[lbo-talk] Fwd: [PEN-L] Kevin Phillips: declinist

Andy F andy274 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 11:01:34 PST 2006


On 3/17/06, Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> There are three separate layers of this discussion on peak oil: geologic,
> economic and social. In other words, there are hypotheses as to how much
> oil has been extracted to date and how much remains in the ground, just as
> there are hypotheses as to how the global economy will respond to
> limitations in the supply of fossil fuels and then there is the social side
> where social 'theorists', like Howard Kuntsler, make a living selling books
> on the effect of petroleum induced doom upon the world. Seems to me that
> the geology needs to be taken seriously - since it is a matter of science,
> no matter how imperfect, and the economic aspect of it is worthy of
> discussion.

This is the crux of the biscuit here. From the aspect of the geology and production of conventional petroleum there appear to be few cogent arguments for supplies to keep up with ever rising demand. Even taking the most generous estimates for total extractable petroleum (which are double that of the pessimists who are saying that the peak is about now) push the peak out only 20 years or so -- think of how much area you have to add under a gaussian curve with a fixed left tail to push the maximum a given amount.

Of course the insistence of some of the peak promoters that we're going to wind up eating our own babies for nourishment in a few years strike me about as well based as the neoclassical argument that rising prices will make wholly compensating technological advances in discovery and drilling inevitable.


> As to petroleum induced doom, in a rationally operated economy a smoth
> transition to non-petroleum would be likely given the technology available
> to us. However, that is not the world we live in. Given the steadfast
> refusal of the political and econonmic leaderships of the U.S. to even
> acknowledge the much more firmly established fact - which is what it now is
> - of global warming, it is impossible not to despair of anything like a
> smooth transition absent major social and political change.. SR

The relative dependence of the US on travel modes unavoidably intensive in petroleum use (in comparison, say, to the largely electrified train systems of Europe), that overlaying such an infrastructure on a sprawled US is apparently going to be postponed at least until it becomes much more costly to do so, and the vigor that other countries are showing in persuing conservation and alternative energy sources -- consider Sweden's perhaps optimistic pledge to phase out fossile fuels and nuclear within two decades -- make Phillips's admittedly nationalistic pessimism start to look reasonable.

The part about petroleum decline that leaves me wondering is how much of the world's artificial fertilizer orginates as petroleum or natural gas. As I understand it, much of the "green revolution" that increased crop yields particularly in poorer, agrarian countries depends on artificial fertilizer and irrigation (another problem reckoned by many to be more serious than oil). A crunch on crop yields dependent on fossile fertilizer could make Kunstler look like a whiner even if he proves correct. But I mean this as a question, not an assertion....

-- Andy



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list