Reply #8: What? No doomsday? [View All]

Ehrlich and Lovins -- and several other scientists and activists -- were actually correct. But once the price of oil increased, and major public efforts were made to conserve, the demand for oil dropped off and gave us another decade and a half of slack time. The statistics are easily available onboth pro- and con- "peak oil" websites.

The problem isn't that we will run out and the world will come to an end, it's that the price of producing oil will increase to the point that the world economy will be shaken, damaged, or possibly destroyed. Industrial civilization has been depending on a 2-3% per annum growth rate in energy demand, a growth rate we can't sustain for more than another few years. Even adding nuclear, wind, and better oil production methods don't add much time.

The problem is to find a way to allow economic growth without ever-increasing energy demand growth.Oil's only a part of it. I think the real problem lies in the way our society deals with wealth, linking it to energy as it does.

The abiotic oil theory is pretty cool, but we're taking it faster than it can be made. Either way, that 2-3% per year growth factor is going to catch up with us.

In any case, I seldom like flaming people who disagree with my point of view on energy and economics (unless they're acting like jerks, of course). We've wasted far too much time already.

--bkl