[Culturechat] An End to Growth?
WesTexas@aol.com
WesTexas@aol.com
Sun, 2 Jun 2002 16:29:19 EDT
--part1_59.1c6780a6.2a2bda1f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
This is a little unusual, but it is a very important topic. The Hubbert=20
Curve predicts that worldwide oil production will peak this decade and then=20
go into a terminal decline from which it will never recover. King Hubbert=20
predicted that--at best--we are going to have to learn to live with virtuall=
y=20
a zero growth economy. Increasingly, the U.S. will have to follow the=20
European model concerning energy consumption. =20
The two articles referenced below are very interesting. The first article=20
analyzes the fallacy of the economists' arguments against the Hubbert Curve,=
=20
and it analyzes the geopolitical aspects of a permanent decline in world oil=
=20
production. The second article is based on a presentation that M. King=20
Hubbert made to a congressional committee in the early Seventies. =20
No matter how energy efficient an incremental new house, an incremental new=20
car or an incremental new factory is, each of these items represents an=20
incremental increase in energy demand. The world economy and our entire=20
capital structure are based on the assumption that the energy supplies will=20
be there to meet new incremental demand. What happens to economic growth=20
when energy demand has to conform to energy supply? =20
King Hubbert=E2=80=99s opinion was that the only long term answer, other tha=
n a crash=20
nuclear program, is solar--either directly from solar-electric cells or=20
indirectly from the wind. The problem is that Hubbert=E2=80=99s Curve pre=
dicts=20
that the decline in oil production is going to hit sooner and harder than 99=
%=20
of the population is expecting. And one key factor that may very well=20
worsen the decline is that a good deal of oil that should have been produced=
=20
on the second half of the resource curve--such as in the North Sea and on th=
e=20
North Slope--was produced earlier because major oil companies were kicked ou=
t=20
of the Middle East. This action artificially raised current peak productive=
=20
capacity and decreased current oil prices--at the expense of future=20
production and future prices. =20
Hubbert=E2=80=99s Peak & The Economics of Oil
(financialsense.com/series3/part1.htm)
M. King Hubbert on the Nature of Growth
(technology.org/articles/hub-gro.html)
Jeffrey Brown
--part1_59.1c6780a6.2a2bda1f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">This is a little unusual, but it is a very important t=
opic. The Hubbert Curve predicts that worldwide oil production will pe=
ak this decade and then go into a terminal decline from which it will never=20=
recover. King Hubbert predicted that--at best--we are going to h=
ave to learn to live with virtually a zero growth economy. Incre=
asingly, the U.S. will have to follow the European model concerning energy c=
onsumption. <BR>
<BR>
The two articles referenced below are very interesting. The first arti=
cle analyzes the fallacy of the economists' arguments against the Hubbert Cu=
rve, and it analyzes the geopolitical aspects of a permanent decline i=
n world oil production. The second article is based on a present=
ation that M. King Hubbert made to a congressional committee in the early Se=
venties. <BR>
<BR>
No matter how energy efficient an incremental new house, an incremental new=20=
car or an incremental new factory is, each of these items represents an incr=
emental increase in energy demand. The world economy and our ent=
ire capital structure are based on the assumption that the energy supplies w=
ill be there to meet new incremental demand. What happens to economic=20=
growth when energy demand has to conform to energy supply? <BR>
<BR>
King Hubbert=E2=80=99s opinion was that the only long term answer, other tha=
n a crash nuclear program, is solar--either directly from solar-electric cel=
ls or indirectly from the wind. The problem is that Hubber=
t=E2=80=99s Curve predicts that the decline in oil production is going to hi=
t sooner and harder than 99% of the population is expecting. And=
one key factor that may very well worsen the decline is that a good deal of=
oil that should have been produced on the second half of the resource curve=
--such as in the North Sea and on the North Slope--was produced earlier beca=
use major oil companies were kicked out of the Middle East. This actio=
n artificially raised current peak productive capacity and decreased current=
oil prices--at the expense of future production and future prices. <B=
><I><BR>
<BR>
Hubbert=E2=80=99s Peak & The Economics of Oil</B></I><BR>
(financialsense.com/series3/part1.htm)<BR>
<B><I>M. King Hubbert on the Nature of Growth</B></I><BR>
(technology.org/articles/hub-gro.html)<BR>
<BR>
Jeffrey Brown<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_59.1c6780a6.2a2bda1f_boundary--