Even if the Saudis are overstating their actual reserves, lots of oil exists elsewhere that's largely untapped.
One has to wonder if the current situation can be considered all that bad if:
- We haven't even started serious discussion of tapping into all the oil that's available but we've chosen not to pursue.
- American gas prices still pale in comparison to European gas prices.
Whatever "peak oil" means (we've been predicting that we'd run out of oil in "the next 20 years" for over 100 years), if we approach anything like that, to me it just means we get to see what comes up next.
Unfortunately some of our current solutions involve using inefficient alternative fuel sources that result in food shortages and increasing food prices, screwing over the world's poor.
But given past history, I'm confident we'll come up with some good solutions post-oil that won't require us to starve everyone (as much as that concept appeals to some).
"Peak oil" means what it says - we've hit the peak of oil production, and will never again pull that much out of the ground.
Lummox, by definition, peak hits when there's lots of untapped resource - it hits when you've taken half of the current oil reserves out of the ground. If you look at the data, you'll see that nearly every country in the world has peaked already - OPEC is the only bloc that hasn't. Hubbert got the US oil peak right, and the same basic physical principles apply to what's going on now, too. We barely find enough oil to keep up with what we're taking out, if that, and the reserves of most OPEC countries are quite clearly massively inflated. edit: Jp, Malthus was an idiot. The concept that it's possible for a population to grow to outstrip its food supply does not mean it necessarily does, and in the case of human populations various pressures help force things into an equlibrium: not just better farming techniques, but also through deadly conflict. Malthus's whole concept is based on a mathematical model that has no actual relationship to the real world. At best it can be said that his idea about food supply constraining population growth has merit. That was sort of his point. He didn't think we'd exceed food supply, he thought food supply would provide a natural barrier, and that famine and war would prevent us going through it. | |
Peak oil doesn't mean we've pulled half the reserves out; it refers rather to production levels continuing to fall past a certain point. Based on the known untapped reserves, and the sharply limited exploration for more, the idea that our production is now on a permanent downward slide (or will be soon) is simply ill-founded. Production is lower now only because OPEC has chosen to lower production levels. That choice has no basis in future reserves.
OPEC countries' reserves being inflated is merely a rumor with little serious backing. And your suggestion that we're not finding more is absurd--we've found plenty, which we have yet to extract for entirely political reasons. That's not to say we've found a huge very-long-term supply or anything, but the prohpets of disaster seem intent on stopping any future exploration and extraction, the better to fulfill their prophecy. While I'll concede that the reserves aren't infinite--although some theories suggest oil is replenished faster than we think--I find no merit in the argument that we're anywhere near or past a peak in production. | |
"Peak oil" means what it says - we've hit the peak of oil production, and will never again pull that much out of the ground.
By that definition we also hit peak oil every time in the past people said that we'd run out of oil in 10 or 20 years (which they've been saying since the beginning of the 1900s). To make this assumption you must know that we will never improve our oil extraction technologies and that we are aware of all possible oil reserves, neither of which we know. Maybe those claiming peak oil are right this time...though it would be the first time after a century of making the claim. Presumably they'll be right someday. Meanwhile, I refer you to the ancient past era of November of 2007, in which the papers screamed, HUGE OIL RESERVE FOUND OFF BRAZIL'S COAST -- ah, for the good old days, eh? This isn't to say that oil won't get more expensive as demand from a growing middle class rises, but as it does, we will find and exploit alternatives, in addition to becoming ever more efficient in the ways we use the resources we have. As we've done many times before. | |
Screw you, stupid tax-funded TV station! You twerps wouldn't be getting up to these shenanigans if John Howard was still in charge.
I concur! Rudd is an idiot! | |
NOOO! I'm gonna die in under 3 years! I have to start eating pollution causing organic food now!
| |
ha! 30. I got you all beat by decades. Guess the answer to minimizing your footprint and extending your life value as a meat-box consumer is not consuming anything, becoming homeless and living on the edge of oblivion. What a brave new world this is....
| |
Ha! 36 years!
| |
Also, the idea that oil will peak in the next decade is bunk. It's gained popularity due to skyrocketing oil prices but there's no basis in fact for it. Even if the Saudis are overstating their actual reserves, lots of oil exists elsewhere that's largely untapped. It remains untapped because drilling in those places has been blocked for invalid, even asinine reasons. The price of oil is also higher than it should be due to the onerous regulations governing refineries, which means we haven't had a new refinery built in 30 years and the ones we have now are operating at about maximum capacity, making price shocks worse. Much of the price jump after Hurricane Katrina was due to refineries shutting down.
Anyway we could easily forestall an oil apocalypse by investing heavily in nuclear power, which is far cleaner. Since a great deal of our petrolium consumption is related to power generation (something like 2/3 of our whole power output is oil-based I believe), there's every reason to believe that existing fission technologies and upcoming fusion technologies will have a great impact. Much of mainland Europe, notably Italy, is now looking to go nuclear.
All this is to say: The doom-and-gloom predictions of radical environmentalists are unwarranted, because they're not based on reality. Conservation is a fine thing, but these issues do not benefit from a shallow perspective like most hardcore greeners have.