Arkane posted:

As to the "limited resources" in the long term, we are not going to run out of energy. We have such an abundance of natural gas that we export it. We are also examining whether to start exporting crude oil again due to some excess supply. We have large supplies of uranium. By the time access to fuels becomes a challenge, we will have long since moved on to other energy sources (i.e. tapping into that radiating star we orbit or re-creating our own mini-stars with fusion plants here on Earth).

Evil_Greven posted:

...there's an estimated (in 2000) 230 trillion kg (230 gigatonnes) of crude oil in the earth.

So, it'd take 92,000 days for the U.S. to consume all the world's oil at 2011 rates. 250 years seems like a lot, but remember one little thing - the U.S. only accounts for 22% of global oil consumption. This cuts the figure to 70 years... from 2000... assuming no increases/decreases in consumption...

Arkane posted:

Unsustainable means that our agricultural output cannot be maintained. That there is some barrier on the horizon. So if we're producing 100 tons of agriculture, we cannot maintain that 100 tons of agriculture in the long run. We're in agreement on what sustainable means, ya?

So how do you reconcile this with the fact that our agricultural output is increasing every single year, and in the US our output is GROWING FASTER than the population (the export statistic)?

Squalid posted:

You say we should do more to insure access to affordable vegetables. Well you might be interested in the fact the U.S. government provides perverse subsidies that incentivize meat consumption over healthful vegetables and nuts. source Would you object to transferring those meat subsidies to more healthful vegetable foods? It would obviously lead to an increase in meat prices, yes, but there would be a concurrent decrease in the price of alternatives.

Dusz posted:

In all fairness, I doubt peak whatever is going to hit us before global warming will. But don't take my word for it.

down with slavery posted:

Peak oil is already happening and is only going to escalate as the global EROEI falls. If you don't think Earth's finite resource limits are going to start impacting prices, perhaps you've been asleep for the past 5 years?

Strudel Man posted:

down with slavery posted:

I would rather see the oil and gas subsidies applied to those vegetable producers. I'd rather not take any action that could result in an increase in the price of meat without a direct subsidy to the working poor, IE James Hansen's carbon tax.

Paul MaudDib posted:

"A car crash means that our car will rapidly come to a stop. As you can see, we've depressed the accelerator to the floor and the car has continuously increased in speed. How can you possibly predict that a crash will occur based on these data?"

Again, unless you have an alternate hypothesis for oil formation that doesn't involve thousands of years of tectonic forces, oil is a finite resource, and thus at some point we will peak. Yes, as fossil fuels become more and more scarce, either yield per acre will drop or food prices will increase along with the cost of the required inputs. Or more likely, some combination of the two will result, as market forces take their course. There won't be a single spigot of oil that gets turned off and everyone switches off fertilizer, as oil costs run up there will be a couple market shifts that occur. In rich countries it'll be more of the "food costs increase" side of things. In poor countries yields will drop as people can no longer afford fertilizers, and increased food prices will drive starvation (food insecurity).

There's actually a couple barriers on the horizon. Totally apart from the fossil fuel inputs (not even just the energy, fossil-fuel derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides are critical to modern high-yield industrial agriculture), there's also a limited supply of phosphate. They're also a key input for some alternative energy sources like algal biofuel. It's a much longer window than fossil fuels, we probably have at least a hundred-year supply, and we could stretch that with more intensive sewage recycling, but our current system is nowhere near closed-cycle and there's no drive to make it so.

Squalid posted:

Also doing anything that increases the cost of oil and gas is likely to impact food prices, fyi.

quote:

without a direct subsidy to the working poor

Strudel Man posted:

quote:

Among the big energy stories of 2013, “peak oil” -- the once-popular notion that worldwide oil production would soon reach a maximum level and begin an irreversible decline -- was thoroughly discredited. The explosive development of shale oil and other unconventional fuels in the United States helped put it in its grave.

As the year went on, the eulogies came in fast and furious. “Today, it is probably safe to say we have slayed ‘peak oil’ once and for all, thanks to the combination of new shale oil and gas production techniques,” declared Rob Wile, an energy and economics reporter for Business Insider. Similar comments from energy experts were commonplace, prompting an R.I.P. headline at Time.com announcing, “Peak Oil is Dead.”

Not so fast, though. The present round of eulogies brings to mind the Mark Twain’s famous line: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Before obits for peak oil theory pile up too high, let's take a careful look at these assertions. Fortunately, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Paris-based research arm of the major industrialized powers, recently did just that -- and the results were unexpected. While not exactly reinstalling peak oil on its throne, it did make clear that much of the talk of a perpetual gusher of American shale oil is greatly exaggerated. The exploitation of those shale reserves may delay the onset of peak oil for a year or so, the agency’s experts noted, but the long-term picture “has not changed much with the arrival of [shale oil].”

The IEA’s take on this subject is especially noteworthy because its assertion only a year earlier that the U.S. would overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s number one oil producer sparked the “peak oil is dead” deluge in the first place. Writing in the 2012 edition of its World Energy Outlook, the agency claimed not only that “the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer” by around 2020, but also that with U.S. shale production and Canadian tar sands coming online, “North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030.”

That November 2012 report highlighted the use of advanced production technologies -- notably horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) -- to extract oil and natural gas from once inaccessible rock, especially shale. It also covered the accelerating exploitation of Canada’s bitumen (tar sands or oil sands), another resource previously considered too forbidding to be economical to develop. With the output of these and other “unconventional” fuels set to explode in the years ahead, the report then suggested, the long awaited peak of world oil production could be pushed far into the future.

The release of the 2012 edition of World Energy Outlook triggered a global frenzy of speculative reporting, much of it announcing a new era of American energy abundance. “Saudi America” was the headline over one such hosanna in the Wall Street Journal. Citing the new IEA study, that paper heralded a coming “U.S. energy boom” driven by “technological innovation and risk-taking funded by private capital.” From then on, American energy analysts spoke rapturously of the capabilities of a set of new extractive technologies, especially fracking, to unlock oil and natural gas from hitherto inaccessible shale formations. “This is a real energy revolution,” the Journal crowed.

But that was then. The most recent edition of World Energy Outlook, published this past November, was a lot more circumspect. Yes, shale oil, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels will add to global supplies in the years ahead, and, yes, technology will help prolong the life of petroleum. Nonetheless, it’s easy to forget that we are also witnessing the wholesale depletion of the world’s existing oil fields and so all these increases in shale output must be balanced against declines in conventional production. Under ideal circumstances -- high levels of investment, continuing technological progress, adequate demand and prices -- it might be possible to avert an imminent peak in worldwide production, but as the latest IEA report makes clear, there is no guarantee whatsoever that this will occur.

down with slavery posted:

Read James Hansen's proposal and try again. You may have missed the
. A carbon tax based on usage that's redistributed per capita would shift the costs from the consumers to the producers of goods. Will prices go up? Sure. Will the revenue distributed make up for it? I don't see how not.

Squalid posted:

I have not read his proposal. Would you mind posting the relevant parts? It still doesn't change my basic argument: If we can cut carbon emissions without harming our health, we should do so. Reducing per capita meat consumption is one area we can make cuts, and doing so could improve our health too, so long as we don't botch the execution. Why shouldn't the government attempt to do this? Can you give me any reasons?

Squalid posted:

What if we offset the increase in meat prices with, say, a decrease in the price of less carbon intensive legumes and vegetables? It wouldn't hurt anyone would it?

If it seems like I'm badgering you I'm sorry, I'm trying to make a point. When discussing emissions reductions everybody has a sacred cow. Nobody wants to be the one who cuts back. Well the government has to do something, it's been pleading with us to cut back on meat and gas and dope and weed for years, and it hasn't done jack poo poo. What do you propose? Rationing?

down with slavery posted:

I understand that cows produce lots of green house gasses. I think there are better ways to discourage consumption of meat aside from raising prices, such as ensuring that fresh fruits/vegetables are available at low prices and improving our nutritional education, both for children and adults. Point being that there are ways to reduce consumption (or shift it to "better" meats) in the first world that don't involve pricing people out of the market.

down with slavery posted:

Yes I'm aware that production of liquid fuels has not peaked. Unfortunately that's not really what peak oil is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

Paul MaudDib posted:

Frankly even before considering predictions, that chart doesn't support your argument.

Strudel Man posted:

It's exactly what peak oil is about. It's why it's called 'peak oil,' in fact. EREOI is a different and widely misapplied concept that I suppose people are turning to because peak oil is really obviously not happening.

down with slavery posted:

Whatever you have to tell yourself I guess

Strudel Man posted:

define: peak oil

down with slavery posted:

down with slavery posted:

I don't really care what wikipedia page you want to link, EROEI is a real thing and it's the reason we're going to continue to see inflation adjusted energy prices continue to go up, it really doesn't matter whether crude oil production has peaked or not. The problem with looking at oil singularly is that there are other ways to produce liquid fuels (surprise, these take much more energy than conventional extraction methods and are dirtier)

Squalid posted:

How much do you think that would do dude? Are you going to to switch the beef in your chili for beans because squash is cheaper? That is not enough, because it is objectively rational policy to discourage meat consumption. We want it to go down. It going down is good. A sanction on meat consumption is rational.

quote:

Also that Hansen proposal would massively increase the price of meat.

quote:

without a direct subsidy to the working poor

Strudel Man posted:

If you want to say that the prices of energy, particularly of fossil fuels, will continue to rise, I don't disagree with you. That's just a different thing from peak oil. Particularly, it lacks most of the singularly catastrophic implications which were associated with it, as they depended on oil being simply unavailable at any realistic price.

down with slavery posted:

Oooh, "rational" what an adorable word to use. Rational for who exactly? Those of us who can afford to eat meat and get more than enough in our diet?


Read. My. Posts. Quoting myself for the second time:


Which is exactly what Hansen's program is

Squalid posted:

It's rational because it logically follows the premises I carefully established in my first post, specifically:
1. We should try and improve people nutrition and health
2. We should try to reduce carbon emissions
3. Reducing meat consumption in the United States would not harm our health and would decrease emissions

If 3. is true, we should take steps to reduce meat consumption. This is logical. It is rational. Of course we should not reduce access for the food insecure. I have always been careful to maintain we should avoid that situation. Yet this is not most Americans. Most Americans buy meat because they like it, and they can afford it. How do we discourage their consumption?

quote:

Also Hansen's proposal would have enormous ripple effects throughout the whole economy that are hard to predict. It's also incredibly unlikely it will be implemented. What's something small we can do to fix the problems in the American diet in the near term?

Squalid posted:

Well it would massively increase the price of all consumer goods and put a huge amount of money in consumers hands. Have you looked into it any farther than the single powerpoint slide explaining it in the 17 minute video you made me skip through?

quote:

or are you making up excuses for not doing anything that might meaningfully contribue to climate change mitigation?

quote:

How many people do you think you could educate out of eating meat? Because normally when I hear "education" come up in these discussions it's a euphemism for "do nothing"

Strudel Man posted:

It's exactly what peak oil is about. It's why it's called 'peak oil,' in fact.

Strudel Man posted:

If you want to say that the prices of energy, particularly of fossil fuels, will continue to rise, I don't disagree with you. That's just a different thing from peak oil. Particularly, it lacks most of the singularly catastrophic implications which were associated with it, as they depended on oil being simply unavailable at any realistic price.

Sogol posted:

Peak oil and EREOI are quite different in my understanding which admittedly may be fuzzy. Peak oil (peak anything) occurs when half the defined resource has been extracted from a finite pool. There is an algorithm for predicting that for a particular well or basin. This is not exactly the same as production in the way the market would value production. It best not to simply conflate the two.

Squalid posted:

You know gently caress it, you're getting defensive and obnoxious. It's not worth my time to continue this conversation.

Sogol posted:

I myself was wondering if any of the disputants were vegetarian or what their relationship might be to that.

petrol blue posted:

I don't really see that there is any argument. Unless your arguing that people need meat, then surely it's just a matter of accepting that maybe there's too many people on the planet to keep up with us all having everything we want food-wise.

Meat is much less efficient to produce, and the planet's food production is at breaking-point, even with all the fancy tech we use. We either reduce the energy needed to feed one person (e: and space), reduce the number of people, or starve. Cutting down on or removing altogether meat is a simple way to do that. Sure, I'd love steak for every meal, but I'd like a collection of antique sports cars too.

And that's before touching the issue of emissions and environmental effects.

Yiggy posted:

Yup, though I'll note the discussion is (usually) going to deteriorate markedly once we make this about veg vs non-veg identities.

Torka posted:

It had already started before that with people trying to slip their opinions about healthy diets into a discussion about climate change.