‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
Thanks for this… But I don’t see any real problem we cannot fix.
Our problem is a self-induced panic and foolish action toward climate change that has mainly gripped the western world.
NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
All we need to do is stop NetZero and get back at re-industrialization and prosperity.
If we assume that we don’t have a climate emergency then we can move forward using the power of existing and near term and proven energy capabilities. We can move the whole population of the planet toward prosperity. And as we know prosperity provides a far better platform to gain economic, social and environmental sustainability. So, on all fronts we can support a population that will peak and decline as we become more prosperous.
We may need some adaption to a slightly warming planet, but we have been there at least 5 times before in the last 10,000 years and warm was better and cold was bad. And that was without the benefit of Fossil fuels and more CO2 that is increasing the food supply.
All we have to do is revisit the science and stop the panic and as the brits say ….stay calm and carry on!
'According to the supermajor, global oil production is facing a natural decline at a rate of some 15% annually over the next 25 years. For context, the IEA sees the rate of natural decline at 8% annually. Exxon points out, however, that the faster decline rate is a result of the shift towards shale and other unconventional oil production, where depletion happens faster than it does in conventional formations.
"To put it in concrete terms: With no new investment, global oil supplies would fall by more than 15 million barrels per day in the first year alone." This is a scary prospect because "At that rate, by 2030, oil supplies would fall from 100 million barrels per day to less than 30 million - that's 70 million barrels short of what's needed to meet demand every day." '?
Understood.. but its probably not going to happen that way…
The emerging market oil demand will continue to go up
Mature demand for oil may be displaced with other solutions Gas and hopefully Nuclear
I bet that wind and solar will flatline as cost and climate reality kicks in.
But its all a demand driven activity as with the correct policies supply out of the ground can be provided.
No question we need better supply/demand plans but it’s a self-made crisis that can be avoided.
The real resource constraints to growth are with the supply chains for so called renewables and EVs that are a big question mark…. We need to push this off as its nonviable.
No ‘BAU’?
‘Most’ ‘economic thinking’ is ‘short run’ and ‘redundant’?
‘It’ ignores the ‘supply side’?
‘Growth’ {and ‘civilisation’} depends upon ‘cheap’ F.F. – those so called ‘halcyon days’ are ‘over’. ?
“The crisis now unfolding, however, is entirely different to the 1970s in one crucial respect… The 1970s crisis was largely artificial. When all is said and done, the oil shock was nothing more than the emerging OPEC cartel asserting its newfound leverage following the peak of continental US oil production. There was no shortage of oil any more than the three-day-week had been caused by coal shortages. What they did, perhaps, give us a glimpse of was what might happen in the event that our economies depleted our fossil fuel reserves before we had found a more versatile and energy-dense alternative. . . .
And this is why the crisis we are beginning to experience will make the 1970s look like a golden age of peace and tranquility. . . . The sad reality though, is that our leaders – at least within the western empire – have bought into a vision of the future which cannot work without some new and yet-to-be-discovered high-density energy source (which rules out all of the so-called green technologies whose main purpose is to concentrate relatively weak and diffuse energy sources). . . . Even as we struggle to reimagine the 1970s in an attempt to understand the current situation, the only people on Earth today who can even begin to imagine the economic and social horrors that await western populations are the survivors of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, the hyperinflation in 1990s Zimbabwe, or, ironically, the Russians who survived the collapse of the Soviet Union.” ?
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2022/07/01/bigger-than-you-can-imagine/ https://www.facebook.com/cosheep
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
Thanks for this… But I don’t see any real problem we cannot fix.
Our problem is a self-induced panic and foolish action toward climate change that has mainly gripped the western world.
NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
All we need to do is stop NetZero and get back at re-industrialization and prosperity.
If we assume that we don’t have a climate emergency then we can move forward using the power of existing and near term and proven energy capabilities. We can move the whole population of the planet toward prosperity. And as we know prosperity provides a far better platform to gain economic, social and environmental sustainability. So, on all fronts we can support a population that will peak and decline as we become more prosperous.
We may need some adaption to a slightly warming planet, but we have been there at least 5 times before in the last 10,000 years and warm was better and cold was bad. And that was without the benefit of Fossil fuels and more CO2 that is increasing the food supply.
All we have to do is revisit the science and stop the panic and as the brits say ….stay calm and carry on!
“Occidental’s CEO Sees Oil Supply Crunch from 2025”?
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Occidentals-CEO-Sees-Oil-Supply-Crunch-from-2025.html
'According to the supermajor, global oil production is facing a natural decline at a rate of some 15% annually over the next 25 years. For context, the IEA sees the rate of natural decline at 8% annually. Exxon points out, however, that the faster decline rate is a result of the shift towards shale and other unconventional oil production, where depletion happens faster than it does in conventional formations.
"To put it in concrete terms: With no new investment, global oil supplies would fall by more than 15 million barrels per day in the first year alone." This is a scary prospect because "At that rate, by 2030, oil supplies would fall from 100 million barrels per day to less than 30 million - that's 70 million barrels short of what's needed to meet demand every day." '?
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxon-Joins-OPEC-in-Warning-of-Looming-Oil-Supply-Crisis.amp.html
Understood.. but its probably not going to happen that way…
The emerging market oil demand will continue to go up
Mature demand for oil may be displaced with other solutions Gas and hopefully Nuclear
I bet that wind and solar will flatline as cost and climate reality kicks in.
But its all a demand driven activity as with the correct policies supply out of the ground can be provided.
No question we need better supply/demand plans but it’s a self-made crisis that can be avoided.
The real resource constraints to growth are with the supply chains for so called renewables and EVs that are a big question mark…. We need to push this off as its nonviable.