit on those will probably pay for all the gasoline we'll ever have to buy for the rest of our lives. If I knew I was going to make this much money I would've cashed in my entire $350k line of credit and bought a few extra futures contracts.

Enterprising as that is, when the dollar collapses, it won't buy you anything. I'd invest that cash in something like gold or silver before it's too late. The foreclosures on US mortgages is over 4,000% up from last year now, and it ain't slowing.

Gold and silver has less utility than just about anything else. I don't think people care too much about useless metals even as much as they do now during a depression.

[His Divine Shadow]

The thing is, that money will mean nothing if the economy goes into depression, which is going to happen from mortgage issues alone, PO will just end it even harder.

Get the money now. Invest it in something useful, like renewable power for yourself in a house in the country or at least near a city centre that won't be left to the dogs when TSHTF. At least then, your money will be working for you by lowering your energy reliance on external sources.

Wood is power. Thus the forrest. There's also been talk about developing ethanol from cellulose and that this process would be even more energy-efficient than the brazilians with their sugar canes. Thats purely secondary but forrest is always good.

To quote Stewie, it's good to have land.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are there any reasonable estimates as to when oil shortages will be severely felt? I want to know how old I'll be before everything changes on me. Christ, banning electricity for 4 days of the week would be pretty extreme, not just in terms of computer use, but in terms of common appliances, such as lightbulbs and microwaves. Plus, as of now, I live in a suburb, albeit a rich one. The schools might even discontinue free bus-service.

*shrugs* It might be in a decade, it might be in 80 years. It will be in this century. Peak oil is a highly debatable subject, other than the fact that it will happen, and definitely within the lifetimes of anyone born today. Some people say that peak oil has already taken place. I don't think the evidence for that is conclusive. But if it has already happened, then we'll probably start to see major disruptions within a decade.

Depending on how bad things get, residential electric power usage could simply end for several years, unless you get your's from an off-grid source. We'll need to, first of all, implement enough power to get us through peak oil, and then, since people will start taking these things seriously, decisively switch to clean sources of power. The combination of those events could take quite some time.

It's not impossible to speculate that over a period from 2020 - 2040 or 2050 that people will be living off of cabbage in winter, there will be two block long bread lines, all personal automobile usage will be banned, personal electricity will not exist, travel outside of your home state or region will be only with need-based authorization, and only military aircraft will be flying. This sort of severity of course assumes simultaneous peak oil and global warming issues creating a serious and major synergetic negative effect on modern industrial society, and all of our resource capacity having to be devoted to decisively and permanently dealing with the problems. (for example, we may build countless nuclear reactors, simply to use them all to power desalination plants to keep people from dying of thirst, which means we're back to square one and there's still no leftover power available for personal home use.)

You missed draconian population controls.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Invest in copper. If we have to convert the entire US railnet to electrical power over the space of a few years on an emergency government basis to prevent mass starvation, then the price of copper is going to shoot through the roof.

You've got bigger issues. Copper is also on China's to buy list. You will have to compete for it with them, with ever dwindling energy supplies. The US will have to ensure they can access such massive reserves of copper in South America without China undermining them with more competitive rates, or even sending soldiers over as they have with Africa in some places.

Wood is power. Thus the forrest. There's also been talk about developing ethanol from cellulose and that this process would be even more energy-efficient than the brazilians with their sugar canes. Thats purely secondary but forrest is always good.

To quote Stewie, it's good to have land.

I can't help but think of Easter Island now. Wood is good, so long as it's still abundant.

Gold and silver has less utility than just about anything else. I don't think people care too much about useless metals even as much as they do now during a depression.

True, I was talking about investing for the short term given the rise in those precious metals prices. When the economy goes into freefall, you'll want to have invested whatever you have, no matter what commodity it's in, in something actually useful to yourself, such as PV cells, food stores, a decent garden and greenhouse etc. Right now the buying power of the dollar is low as it is, so putting cash into commodities that are not prone to the drawbacks of fiat currency will enable you to avoid any major hiccups until the main event. Not being prepared by that point means moving to Hooverville.

You missed draconian population controls.

Pfft, no need. When you can't afford food, nature sorts that issue out. Dwindling energy always means die-off without serious curbing beforehand. I think general unrest will be the bigger issue, since this won't be temporary like the Great Depression or crises of the '70s.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You've got bigger issues. Copper is also on China's to buy list. You will have to compete for it with them, with ever dwindling energy supplies. The US will have to ensure they can access such massive reserves of copper in South America without China undermining them with more competitive rates, or even sending soldiers over as they have with Africa in some places.

The USA has 35 million tons of copper reserves and 260 million tons of identified copper resources (+ 30 million projected). We have all we need at home, if we can produce enough copper wiring in a short enough time. Our production is increasing by about 200,000 tons a year at current with the last levels being 1.14 million tons.

Pfft, no need. When you can't afford food, nature sorts that issue out. Dwindling energy always means die-off without serious curbing beforehand. I think general unrest will be the bigger issue, since this won't be temporary like the Great Depression or crises of the '70s.

I'm taking it as a given that authoritarian governments will permanently (as in for the next thousand years or so) replace democratic ones in the west as a result of this process.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The USA has 35 million tons of copper reserves and 260 million tons of identified copper resources (+ 30 million projected). We have all we need at home, if we can produce enough copper wiring in a short enough time. Our production is increasing by about 200,000 tons a year at current with the last levels being 1.14 million tons.

Hmm, could've sworn your reserves were far lower now, or that may be because people want to ship in cheaper copper from abroad. Either way, there will always be resources that will be less abundant locally or less easy to get to than others. The US military will be requiring the SPR be kept for such operations. 700 Mbbl. can fuel a lot of war.

I'm taking it as a given that authoritarian governments will permanently (as in for the next thousand years or so) replace democratic ones in the west as a result of this process.

I don't know if it'd last that long, but that depends on a great many factors that are way beyond basic geological modelling of a finite resource. Just predicting how the world will react when demand finally outstrips supply is hard enough with "above-ground" geo-political factors making simple physical models next to useless. It's all very well saying you'll build such and such to mitigate things, but that assumes you'll have the energy and manpower and won't be fighting off others just to maintain the status quo.

I don't think I have to tell you, Marina, of all people that such actions will be chaotic. Who needs a new Cold War or climate change?

[aerius]

Enterprising as that is, when the dollar collapses, it won't buy you anything. I'd invest that cash in something like gold or silver before it's too late. The foreclosures on US mortgages is over 4,000% up from last year now, and it ain't slowing.

No doubt about that. We're going for maximum short-term gains in the oil & gasoline futures market and then cashing out shortly before the economists figure out that the world is in deep shit and send the market into a chaotic frenzy. We're working on getting ourselves in the best position we can before it all goes to hell.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hmm, could've sworn your reserves were far lower now, or that may be because people want to ship in cheaper copper from abroad. Either way, there will always be resources that will be less abundant locally or less easy to get to than others. The US military will be requiring the SPR be kept for such operations. 700 Mbbl. can fuel a lot of war.

The problem is that we don't have enough production capacity to meet demand. That's why it's increasing at 200,000 tons a year--we're building new facilities to meet the very widespread demand.

The USA will not run out of coal, iron, copper, bauxite, and the other crucial metals of an industrial revolution anytime soon. What we're facing is an oil crisis only, and we can find a work-around. We may just suffer badly in the process.

I don't know if it'd last that long, but that depends on a great many factors that are way beyond basic geological modelling of a finite resource. Just predicting how the world will react when demand finally outstrips supply is hard enough with "above-ground" geo-political factors making simple physical models next to useless. It's all very well saying you'll build such and such to mitigate things, but that assumes you'll have the energy and manpower and won't be fighting off others just to maintain the status quo.

I don't think I have to tell you, Marina, of all people that such actions will be chaotic. Who needs a new Cold War or climate change?

I'm quite aware. The implementation of solutions may be.. Difficult.

But I don't find the situation to be one that is personally negative. In fact, I see a lot of potential for personal advancement in this future.

To be blunt about it, I think people of Action will have to seize control of society to deal with these problems, as democracy is to short-sighted to ever take effectual response measures even in the midst of the crisis. These may be left-authoritarians or right-authoritarians, but I can't see democracy surviving in a situation where we have the equivalent of the Great Depression, but it just keeps on going for decades.

And unlike during the Great Depression there's a prospect that the synergistic conjunction of peak oil and global warming will cause Russian-level famines. That translates directly into more political chaos.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that society could end up going through the same tumults as it did in Russia in the period of 1915 - 1925, with right-wing and left-wing authoritarians in a vicious civil war while simultaneously fighting a conflict with the foreigners (Mexicans moving north to find food), and a mass famine going on in the background.

Anyone who is going to head that off is probably going to be a dictator in their own right, too.

We're talking about something unimaginably dark here. You've made the bleakest predictions for the future of technological society yourself. I think I am applying some pretty practical extrapolations to what may happen here. I don't think we're so much more advanced than the Tsar's Russia, socially, that we could ride out a general economic and social collapse.. Any better than they could.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The problem is that we don't have enough production capacity to meet demand. That's why it's increasing at 200,000 tons a year--we're building new facilities to meet the very widespread demand.

The USA will not run out of coal, iron, copper, bauxite, and the other crucial metals of an industrial revolution anytime soon. What we're facing is an oil crisis only, and we can find a work-around. We may just suffer badly in the process.

Coal may be an issue, there. While you still have sub-bituminous and lignite deposits, production hasn't been really allowing coal to take a larger chunk of the net energy input. You peaked in energy at the end of the last decade after all the high grade anthracite and bituminous coal was used. Now you'll be dealing with falling EROEI with coal, so I'd try and stockpile nuclear like crazy for future reactors and work on the potential for uranium extraction from seawater, if it can be done on any meaningful scale. Other materials are abundant even if not tapped yet, but you need energy to do anything and that is why this crisis is more fundamental than running out of anything else.

I'm quite aware. The implementation of solutions may be.. Difficult.

But I don't find the situation to be one that is personally negative. In fact, I see a lot of potential for personal advancement in this future.

To be blunt about it, I think people of Action will have to seize control of society to deal with these problems, as democracy is to short-sighted to ever take effectual response measures even in the midst of the crisis. These may be left-authoritarians or right-authoritarians, but I can't see democracy surviving in a situation where we have the equivalent of the Great Depression, but it just keeps on going for decades.

And unlike during the Great Depression there's a prospect that the synergistic conjunction of peak oil and global warming will cause Russian-level famines. That translates directly into more political chaos.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that society could end up going through the same tumults as it did in Russia in the period of 1915 - 1925, with right-wing and left-wing authoritarians in a vicious civil war while simultaneously fighting a conflict with the foreigners (Mexicans moving north to find food), and a mass famine going on in the background.

Anyone who is going to head that off is probably going to be a dictator in their own right, too.

We're talking about something unimaginably dark here. You've made the bleakest predictions for the future of technological society yourself. I think I am applying some pretty practical extrapolations to what may happen here. I don't think we're so much more advanced than the Tsar's Russia, socially, that we could ride out a general economic and social collapse.. Any better than they could.

Oh, to be sure, it will be dark times. I just try not to get too doomer like on this site. I do, however, have my pet views on how things will pan out. When you lose your economy and the basis for Keynesian economics collapses, you've just eliminated most of the developed world's job base. We need to get back into manufacturing, agriculture and all sorts of meaningful professions again fast, because as an old Cree Indian proverb goes, you can't eat money. Suburbs will be deserted, cities will die and prosper depending on circustances. The age of the automobile will fade.

That sort of thing will happen in most every major nation bar some exceptions, though those will likely be affected by the Long Emergency when it plays out on an international stage, rather than national issues. Resource wars, mass migrations second only to the coming climate change crisis and the sudden realisation that CTL, TDP, nuclear and bio-fuels prove hopelessly inadequate will mean a major paradigm shift. I'm assuming the right-side of the curve, on the downward slope, is not like the left-side, since one cannot entertain the notion that all we have to do is pump money into alternatives and everything will be just peachy. It doesn't work like that. A steep decline may happen with cliff like severity by simple panic actions via the economy, in fact, we can see such actions acting as positive feedback loops now in Africa who are now experiencing what it's like to not have supply meet demand due to pricing today.

I've toyed with the idea of doing an original story on this issue, though I don't know how to attack it and the fact that it's very much real makes it somewhat distressing. Would you really want to write about driving off a cliff if you knew you'd be doing it tomorrow?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Coal may be an issue, there. While you still have sub-bituminous and lignite deposits, production hasn't been really allowing coal to take a larger chunk of the net energy input. You peaked in energy at the end of the last decade after all the high grade anthracite and bituminous coal was used. Now you'll be dealing with falling EROEI with coal, so I'd try and stockpile nuclear like crazy for future reactors and work on the potential for uranium extraction from seawater, if it can be done on any meaningful scale. Other materials are abundant even if not tapped yet, but you need energy to do anything and that is why this crisis is more fundamental than running out of anything else.

We've got further options beyond coal, of course. Plenty of wood, plenty of hydroelectric, and more we can construct artificially. One pet scheme of mine is to build a seawater canal to death valley to generate continuous electrical power. But we'll see if we can build anything like that in time. Nuclear, of course, will be quite nice. Again the question is how much.

Oh, to be sure, it will be dark times. I just try not to get too doomer like on this site. I do, however, have my pet views on how things will pan out. When you lose your economy and the basis for Keynesian economics collapses, you've just eliminated most of the developed world's job base. We need to get back into manufacturing, agriculture and all sorts of meaningful professions again fast, because as an old Cree Indian proverb goes, you can't eat money. Suburbs will be deserted, cities will die and prosper depending on circustances. The age of the automobile will fade.

I agree completely, of course.

That sort of thing will happen in most every major nation bar some exceptions, though those will likely be affected by the Long Emergency when it plays out on an international stage, rather than national issues. Resource wars, mass migrations second only to the coming climate change crisis and the sudden realisation that CTL, TDP, nuclear and bio-fuels prove hopelessly inadequate will mean a major paradigm shift.

I don't think, and in this we disagree, that the USA will be much on the international stage in this period. We'll just wall ourselves off in an effort to fight off the Mexicans. The worst I can see us doing is launching an invasion of Canada, since it has plenty of natural resources, few people, and is right next door. The idea of American forces raiding for resources, I don't think is at all practicable.

I'm assuming the right-side of the curve, on the downward slope, is not like the left-side, since one cannot entertain the notion that all we have to do is pump money into alternatives and everything will be just peachy. It doesn't work like that. A steep decline may happen with cliff like severity by simple panic actions via the economy, in fact, we can see such actions acting as positive feedback loops now in Africa who are now experiencing what it's like to not have supply meet demand due to pricing today.

And that's why I think that an authoritarian command economy will be an inevitable result of this process. People don't simply panic and die; they do fight back to the best of their abilities, even if those results are extremely unpleasant to our modern and refined sensibilities.

I've toyed with the idea of doing an original story on this issue, though I don't know how to attack it and the fact that it's very much real makes it somewhat distressing. Would you really want to write about driving off a cliff if you knew you'd be doing it tomorrow?

The more people who are prepared to act decisively when the bullet hits the bone, the better. I'd write something like that.

Personally I am aware things could be worse but I'm fairly conservative on these issues. I think we'll enter a time of troubles in the 2030s or 2040s which will last into the 2080s. I don't think the direct starvation- and disease-related deaths in the USA will exceed 15 millions over that period even in the extreme worst case scenario, and we'll stabilize with actually a still pretty advanced technological base at the end of things. We have huge amounts of unused farmland which can be tapped in emergencies, and lots of export capacity right now that can be redirected to the internal market.

And plenty of unskilled labour to pick fruit and plow fields. A lot healthier for the poor bastards than working at McDonalds, anyway.

The UK couldn't feed itself 100 years ago, however, let alone now, and I pity you poor bastards over there. It's going to be a lot worse for you. Only the most impoverished, incapable, and misfortunate will die here, even if the situation is very rough for those who do survive.

If I were in your situation, I would immigrate to Canada, but don't get to loyal to the place in case you need to start collaborating with the American occupation authorities in your 50's or 60's.

[His Divine Shadow]

Wood is power. Thus the forrest. There's also been talk about developing ethanol from cellulose and that this process would be even more energy-efficient than the brazilians with their sugar canes. Thats purely secondary but forrest is always good.

To quote Stewie, it's good to have land.

I can't help but think of Easter Island now. Wood is good, so long as it's still abundant.

Well it's a good thing Finland is mostly just forrest.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We've got further options beyond coal, of course. Plenty of wood, plenty of hydroelectric, and more we can construct artificially. One pet scheme of mine is to build a seawater canal to death valley to generate continuous electrical power. But we'll see if we can build anything like that in time. Nuclear, of course, will be quite nice. Again the question is how much.

Hydroelectric doesn't replace oil though. Remember, this is more than an energy source, it is quite simply the most fundamental material in all of industrialised life. Without it, you don't have modern agriculture or 90% of the products we have today. Wood, as stated previously, is good in abundant supply, but the US using that to supply the energy needed today would mean your forrests, big as they are, would be depleted in relatively short times. Wood simply doesn't have the energy content, nor does it burn hot like coal or coke to help with vital industrial processes such as smelting iron ore. You'd have to conserve the fossil fuels for such processes, because once they're gone, you're really limited in your energy content. And without abundant cheap energy, the US' industrial base is about as effective as a Caterpillar without diesel.

I only mention nuclear as a long-term goal. Nuke plants, at least safe ones with modern designs, take a decade to get going. If you want to use them, you're going to need to get the fuel too, which will come from abroad for the most part unless seawater extraction is proven useful. That will likely mean some international presence.

I don't think, and in this we disagree, that the USA will be much on the international stage in this period. We'll just wall ourselves off in an effort to fight off the Mexicans. The worst I can see us doing is launching an invasion of Canada, since it has plenty of natural resources, few people, and is right next door. The idea of American forces raiding for resources, I don't think is at all practicable.

A more isolationist stance is highly likely, and the enforcing of the Monroe Doctrine will ensure resources in the Americas will not be exploited, not that many could given no one has a blue water navy to match the USN (yet). Depending on how the industry evolves to deal with this event, you may need some expeditions to areas for relatively scarce resources, such as uranium noted above, but this does fall down to how the administration in charge moves forward. The population will vote against such people as hard as they can until reality kicks in and they figure out that the politicos that lie and say they can continue on with their "non-negotiable way of life", to paraphrase Bush Snr., is a dead end. Of all the world's peoples, the North Americans will be the hardest hit psychologically by the end of cheap energy, so one can only hypothesize over what repercussions that will have for progress to alternatives.

Canada and Mexico, of course, will be allies or plundered. I wouldn't count much on Mexico offering anything but immigrants, since it's started now with the decline of PEMEX, which is in dire straits and supplies only the biggest share of state funding in Mexico. The loss of NG supplies from Canada as they turn to fuel their own economy rather than export will be a hard blow too, so whether you strike a deal or simply go for what is left is another option on the table. They need that gas to fuel the oil sands projects in Alberta, but with dwindling supplies and water shortages, the concept is doomed to fail, as it has been since the proposals 60 years ago.

And that's why I think that an authoritarian command economy will be an inevitable result of this process. People don't simply panic and die; they do fight back to the best of their abilities, even if those results are extremely unpleasant to our modern and refined sensibilities.

The psychological shock is what many fear more than the physical here, and time will tell how the soft, plump contemporary US citizens deal with the loss of a service industry and all its bells and whistles, and deal with a world that doesn't work by consumerism, but by who is productive to society. People are going to have to learn to be real good at farming real quick, because food does not come from supermarkets in such an age. Every Western nation will have to deal with this, since the idea that our economies can maintain themselves by selling abstract products and services was never going to work if a major economic shock came. The likes of China and India will be less affected, since at least they have the resource base and industry to make products for themselves, even if they're not selling them abroad. Globalisation ends here. Bartering and trade with neighbours restarts.

The more people who are prepared to act decisively when the bullet hits the bone, the better. I'd write something like that.

Personally I am aware things could be worse but I'm fairly conservative on these issues. I think we'll enter a time of troubles in the 2030s or 2040s which will last into the 2080s. I don't think the direct starvation- and disease-related deaths in the USA will exceed 15 millions over that period even in the extreme worst case scenario, and we'll stabilize with actually a still pretty advanced technological base at the end of things. We have huge amounts of unused farmland which can be tapped in emergencies, and lots of export capacity right now that can be redirected to the internal market.

And plenty of unskilled labour to pick fruit and plow fields. A lot healthier for the poor bastards than working at McDonalds, anyway.

The UK couldn't feed itself 100 years ago, however, let alone now, and I pity you poor bastards over there. It's going to be a lot worse for you. Only the most impoverished, incapable, and misfortunate will die here, even if the situation is very rough for those who do survive.

If I were in your situation, I would immigrate to Canada, but don't get to loyal to the place in case you need to start collaborating with the American occupation authorities in your 50's or 60's.

While I have taken note of the UK's hopeless situation that was nearly a reality in WWII had it not been for convoys across the Atlantic, the simple fact is, without a substitute for oil - of which there is none - many people will starve in developed nations by virtue of that farmland simply not being utilised to feed the massive numbers we have today. The first billion people came about only in 1800, and that took all of human history to that point to reach. After industry got started in Britain and oil got pumped in the US, things exploded. The US may have far, far more arable land than the UK or most EU states, it doesn't have the energy supply the EU would enjoy from the likes of NG from Russia and Asia which simply won't get to the US. In order to feed 300 million people, or even half that, you need mechanisation which means your oil will have to go to the food sector rather than for building other projects, else people will starve, assuming they don't from lack of transport as it is. It is up to the state to decide who uses the limited energy stockpiles, so people will have to turn to working the ground themselves where they can and trying to get their own energy. The loss of oil based fertilisers and insecticides means yields will fall dramatically without some rather bleeding edge biotechnology going on (and GM organisms are risky things to use, even today).

Course, that all depends on events post-peak that can go any number of ways. The US has more land to farm (although the mid-west is now below the critical six inch mark for topsoil, so peak soil is another issue along with water shortages), while the EU has better access to liquid energy. Given Iraq and the rattling of sabres over Iran, one could be forgiven for thinking the US is ignoring an isolationist policy and trying to use military clout to secure the last major oil deposits which, economically, it couldn't acquire with Chinese industrial might rising ever faster.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

While I have taken note of the UK's hopeless situation that was nearly a reality in WWII had it not been for convoys across the Atlantic, the simple fact is, without a substitute for oil - of which there is none - many people will starve in developed nations by virtue of that farmland simply not being utilised to feed the massive numbers we have today. The first billion people came about only in 1800, and that took all of human history to that point to reach. After industry got started in Britain and oil got pumped in the US, things exploded. The US may have far, far more arable land than the UK or most EU states, it doesn't have the energy supply the EU would enjoy from the likes of NG from Russia and Asia which simply won't get to the US. In order to feed 300 million people, or even half that, you need mechanisation which means your oil will have to go to the food sector rather than for building other projects, else people will starve, assuming they don't from lack of transport as it is. It is up to the state to decide who uses the limited energy stockpiles, so people will have to turn to working the ground themselves where they can and trying to get their own energy. The loss of oil based fertilisers and insecticides means yields will fall dramatically without some rather bleeding edge biotechnology going on (and GM organisms are risky things to use, even today).

I think you're overestimated the severity of the situation in this country primarily by not fully realizing the sheer magnitude of our production before oil became used in farming. There are plenty of ways to engage in mechanized farming without it, and I know most of them quite intimately (agricultural industrial equipment is another of my myriad hobbies). The key is the turnover point.

We can run tractors off coal gas if we have to; that would require extensive modifications and reconstruction but the average person in agriculture could do it today. Steam-fired equipment can be built, and there's countless numbers of preserved examples all over the country which can serve as prototype models, along with, of course, the records of the patent office.

Course, that all depends on events post-peak that can go any number of ways. The US has more land to farm (although the mid-west is now below the critical six inch mark for topsoil, so peak soil is another issue along with water shortages),

I think you're referring to the Great American Desert there when you specify the midwest--To Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, et. al.? The Mississippi river valley and the eastern midwest (Ohio, Illinois, etc) are intensely fertile regions to this day. The GAD was always a marginal propisition, and I already counted it as reverting to low-intensity range grazing when this goes down. We can drive the cattle to those regions and leave them 'em there to make it or not while we use the more fertile farmland for the more productive crop-growing.

Also a lot of the reasons GM crops can have problems is because of the idiotic additions to them, like the fact that they can't reproduce. Such "propriety" GM crops need to be outlawed by the government.. Which should frankly seize control of all the patents and research on an emergency basis, anyway.

while the EU has better access to liquid energy. Given Iraq and the rattling of sabres over Iran, one could be forgiven for thinking the US is ignoring an isolationist policy and trying to use military clout to secure the last major oil deposits which, economically, it couldn't acquire with Chinese industrial might rising ever faster.

I don't think anyone in our government has thought that through, to put it simply, and that the goal in Iraq was at face value, to spread democracy there.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, remember that huge areas of US cropland are now fallow (and thus not degenerating) or paved under by suburbs (and can be recovered with enough demo work, once we kick out the now-impoverished suburbanites) and possibly even enhanced by the endless quantities of fertilizer used in them. All that land can ultimately be recovered, even if it takes time, to meet continued demand.

And Canada will be a net exporter of food even after it loses access to oil. The scale of their grain fields are immense beyond measure and they can be easily transported to us by an integrated railnet. That is probably the main reason why relations would go sour with Canada--if they refuse to give us exclusive rights to purchase all their excess grain production.

[Darth Wong]

Canada's agricultural wealth will only increase with global warming, which will increase our arable land area. The equatorial regions will be fucked, tough. And Africa will take it hard up the ass, but they always do. Still, I think the idea of international trade disappearing as a result of peak oil is silly. There was thriving international trade even in the days of fucking wooden sailing ships.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Canada's agricultural wealth will only increase with global warming, which will increase our arable land area. The equatorial regions will be fucked, tough. And Africa will take it hard up the ass, but they always do.

Are you laughing yet at the prospect that a bunch of American ex-suburbanites may be forced to cross the border into Canada to look for work on your farms?


We'll get a similar effect with Alaska, which already produces huge yields during a short growing season because of the continuous sunlight, but obviously not as much as when considering the whole Canadian subarctic.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The converting of agri-machinery to other forms of energy would need to take priority. To do anything requires energy, so even just improving efficiency in cars or changing their engines requires vast amounts input and this stuff will be at a premium, even with coal, you still need to ramp up the production to meet the loss in oil and NG and work on CTL plants for instance (I'll ignore the climate change problems this entails, which essentially guarantees that we deal with one crisis by slamming into another that will not be reversible).

On GM crops. The issue is not as cut and dry as arbitrary legal restrictions. If there's one thing I've taken onboard from my ecological microbio-prof's lectures, it's that GM organisms can be less than predictable without massive testing. There's only one instance of such organisms being unleashed without years of tight testing and political agreement, and that was in Japan but as it's an illegal practice, we have no firm details. Evidently it was a minor issue.

While salinity and yield can be addressed with genetic engineering, you have to be sure one crop doesn't decimate whole swathes of other, vital ecosphere inhabitants. If you find a problem, you cannot vote for a recall on the product. Doubly so with microbes too.

In anycase, I think the soil and water issues are more pressing. You won't be getting growth anymore, that's for certain. The US would be pushing it trying to keep 300 million in a suitable standard of living with daily calorie intake at required levels and crops going into other areas of industry e.g. making plastics. The population of the world is unsustainable as it is, so growth, the one thing everyone banks on, is going to vanish, which means the end of fiat currency there. As climate change ramps up and kills off more crops (there is a massive grain shortage globally now and the US is reeling from bizarre weather patterns hitting farming), it will be vital to try and stabilise the population and their intake. Remember, a lot of that energy will be needed to maintain the crops being planted and cultivated. Energy lost from other avenues such as military power, personal expenditure and so on.

None of that would be an issue with an authoritarian gov't with little resistance against it.

[aerius]

Still, I think the idea of international trade disappearing as a result of peak oil is silly. There was thriving international trade even in the days of fucking wooden sailing ships.

For some reason I'm reminded of the "Pyramid of Darkness" story arc in G.I. Joe where they rigged sails on an aircraft carrier to make it move.

[His Divine Shadow]

Canada's agricultural wealth will only increase with global warming, which will increase our arable land area. The equatorial regions will be fucked, tough. And Africa will take it hard up the ass, but they always do.

Are you laughing yet at the prospect that a bunch of American ex-suburbanites may be forced to cross the border into Canada to look for work on your farms?

We'll get a similar effect with Alaska, which already produces huge yields during a short growing season because of the continuous sunlight, but obviously not as much as when considering the whole Canadian subarctic.

Same thing in Finland, we'll get a longer season. Maybe later my grand fathers farm will reopen if local meat and grains will be cheaper than stuff from far away.

[His Divine Shadow]

Hopefully with our current building of nuclear power plants we'll be quite self-sufficient too and can avoid anarchy or an authoritan state. Though I can imagine harsh border controls in the future as people from less fortunate countries might want to try and get in on a piece of the action.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Canada's agricultural wealth will only increase with global warming, which will increase our arable land area. The equatorial regions will be fucked, tough. And Africa will take it hard up the ass, but they always do. Still, I think the idea of international trade disappearing as a result of peak oil is silly. There was thriving international trade even in the days of fucking wooden sailing ships.

Trade will still happen, but not with the globalised economy we have today. The dollar is being set-up for a fall now. A hard one it won't recover from, thanks to the mortgage issue and the impending energy crisis. Fiat currencies work on the assumption that endless growth will offer returns on investments. Without such rampant growth, something that has only been around since fossil fuels and agriculture using them took off, there will be no way such a system can work.

Instead, people will return to bartering and trading in actual products that offer actual results or services. A dollar is only worth what you can get for it, while trading a supply of grain for a few barrels of oil is an objective measure of trade.

Hopefully with our current building of nuclear power plants we'll be quite self-sufficient too and can avoid anarchy or an authoritan state. Though I can imagine harsh border controls in the future as people from less fortunate countries might want to try and get in on a piece of the action.

Sweden has the right idea. They've been cutting back on oil and other fossil fuels since the '70s, or so. They did what the US was going to do after the oil crises of that decade, and they're getting the better deal because of it. Of the 400 or so proposed energy changes the US was going to get from Carter, barely a dozen actually got through when Reagan took over and got his massive growth policies pushed instead.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The converting of agri-machinery to other forms of energy would need to take priority. To do anything requires energy, so even just improving efficiency in cars or changing their engines requires vast amounts input and this stuff will be at a premium, even with coal, you still need to ramp up the production to meet the loss in oil and NG and work on CTL plants for instance (I'll ignore the climate change problems this entails, which essentially guarantees that we deal with one crisis by slamming into another that will not be reversible).

I'm quite aware that we could have a cascade of problems. Fixing peak oil and then turning around and trying to deal with global warming to the best of our ability will, of course, mean essentially a continuous crisis mode for some decades.

None of that would be an issue with an authoritarian gov't with little resistance against it.

Then I am quite content. Caesar will come. It's just a matter of time. In the meantime my own preparations can proceed apace.

But I'll have to remember to buy gold. Going off fiat currency is going to be fun!