Depletion of Resources

[Little Raven]

Petrobras made some ground-breaking developments in deep-water oil prospection.

It's no wonder that they are the most interested in the angolan oil.

Ok, let's take the most optimistic estimates from Angolan exploration. Let's say deepwater reserves triple, from 50 billion barrels to 164 billion barrels. Let's further assume that global oil demand stays constant, even though that's ridiculous, because oil demand is constantly growing by leaps and bounds.

Guess how much time Angola buys us?

Slightly more than 5 years. This is going to save us?

That said, at some point oil will no longer be the most viable alternative.

If you can point me to any energy source that can replace oil as the foundation of the global economy, I'd love to hear about it. Because I've looked, and I haven't found one. We need a lot of energy to keep our society going. If we don't get it from oil, where can we turn?

If it happened suddenly, global economy would collapse.
But it won't, the prices will go gradually high and make investing in alternatives more attractive. Just like what happened to coal.

We didn't run out of coal, at least not here in the New World. We have plenty of coal. We just found oil, which is vastly superior to coal in every respect. Are you honestly suggesting we can replace oil with coal?

Scales matter alot in said discussion. It's easy to take out a spot from a map, but not something that occupies virtually all map.

Oh isn't it? Especially when the wars start? I notice you ignored my point about the US army being in Venezuela. Tell me, luiz, when oil reaches 150 dollars a barrel, how long do you think it will be before US special forces are landing on Brazilian offshore oil rigs? And what do you think your government will do about it?

We occupy the entire map, yes. That just means we have nowhere to run.

As for oil beign the spine of the world. At one point, so was coal. But we found something better and moved on. We did not just waited while the coal was the depleated.

But here's the problem. We're almost out of oil, and we haven't found the new magic bullet that's going to save us. We found oil long before we hit peak coal. It's beginning to look distressing like we're at peak oil. If we're going to find a solution, we'd better do it fast, or we're not likely to find one in time.

As I said to TLC, access to water is a matter of money, not of water. We have a virtually infinite source of water right besides us - the sea. The saudis are already using sea water for consumption. It's still an expensive procedure, sure. But that's for now.

I don't think you're quite aware of the problems of massive desalinization.

First of all, it takes a lot of energy. Where is that energy going to come from? Oil? Won't that make the oil problem worse?

Second....what are you going to do with all the salt you have leftover?

In 50 years, when none of the catastrophes you people are predicting come true, there will be still people predicting other global hecatombs. That's the way the world goes.

For what it's worth, luiz, I truly hope you're right. I have no desire to see the end of our civilization. Please, convince me. I am eager to be enlightened.

 

[Little Raven]

Interestingly I see the Tragedy of the Commons as a powerful argument for private property and against the communal use of land.

But there are some industries that cannot be effectively privatized. Hence the term, the Commons.

 

[crystal]

luiz, would you care to provide a source for your anthropocentric claims that there's no significant eco damage happening and free market will fix everything? No, I don't claim that I'm any expert in ecology or biology, but you seem to have studied this subject even less than I have. Some of your statements contradict directly with everything I have read -- some examples:

What the non-susteinability people actually want to say is that Capitalism is destroying the Earth. It has nothing to do with sciences or observation, it's merely politics.

Arable land beign destroyed? Where?

(In response to "Humans haven't changed much in the last 1000 years.": )
That's plain insanity. Check our numbers, or our life expectancy.

A shortage of water*? Or Oxygen? Or arable land?
Yes, I'm unable to see that coming.
*It might happen in some countries, but due to lack of money, not due to lack of the resource water.

Quality of life also increased, if that's what you mean.

They will get depleated at some point, but it's extremely far away and nothing suggests that we can't maintain a larger population for thousands, if not millions, of years

Blah, this is probably useless since it's impossible to change the opinions of die-hard capitalists.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Of course technological development can always help to relieve some of the resource stress. The big question is if we can keep far enough ahead of population growth, to keep the efficiency of our processes increasing faster than our population.

Sure it is possible to develop the necessary advances to relieve the stress, but the question is whether it will happen fast enough.

 

[luiz]

Ok, let's take the most optimistic estimates from Angolan exploration. Let's say deepwater reserves triple, from 50 billion barrels to 164 billion barrels. Let's further assume that global oil demand stays constant, even though that's ridiculous, because oil demand is constantly growing by leaps and bounds.

Guess how much time Angola buys us?

Slightly more than 5 years. This is going to save us?

That sounds right. It will probably buy us a few more years, but by then believe that new energy sources will already be avaiable.

If you can point me to any energy source that can replace oil as the foundation of the global economy, I'd love to hear about it. Because I've looked, and I haven't found one. We need a lot of energy to keep our society going. If we don't get it from oil, where can we turn?

There will probably be no single energy source that will perform all the functions of oil. Everything seems to point at a future with severall important energy sources sharing the world. Car can run on alcohol, or hydrogen, or natural gas. Electricity could be generated through hidro-plants, or nuclear-plants, or any other.

We didn't run out of coal, at least not here in the New World. We have plenty of coal. We just found oil, which is vastly superior to coal in every respect. Are you honestly suggesting we can replace oil with coal?

No, not at all. I was merely pointing out to a spine of the world that was replaced.

Oh isn't it? Especially when the wars start? I notice you ignored my point about the US army being in Venezuela. Tell me, luiz, when oil reaches 150 dollars a barrel, how long do you think it will be before US special forces are landing on Brazilian offshore oil rigs? And what do you think your government will do about it?

Before it reaches 150 dollars other energy source will already look more attractive.
If the US occupied Venezuela the brazilian government would vehemently protest, but presently what else could we do? Commit suicide and attack the american troops? I think not. Furthermore the government of my country knows very well that we are safe and nobody in their rights mind would ever invade us.

We occupy the entire map, yes. That just means we have nowhere to run.

It also means that we won'y vanquish suddenly. We shall not be like the mayans.

But here's the problem. We're almost out of oil, and we haven't found the new magic bullet that's going to save us. We found oil long before we hit peak coal. It's beginning to look distressing like we're at peak oil. If we're going to find a solution, we'd better do it fast, or we're not likely to find one in time.

As I said I believe that the days of a dominant energy source are over. There will be probably severall "magic bullets" sharing their role.
As for wether we hit oil peak or not, I think that's still up to debate. The current rise on oil prices has much more to do with political complications then actaul scarcity of oil.

I don't think you're quite aware of the problems of massive desalinization.

First of all, it takes a lot of energy. Where is that energy going to come from? Oil? Won't that make the oil problem worse?

Second....what are you going to do with all the salt you have leftover?

It's still inefficient, but is already much cheaper then when it was done at first. The energy can be provided by numerous alternative sources(nuclear, hidr-electricity, etc)

As for the ammount of salt, one could just make piles somewhere. I don't really know. Fact is we deal properly with toxic waste, salt should be no problem.

 

[luiz]

luiz, would you care to provide a source for your anthropocentric claims that there's no significant eco damage happening and free market will fix everything? No, I don't claim that I'm any expert in ecology or biology, but you seem to have studied this subject even less than I have. Some of your statements contradict directly with everything I have read -- some examples:

Read where? In that engagée publications by Green Peace or its similars? It's hard to get anything useful out of them.

Interestingly enough, some of my statements that you disagree with are the ones that say that our life expectancy and quality of life are highest then ever. Guess what - those are facts.

Blah, this is probably useless since it's impossible to change the opinions of die-hard capitalists.

It's also quite hard to change the opinion of anti-capitalists. They(you?) have beign predicting the collapse of capitalist society since the mid 19th Century....

 

[luiz]

But there are some industries that cannot be effectively privatized. Hence the term, the Commons.

If you're talking about the police or the firefighters I agree, though they don't properly qualify as "industries".

 

[crystal]

Read where? In that engagée publications by Green Peace or its similars? It's hard to get anything useful out of them.

The Earth Transformed is an interesting book, also worth reading should be The State of the World reports by Worldwatch institute... go to your local library and try to find something.

Interestingly enough, some of my statements that you disagree with are the ones that say that our life expectancy and quality of life are highest then ever. Guess what - those are facts.

How you measure the quality of life? By GDP? (which is not rational btw)

I'd say ISEW indicator is better: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/sustainable_development/progress/international.html

And just look at how the index value of USA, our uber-capitalist bastion, have been constantly decreasing.

It's also quite hard to change the opinion of anti-capitalists. They(you?) have beign predicting the collapse of capitalist society since the mid 19th Century....

Who knows in what kind of situation we are in 50-100 years? If some predictions in the past were false, it doesn't prove anything about today's environmental predictions.

 

[luiz]

The Earth Transformed is an interesting book, also worth reading should be The State of the World reports by Worldwatch institute... go to your local library and try to find something.

I may try, but I doubt I'll find those books...

How you measure the quality of life? By GDP? (which is not rational btw)

I'd say ISEW indicator is better: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/sustainable_development/progress/international.html

And just look at how the index value of USA, our uber-capitalist bastion, have been constantly decreasing.

How about the UN's Human Development Index, that takes into account wealth, access to education and it's quality, life expectancy, child mortality and etc... ?

According to said index, the most widely accepted one, quality of life is steadly gowing up almost everywhere.

(PS: The US is not uber-capitalist at all. They are a restricted Social-Democracy)

Who knows in what kind of situation we are in 50-100 years? If some predictions in the past were false, it doesn't prove anything about today's environmental predictions.

If nobody knows the situation in 50-100 years, nobody should be making catastrophic predictions.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Furthermore the government of my country knows very well that we are safe and nobody in their rights mind would ever invade us

It's rarely people in their right mind who cause the problems ...

How about the UN's Human Development Index, that takes into account wealth, access to education and it's quality, life expectancy, child mortality and etc... ?

Your fellow right-wingers are gonna hate you for this one.

 

[Stapel]

Hmmm, I'm surprised a little bit by the posts of Little Raven.
I thought he was a libertarian and now he's worried about depletion (and rightly so).

I personally don't believe that a free market can resolve the issues of depletion. Government interference is necessary in such cases.

But maybe I'm missing some point.

You are . Governments won't do better. They have never done so. Maybe, they might succeed in pushing the depletion date 10 years further at best. So what?

This discussion goes beyond some elemental economic facts. And it has some weird assumptions.

First of all: None of us will ever see the depletion of oil. The biggest oil reserve in the world, has not yet even touched! It's located in Canada, under thick layers of ice. It is damn hard to exploit these fields. What I have read about it (not recently) is that it will be profitable when a barrel of Brent Oil costs 120-150 US dollars.

This will have a very very big effect on economy, but not a devastating one, as people always want to think. Relations will simply change. That's it.

But, in the end, there might be a day that not a single drop of oil will be found anymore. Long before this day will come, oil prices will rise, and that is where good old capitalism kicks in.
Why do we need oil? To drive our cars (let's simplify a bit, ok?). As a rather experienced car driver, I have a pretty good idea what driving a car costs. A fair second-hand car (average) costs roughly 40 eurocents each kilometer. About 20% is fuel costs. Without taxes only about 7%.
So, it takes a while before it really matters.

If oil becomes really scarce, this might become more and more. As soon as there is an alternative that costs less than oil, our friend captitalism will force it into our economy. We probably won't even notice! The alternative is already there, yet not fully developed. A matter of time.

Oil depletion is mostly a made-up problem. Usually done by environmentalists. Though they have a very valid point when warning for eco-problems, it is rather silly to point at a possible depletion problem. By very definiton it will be solved by the economy. That means change, and I guess that is what people fear.

 

[Stapel]

On other resources:

Howmany people can live on this planet?

Far far more!

Food production can easily be trippled or more. Hunger is hardly ever a supply problem. It is an economical demand problem. The lack of a reliable demand market will cause farmers to produce less. Reliable demand markets flourish in economical stability.

 

[Mapache]

If it happened suddenly, global economy would collapse. But it won't, the prices will go gradually high and make investing in alternatives more attractive. Just like what happened to coal.

Coal and Oil are related resources. Even the prices are related. Coal can be converted to oil.

Scales matter alot in said discussion. It's easy to take out a spot from a map, but not something that occupies virtually all map.

Surely scale does matter. Had the Easter Islands been larger the catastrophe would have come probably 100 years later.

As I said to TLC, access to water is a matter of money, not of water. We have a virtually infinite source of water right besides us - the sea. The saudis are already using sea water for consumption. It's still an expensive procedure, sure. But that's for now.

It's expensive because it requires energy which is essentially again oil.

Brazil may still prosper for a while and may even survive on its own but many other countries are already depending on the importation of ressources.

Can India sustain 4 billion people? Within 60 years India's population will be like that if there won't be any break. People from Bangla Desh which is growing even at a faster pace will invade India to help growth.

 

[Kyborgi]

I suggest everyone who denies that the natural resources aren't going to run out watch The Corporation, a canadian documentary from 2003. It tells from other issues too so I'd recommend it for everyone else too.

 

[Stapel]

I suggest everyone who denies that the natural resources aren't going to run out watch The Corporation, a canadian documentary from 2003. It tells from other issues too so I'd recommend it for everyone else too.

The point is that scarcity will kick in long before depletion. A decrease in supply causes higher prices, which cause a healthy search for alternatives.

Depletion is a fact, but not a problem.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Someone explain to me what Capitalism has to do with this?

First of all: None of us will ever see the depletion of oil.

So what?

As soon as there is an alternative that costs less than oil, our friend captitalism will force it into our economy.

This assumes there is an alternative. Now, in the particular case of oil, there seems to be good reasons to believe that it can be replaced, bu there's no law of nature requiring that to be the case for all resources than might run dry.

Neither does it address Little Raven's concern re: wars over scarce resources.

Food production can easily be trippled or more.

That's not the question - there's no need for tripled food production by current demographic trends. The question is whether current production levels can be maintained without destroying the ecological basis in the long term.

 

[Stapel]

That's not the question - there's no need for tripled food production by current demographic trends. The question is whether current production levels can be maintained without destroying the ecological basis in the long term.

Yes, that is possible. Living in one of the most densed countries in the world, I can tell you we produce 4 times what we need ourselves and do not destruct our ecological basis.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The quality of soil being less than constant across the world, and the fact that the atmosphere and the oceans do not get any bigger no matter how much more land we lay under the plow, that does not really amount to a convincing argument. Can you point me to any sources that back it up.

 

[crystal]

Yes, that is possible. Living in one of the most densed countries in the world, I can tell you we produce 4 times what we need ourselves and do not destruct our ecological basis.

That's because your country is in one of the most fertile areas in the world... and about all of the original forests have been destroyed. How much goods does Netherlands import from other nations anyway?

 

[Stapel]

That's because your country is in one of the most fertile areas in the world... and about all of the original forests have been destroyed. How much goods does Netherlands import from other nations anyway?

I advise more countries (not all, like Bangladesh should not, but Brasil would be ok) to chop their woods and make agricultural lands instead.

Or do some people still believe woods provide oxygen ?