Talk:Implications of peak oil

Opening

I thought the article needed a better explanation of what exactly peak oil is, so I added it to the beginning of the article. Let me know if someone doesn't like this.

Opening comments

Denying the limited amount of extraction possible from this versatile and widely used non-renewable energy source is purely quack science and should not be catered to by suggesting that implications caused by this inevitable shortage are merely opinionated points of view.

This article is pure POV. It assumes that peak oil matters so much that it drives a search for alternatives to oil. This is a nonsensical example of economism, in which supply and demand are assumed to be paramount in all decisions. The oil depletion and to a lesser degree Hubbert peak theory articles have the same problem.

The truth is that the dominant scientific view is that climate change requires a shift to other energy sources long before the existing oil reserves run out. Accordingly, this depletion issue is simply irrelevant. Before it occurs, all coastal cities will look like New Orleans, and the refugees will be so vast in number that there will be no serious concern with how to get them all gas for their SUVs.

The article now states this, but, framing a POV is not quite the same as getting rid of it entirely. No talk about implications or alternatives should be permitted from the POV that "supply matters", because, according to a consensus of scientists, it doesn't. (Does the writer of the above statement know what a concensus is or that "supply matters" is not a complete idea in any sense? Of course "supply matters" and for a number of different reasons relating to a number of disciplines.

There needs to be a general campaign to remove the systemic bias that supply, not climate change, is driving the human species off oil addiction. This is NOT a scientific view, it is a mythology that arises from commodity markets. Reporting alternatives to oil is good, but, it must be done neutrally, without assuming that there is some absurd supply problem driving it. The supply problem is irrelevant, as with plutonium, the issue is not if you can find or make it, but, whether you can use it safely. (Does the writer of this statement question whether people are searching for alternatives to oil because of a perceived shortage of oil -- justified or otherwise?.)

You say that "supply, not climate change, is driving the human species off oil addiction" is NOT a scientific view. True. It's an opinion. But you have an opinion too. Namely, that climate change is driving humans away from oil. My opinion is that both views can be true. Increased demand, supply limitations, geopolitics (all which are driving the price of oil higher), and global warming concerns are responsible for the current feeble and ineffective attempts at reducing the developed world's addiction to oil.--Ksargent 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The implications of peak oil are in most cases guesstimates/opinions bc of the uncertainty of the timing along with the complexity of modeling the worldwide response. (not unlike climate change) It is thus not "the dominant scientific view" that climate change will preclude the need for primary energy prior to a shortage of same. Bstender 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell are you, Mr. 142.177.92.42? You've gone apeshit crazy tonight launching some terror strike on economism here. At least get a user name before we ban you. You have something to say and there are places to put it here but you're pretty much just some fancy-pants intellectual vandal (at best). It will be a pleasure to get rid of what you wrote and rewrite in a manner consistent with everything else on Wikipedia. Daniel Case 04:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, are you denying the article is pure POV. You may take issue with anon here, but (it)'s right on substance, the article leans heavily toward a bias of Hubbert's thrice falsified and increasingly irrelevent get lucky once, lead the world by the nose forever theory of neo-malthusian economics. Benjamin Gatti

Well, then, it wouldn't be all that difficult to write a section on "Criticisms of peak-oil theory" under Oil depletion. You don't have to spam the article with ridiculously non-NPOV language. Daniel Case 13:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neo-Malthusian" ... are you a LaRouchian perchance? 67.137.180.64 19:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin suggests that fossil fuel is not finite... abiotic is it? Bstender 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here read "The Logic of Failure"? By Dietrich Dorner, Rita Kimber and Robert Kimber I ask because problems like climate change and/or peak oil both seem to have a certain set of logic in how the general public sees these issues. New Orleans seems like a great example. Large numbers of people understood that a Katrina like event was very possible yet in the end not enough was done. If we are hitting peak oil in 2005(or 2006,2007...) it seems to me that the implications of peak oil will be felt pretty badly in 2006,2007... This would be well before the real pain of climate change would be really impacting people. Which is more important to the general public?

--I'd suggest the general public is fickle and, rightly or wrongly, there fears shift from the just to the unjust. Global warming is already having a noticable effect (complete with a negative feedback loop that will only make it get worse) and a shortage of such a widely used fuel is also a reasonable cause for psychic dis-ease in the masses. Err... that should be "positive feedback loop", for while the effects are, indeed, negative, they are positive - or self-reinforcing - in that the effects of warming lead to further warming - as in lesser Arctic ice allowing for greater absorbtion of sunlight. The snowball effect (ironic metaphor to be sure) of global warming is indeed underway. But peak oil will be of more immediate concern to economic beings - consumers, shoppers, workers, etc...64.246.215.5 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Dan Combs

"Current pain" which could mean: very expensive gas for their SUVs, possibly a recesion or even great depression?

Or

"Future pain" which would be climate change which could cause large spread starvation and death?

My guess is that they will care a great deal more about "Current pain". Now that may sound very cynical but it would also mean that the Implications of peak oil would be very important as far as a topic that needs coverage. Mr. 142.177.92.42 does raise an interesting question in my mind. Should we go through all articles in Wikipedia and any of them that talk about the future say in five or ten years from now and add a big disclaimer that says "Due to global climate change and/or peak oil and/or....all though and discussion of future events is simply irrelevant."?  ;) Ok I am just half serious about that. I think what Mr 142... really wants is world in which people are concerned more about the long term seroius effects of their decisions rather what we actually have. Sorry about that. Jcriddle4

I did some rewriting just now, though I admit that there is more work to do. One of the fundamental problems might be that, although the ideas presented in this article are common and worthy of an encyclopedia mention, it is difficult to know how exactly to classify them.

Here are some ideas that I have, though I won't undertake them without any feedback. The first is that we could change the focus of this article to a reference page, linking to other pages discussing resource scarcity, New Urbanism, and other ideas that are mentioned in the article. The second would be to merge into the main Peak Oil article.

I think a page on the implications of peak oil needs to more clearly reference the implications of climate change, as suggested by some contributors above, and particularly because the effects seem to me to be quite interrelated. Without such references, I think it does express a limited "peakoilist" perspective. Both peak oil and climate change are having effects now (150,000 deaths a year from climate change) and both will have greater effects in the future, but I do think it is very difficult to talk about peak oil without talking about climate change more clearly. Jonathan O 22:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I can certainly see why the article is POV tagged. A lot of it was coming from a very green, ecological standpoint, representing this agenda in a way that implied it was the only valid truth. The way the market solution was described as mistaken...when in reality it is energy efficiency that counts is just clearly not true, and to claim it is in this article on Implications of peak oil merely shows we are failing to address the subject fully. The reality is that the economic consequences of a peak could be devastating and far more important than the environmental consequences, but this does not fit in with the green agenda of whoever made these edits. The statement that resource wars will be devastating for the environment is further indication of an environmental agenda (the classic worry about the environment but ignore the human cost approach). The worst of it was many peak oil proponents advise that an alternative energy source should not be considered unless it is less polluting than oil. Can someone source that most peakniks have an environmentalist agenda to believe this. The proposition appears to be that it is better for society to collapse than to use energy sources more polluting than oil, with the word advise trying to give extra weight to the proponents of this environmental agenda. Wikipedia is not the place to promote ideologies and this article needs further work in order to become balanced and neutral, SqueakBox 17:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

US centrism

This article is not about the United States. it is very easy to write from a world wide perspective, and as an international encyclopedia it is our duty to due so in a subject like this. Analysis of the peak implications as it affects the United States is of no use to anyone who isn't in or from the States, and is just confusing to people who are, SqueakBox 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Peak Oil (if the theory is true) would affect many countries, to my understanding...I would think that most 1st world countries are reliant upon oil in some degree, so i don't see why (again, if true) the theory wouldn't concern the international community...unless you are specifically referring to the phrase "Oil currently accounts for 40% of all of the United States' energy..." and so on. Perhaps finding the percentage usages for other countries would clear up that matter.

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

One proposal discussed is the creation of an article title which does not conflate the theory and the man. This is argued to be important because recent followers of Hubbert have sufficiently broadened the theory, especially with regard to its consequences, as to render the assertion that said predicted consequences are properly attributable to one Mr. Hubbert. Benjamin Gatti 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be argued at Talk:Hubbert peak theory not here, SqueakBox 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "peak oil is"

Peak oil is a theory, and ought to be described as such. There is no rapid decline in oil as yet. No crystal ball. Benjamin Gatti 03:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Peak oil is not just a theory. The fact that there will be a peak in world oil production is based on sound logic and observation. Inorder for the curve of world oil production never to peak, we would need to be indefinately descovering oil faster than we are using it, which is clearly impossible given oil's finite nature. The theoretical aspect comes in calculating When and how it will occur. The shape of the peak , how bumpy and steep the decline will be is impossible to forsee accurately as unpredictable world events (such as wars, recessions, shortages etc.) will play a major role.

When you consider oil descoveries peaked in 1963 and have been in decline ever since and that we are now using 3 times as much oil as we are finding, that 38 of the 48 largest producers have passed their peaks and according to some calculations we have used approximately 50% of the worlds known oil reserves, it seem likely the peak will come sooner rather than later. Its worth noting that we will only know we have peaked once the decline begins.

New oil descoveries, advances in recovery techniques and alternative oil sources such as tar sands and shale oil may well extend the peak or sofen the decline, but both peak and decline are still inevitable. Its about time people started to accept what is coming and begin to work pro-avtively to prevent a massive catastrophy which - if the peak occurs in the near future - is a distinct possibily. This response is not aimed directly at you Gatti, as I see you are passionate about renewable energy already, although perhaps for a diffrent reason. Aram (UK)

User:Aram: Peak Oil does not merely say that "you know, oil's gonna run out". It says that the running out will be catastrophic. "Oil use will taper off as better substitutes replace it" isn't much of a thing to get worried about, is it? MrVoluntarist 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that most people involved with peak oil lean towards "oil's gonna run out and it's gonna hurt". However, this article does not state that "it's gonna hurt". You're confusing what peak oil says and what people derive from what is said. Peak oil really says

• Oil's gonna run out
• We've got to build alternatives to oil

And after this train, one can state a lot of things, such as:

• Oil is going to run out soon, we haven't got time to build the alternatives
• Oil is going to run out soonish, we can build alternatives if we throw all our effort into it
• Oil is going to run out soon, but the market's got it all covered
• Oil is not running out soon, and someone will think of something clever before it does.

And so on. The point being that these are all statements in line with the original assumption. One can then critizise the different following statements, saying that for instance the latter of my points will have to take a lot of things into consideration if it should be a stringent line of thought. That most speakers of peak oil lean towards the first two is not relevant for the criticism of this article (but it might be for a criticism of the peaknik community).

It seems to me that a lot of the criticism about this article is more or less a veiled criticism of the different peak oil sites, and interesting as that might be, it's not relevant for this article. --Jakob mark 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

biotechnology heavily dependent on oil

Some believe that a major transition to "organic agriculture" methods will be necessary [3], which would probably be more labor-intensive and require a population shift from urban to rural areas, reversing the trend towards urbanisation which has predominated in industrializing societies. Others believe that biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMO's) will provide the answer.

• Dude, I would love to meet the person who suggested that. Have you ever heard of a bio-plant that can grow without some insane amount of fertilizer? That is the single reason that introducing biotech to third world isn't that a good idea. They can't afford fertilizers.

• • GMO's do have the potential to soften the shock of peak oil, and help preserve our current standard of living in a post-hydrocarbon world. Granted, a great deal of GMO research is currently directed towards crops with increased dependancy on oil-based biotech, but it need not take this route. GMO research could be pointed in the opposite direction. Mehum 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I have studied the peak oil theory from the environmentalist standpoint, and to my understanding, it does not necessarily predict that available oil will ever truly reach zero (I mean, in theory, yes, and for the sake of simplifying the explanation, yes, but since economically the alternatives would become cheaper than oil extraction before it ever happens, no) the peak oil theory is really about the law of diminishing marginal returns for a limited resource, that takes into account the decreasing supply and increasing difficulty of extraction and exploration.

I think a lot of people here are raising valid points, but I can't say that it belongs on Wikipedia. We won't be able to come to a true consensus here when environmentalists are arguing about it amongst themselves. This article should either be eliminated, or simply examine the different sides of the debate and perhaps point out which conclusion seems to have the greatest following in the scientific community. At any rate, this is not the forum to air your own, personal opinions.--Randomella 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You've studied peak oil from an environmentalist standpoint? John P. Holdren, a highly respected scientific authority on environmental issues, said in response to Bjørn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist in Scientific American that "What environmentalists mainly say on this topic is not that we are running out of energy but that we are running out of environment—that is, running out of the capacity of air, water, soil and biota to absorb, without intolerable consequences for human well-being, the effects of energy extraction, transport, transformation and use." and "Lomborg’s treatment of energy resources other than oil is not much better. He is correct in his basic proposition that resources of coal, oil shale, nuclear fuels and renewable energy are immense (which few environmentalists—and no well-informed ones—dispute)."

Are you thus not a well-informed environmentalist? MrVoluntarist 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I have added a merge tag, but I am actually going to turn the page into a redirect. The page is full of POV and contains many unsourced statements. Since the Critique of Hubbert peak theory page was deleted, I see no reson to redirect or delete the page. There already is a good "implications" section in the peak oil article, and there is nothing I can find to merge into the article from this one. Still, if anyone wants to merge or view anything on this page, see [1]. Polonium 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)