Permaculture & Peak Oil: Beyond Sustainability
Wanted to get some opinions on this video. Especially the bit when he discusses the economy in a declining energy future. Sensical? Mularkey?
I just watched a few minutes but I think I understand what this is about.
This is basically all nonsense as long as most of the energy industry is still relatively operated by private enterprise or semi-private. As long as the price system is not prevented from doing its job, and entrepreneurship is not too hampered by government sabotage, then most of the assumptions and conclusions are false.
It really begins to deal with economics around 17:00 through the end.
yeah, I saw about 2 minutes at around 20 something. Are there any special claims made by it other then: oil is depleted, costs will rise, economic growth will be curtailed, etc…
The whole “Peak Oil” feeling, as far as I can tell it is not in the slightest bit fact, is just this socialist fantasy that can come true if govenrment stiffles entrepreneurs from supplying fuel, developing new fuels and finding new ways to produce petro-chemicals, or if government simply crowds out the entrepreneurs. Otherwise the price system will remain in effect meaning as something becomes more scarce the price will rise. As the price rises more entrepreneurs will enter the market supplying the same or different products. And consumers will adjust accordingly.
Like I said without govenrment modern society with armies of profit seeking entrepreneurs will fill the demand and protect the environment. With govenrment, the Western World is headed for disaster.
I have one anecdotal example: In 1940 Henry Ford built a car with a body made of hemp fiber fueled with alcohol produced from fermented hemp. Why would he do this? Simply in 1940, the Roosevelt government in preparation for war was taking over the metal and fuel businesses thus INCREASING the costs of these raw materials and Ford being a genius got some other geniuses to help build products that satisfied demand in the USA.
I pretty much discounted the doom and gloom usually associated with peak oil, which is why I found this video interesting in the first place. Mr. Holgren seems to be aware of the inevitablility of cheap energy being utilized until it is exhausted. I was really more interested in your opinions about his predictions on how society will adapt if/when energy costs rise to the point where our current modes of production are no longer economically viable. His “middle men” bit was especially intriguing (to me, at least).
I thought his predicted contraction of global markets towards a more localized economy in the face of rising energy costs was interesting. And what about growth? Do you predict it is infinite (without leaving the planet)?
As far as growth limitation is concerned, I would be more concerned about government intervention then anything else. Other then that, growth is much more a function of time preference then any depleted natural resource. In fact, it cannot be praxeologically deduced that time preference must continuously decline in the long run. It may be that future generations become more present oriented and decided to halt growth voluntarily.
Rate of growth should be of no concern in a free market. Only consumer sovereignty (or individual sovereignty) is what should matter.
peak oil is a joke (as is the idea of sustainability).
Granted, in the short term. Couldn’t exhaustion of a resource also factor to limit growth (at least growth potential)?
How?
I’d agree somewhat. It seems inevitable that we will be unable to pump any more hydrocarbons from the Earth eventually, but I don’t think society will come grinding to a halt when oil becomes more expensive.
Why do you say that?
Sure it could. Anything in finite amount that is in current production use can limit growth, but so what? They act is if there is some cliff that we’re going over. Any resource depletion is a gradual process. We don’t have to wake up one day and realize we ran out of oil. That won’t happen unless resources are nationalized on a global scale.
Also, the reason it even makes sense to talk abut “growth” is precisely because the market process solves the problem of scarcity, so to say that growth is problematic due to scarcity, which is what “peak oil” is really all about, is quite nonsensical.
The question is this: Why will the market, if not hampered by criminals, seize to do its job of continuously changing its form and shape to meet the never ending changes of conditions in the market? To simply point out the costs of becoming more efficient or adopting other sources of energy is basically to assume a static model of the economy, which then doesn’t have any costs associated with change. If these people realized that the market is in constant flux then they would realize that their predictions are based on economic nonsense.
I think you are letting your bias against the enviromental movement do the typing for you. The whole reason I put the link up here because my interpretation of the video was that he avoids the “off a cliff” mentality, and rather, is concerned with the options we have as the supply of cheap hydrocarbons dwindles.
Again, the video is more of a meditation on what that “changing form and shape” will be/become, specifically in regards to the global economy.
So, it’s not worth bothering to make any predictive statements?
No, it’s not a problem of making predictive statements. It’s that they are nearly always predicated on myths and fallacies. And nearly always imply some sort of need for some form of policy.
But I don’t think this video does that.
listening to this nice guy here but no thanks on going back to the hunter/gatherer society. He will have to find a way to dispose of a few billion people if he wants to reverse the last 500 years of technological progress.
“I’d agree somewhat. It seems inevitable that we will be unable to pump any more hydrocarbons from the Earth eventually, but I don’t think society will come grinding to a halt when oil becomes more expensive.”
there’s more to peak oil than that. according to peak-oil, once we hit the maximum amount of oil extraction, oil prodution will be on a permanent decline. this ignores the fact that if production does decline and oil becomes more expensive, then other methods of extraction and refinement may become eeconomically viable which would, in turn, raise production. but the most important variable it ignores is human ingenuity and the potential for new technology (a good example of how much technology can change price, production, and availability would be aluminum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Production_and_refinement )
“Why do you say that?”
because you can’t beat the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
but i kid…
the real reason I tend to be vitriolic towards the proponents of sustainability is the shoddiness of the science they use to back their equally shoddy central planning schemes.
Oy Vey… maybe this was a bad idea.
Sustainability need not be linked to central planning.