13 ms·

The World’s Energy Problem Is Far Worse Than We’re Being Told

51 points by harperlee 4y ago

ilaksh 4y ago
I would like to dismiss this as just an alarmist conspiracy theory or something. Unfortunately, I have to consider the possibility that it is true, because failure to recognize or admit to the most severe problems, especially if they seem intractable, seems to be extremely common in daily life and history.
mistrial9 4y ago
How is it that efficiency is never discussed in public? Is it obvious that 'scarcity' fear words are played quickly, when talking to investors? check the writings from Rocky Mountain Institute / Amory Lovins for less scary, more quantitative view on energy and the economy.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Probably because the mentions of peak extraction of any fossil fuel has a tendency of coming together with arbitrary non-sequiturs like this: "Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations." If the peak oil discussion do not divorce from Apocalypse fantasizing, it will never popularize. (What is not a big issue, the public isn't a very relevant party on solving that one problem anyway, and Global Warming already takes care of getting the public's sympathy.)
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Didn't we already have peak oil in the 80s? Anyway, if an analysis of the worlds respurces starts with "citizens can feel" I have a hard time taking it serious, this is about numbers, prices, distribution, transportation and the like. It is about how energy markets work to come up with prices. It is not about how people feel. That being said, gloval energy markets are screwed up right now, Russia is doing everything they can make it worse. And it is among the asiest way to generate clicks and traffic, after all we are still somewhat in the summer whole of news cycles.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Only the US peaked, IIRC, not the world. And even then only using the specifically limited types of oil that were common before fracking, which is a relevant distinction because "are we screwed?" is different from "did this model correctly predict decline of supply of $thing?"
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I don't think peak oil is trying to be popular. There are two ways out of peak oil: The good outcome is we get alternatives (I've heard someone saying "the stone age didn't end for lack of stones", that is apt regardless of the original context of the quotation). PV etc. may be that alternative, I think they will be that alternative, but nothing is ever guaranteed until it is done. The bad outcomes are like the trees no longer on Easter Island or the phosphate mines of Nauru.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      One message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, what can we do to deal with it?" Another message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, prepare for the end of everything good!" One of those is constructive, and will get people to try to help you. The other one is destructive, and the best reaction people can have for it is to ostracize the message (and the messenger if he only has this to say). And about the outcome, well, the destructive one is lying, because the outcome is not certain.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Efficiency is publicly discussed in my experience. Generally in the form of people suggesting it can solve all our problems (be they energy efficiency or bureaucratic efficiency) without giving much consideration to the ever-present pressure to be as efficient as possible even in the absence of serious shortages, because "scarcity" is why energy isn't already zero cost.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > suggesting it can solve all our problems I would get away from the social media statements and more into research papers on this complex topic; even investor literature picked well will speak openly about pros and cons, with quantitative evidence to support it.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      The pros and cons of energy efficiency?
- climate-code 4y ago
  Energy efficiency is not a savior - increasing energy efficiency often leads to increases energy consumption, because of second & third order effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
AnotherGoodName 4y ago
Big companies are effectively 'apocalypse prepping' right now. This isn't your usual lone weirdo apocalypse prepper. These are mega corporations with the best advice possible. They are quickly enacting every method of frugality and internal rationing possible, far beyond what you'd expect from the current situation today. They know more than us. It's probably wise to follow their lead.
- spookierookie 4y ago
  Not sure I follow. How are they prepping? Can you say a few things more or past a link or two please?
  - sp332 4y ago
    Freezing hiring, buying stock back, reducing risky investments to stockpile cash.
    - spookierookie 4y ago
      I'd call them recession-prepping but not apocalyptic.
    - gisely 4y ago
      Buying stock back is apocalypse prep?
      - sp332 4y ago
        Sure, when a company decides that investments or hiring are unlikely to pay off, but also that inflation is going to eat dollars.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        That's not apocalypse, though. That's just the normal economic cycle. If a company actually thought the apocalypse was coming, why would they buy back stock? The stock's going to be worthless, and so is the company. Use the cash to buy something that will be worth something in the apocalypse (food, bomb shelters, guns, maybe gold). If you actually believe the apocalypse is coming, buying corporate stock is a stupid response. So I don't believe your claim that stock buybacks indicate that corporations know the apocalypse is coming. Rough economic times, sure. Apocalypse, no.
rcarr 4y ago
“No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion. The real story is that we are already running short of oil, coal and natural gas because the direct and indirect costs of extraction are reaching a point where the selling price of food and other basic necessities needs to be unacceptably high to make the overall economic system work.“ This is the real problem and also the lie. The people to whom the prices are “unacceptably high” are the people at the top of the pyramid who would subsequently need to pay appropriate wages. I would hazard a guess that if you took the current wages of workers which have essentially stagnated and regressed for fifty years and raised them to where they would have been had they been increasing at their pre 1970s rate, and then compared that purchasing power to where prices are at now, all of a sudden the prices of things would not seem so out of whack. Executive suite are still getting ridiculous pay rises, investors are still getting ridiculous returns, meanwhile the same companies are continuing to try to shaft workers with below inflation pay rises. You cannot skim in this fashion indefinitely, eventually you get to the point we’re at now where the jig is up, you’ve put so much wealth at the top that it collapses the pillars holding the whole system up. You cannot just park billions of money in ‘safe’ assets (e.g housing) like Smaug the dragon because you’re afraid of losing money. The money represents resources. If you’re not smart enough or brave enough to choose worthwhile and worthy people and enterprises, organisations etc to invest the money in then you don’t deserve to have it and it should be reallocated via the mechanisms of the market to smarter people who do. Yet the government keep bailing out failing company or bank after failing company or bank rather than letting the natural reallocation occur. And so we end up with a zombie economy that preys on the living to feed the dead.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  You're making the mistake of thinking money means anything. Economics is a thin veneer we put over thermodynamics to make accounting easier. Whenever the thermodynamics doesn't work economics stops working either. The 1970s were a short period were thermodynamics were sub-optimal. The dark ages were a longer period. Money is ink on paper or bits in a computer. Neither of those things runs a tractor or lets water flow.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
AndyMcConachie 4y ago
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Russia is far "whiter" than the US. Venezuela's problem cannot be reduced simply to the US being evil / the West hating brown people. If you want to try that argument with Iran - why doesn't it work with KSA? It's more about geopolitics.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  You must be a US-of-American or at least heavily influenced by their current culture seeing how easily you pull in terms like 'white people countries' in the discourse. It was not that long ago that people from your country were taught that skin colour only goes skin deep but the current crop of ideologues have not only forgotten that lesson but turned it upside-down. In other words, if all you can spout is racist discourse may I suggest you to do so in other places? While many good things have come from the USA this can not be said about these ideas so keep them to yourself and your comrades.
spookierookie 4y ago
"In physics terms, the world economy is a dissipative structure, just as all plants, animals and ecosystems are. " This reminds me of (spoiler alert) "Origins" book of Dan Brown.
- hef19898 4y ago
  The same Dan Brown who wrote books about the Illuminati and black holes being thrown out of helicopters above the vatican?
tpmx 4y ago
This article is primarily a lot of empty handwaving. It doesn't back up the headline.
- hef19898 4y ago
  For once I did read it before heading directly for the comments. Empty handwaving sums it up pretty well. Eitubsome click baiting for good measure.
wikitopian 4y ago
People keep carrying on about peak oil, climate change, and "corporate greed" because those are less humiliating conversations than admitting that Europe made a major tactical error in trying to sanction their primary energy supplier.
- invalidname 4y ago
  They didn't have a choice. What should they have done? Handed Ukraine while paying Putin for the privilege? There are lots of things they should have done: * Not shut down nuclear until they had alternatives * Reduced dependencies on Russian exports * Invested more in clean energy and reduced regulatory barriers to green projects Supporting Ukraine fully wasn't a mistake.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    How about making Ukraine observe ECRML rules instead of having a hundred NGOs actively promoting the ideas of suppressing Russian language use? How about not helping overthrow legally elected presidents?
    - invalidname 4y ago
      I have many Ukrainian friends. They aren't Russians and don't think of themselves as Russians. Why should they priorities that language when they want to be a part of the west more than they want to be a part of Russia? They elected a president who's policy is just that. The rebellion was against a puppet installed by Russia. You might not accept those facts and claim the west is lying here. That's an option and it won't be the first/last time that happened. In terms of track record for lying, I'm going to take the west as more reliable than the east. Pretty much all my Russian and Ukrainian friends would agree to that assertion.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        > The rebellion was against a puppet installed by Russia By the means of democratic general elections? They won't have to be a 'part' of Russia provided that they has observed some basic precautions, which I have listed and whose violations you are vehemently defending.
mjhay 4y ago
There's plenty of fossil fuels, even if marginal extraction costs are higher than they once were. If anything, the price is far too cheap for the negative externalities it causes.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  Negative externalities like what? Abundant food, cheap travel, and reduction in global poverty enabled by global supply chains? Certainly, it has been good for plant life: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
  - mjhay 4y ago
    Oh, just ecological destruction, millions of deaths from air pollution, climate change, that kind of thing.
    - chrisco255 4y ago
      What ecological destruction? There is more plant life by volume and leaf area on the planet now today than whenever you were born. CO2 is plant food. That's what carbohydrates are made of, H20+CO2. Warmth is generally far better for plants than freezing cold temperatures. There is no evidence of widespread ecological destruction from CO2. The argument has always been that warming would become some runaway greenhouse effect (note, greenhouses are good for plant growth) but that has not born out. It's 2022, crop yield is at all time human history highs right now. As shown in the satellite record, the leaf area index for plants is up 25-50% over the last couple decades across most land on Earth. See for yourself, the dark green areas are a whopping 50% increase: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... That means literally the opposite of what you think is happening. Anything that is good for the base layer of the food chain is generally good for all living things. We do not have millions of deaths from CO2. In fact, there are billions and billions of lives that would have never existed were it not for the miracle of modern day infrastructure and transportation systems, fertilizer made from mining minerals, farming equipment that enables massive efficiency, etc and that's all been powered by fossil fuels. Basically the whole industrial revolution that ultimately ended slavery and enabled humans to be the most prosperous they've ever been on a massive scale.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The switching between energy and fossil fuels is becoming more transparent. Energy problem? It's a high gas price problem. You can make fertilizer from Green Hydrogen, no methane needed. It's already being produced, with lots of big projects getting built, because it has less GHG emission, though it needs to ramp up. But that basically puts a limit on how high gas prices can go before it gets replaced for that (and many other uses). So, hopefully the production cost of fossil fuels is as bad as they claim, because that will speed things along. So Putin's got one last winter to try to rally the reactionaries of Europe to topple their democratic governments. I guess there's some small chance he'll succeed, but it's not going to stop China and Australia, Africa and the US rolling out renewables, so what does it actually gain them?
ceroxylon 4y ago
Ms. Tverberg seems to exclusively write panicked clickable headlines about oil and energy, dating back several years, with none of the prophecies/projections coming close to fruition. Not a lot of strong data in the article for such an extreme claim.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Agreed, this is a garbage article.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    On the plus side it cites economic data to back up its thesis, on the down side, it cites it from the Book of Revelation.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      Sarcasm right? Kind of disturbing that the top thread here is dismissive without engagement with the arguments.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        > We know that Revelation 18:11-13 in the Bible provides a list of a number of commodities, including humans sold as slaves, for which prices dropped very low at the time of the collapse of ancient Babylon.
        eternalban 4y ago
        For the curious: (11) The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore: (12) cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; (13) cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves. [New International Version] The King James Version includes "souls": (11) And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: (12) The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, (13) And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
Gravityloss 4y ago
Food used to be more expensive and rents a lot lower. If the reason for rent growth was that people were able to afford it, then probably rents (excluding energy part) will go down.
rdedev 4y ago
The article talks about how Saudi Arabia is not reinvesting it's profits on expanding oil extraction and chalks it onto higher costs to extract said oil without any proof. Another completely valid explanation is that the Saudi govt knows they can make pretty good profits for some time if they don't increase supply
- bequanna 4y ago
  Lucky for the Saudis (and other unfriendly nations) the current regime in the US has handed them all the pricing power as the US Gov't does everything possible to hinder domestic exploration/production.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  And it is not like oil goes bad when it is in ground. Much better to make more money on the cheap to extract stuff and then later some money with more costly to extract oil. Also there is consideration what to use the extra money now. If there really isn't need for it, why even get it.
carlivar 4y ago
I don't believe this in a majority of my brain, but the thought has crossed my mind that China's draconian COVID response is to hide their real estate collapse and other macroeconomic problems.
- ripper1138 4y ago
  Their COVID response is mainly about control. for a time it was also about nationalism (look at how many people are dying in the west). At this point it’s control and a little bit of Xi not wanting to change the policy until after he has secured another term.
  - carlivar 4y ago
    But that can also be true. Global economic stuff is out of China's control so how better to hide it than with something where they are in control?
irthomasthomas 4y ago
They recently found the largest oil fields in the world under the Golan Heights, and I don't think those have come online yet. So, I don't think we are quite at peak oil, yet.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  >They recently found the largest oil fields in the world under the Golan Heights There is no way anything under the Golan Heights comes close to the largest oilfields in the world. The Golan Heights only cover an area of about 690 square miles. The Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia is more than 3200 square miles by itself. It is around 85m thick, and with the field described in your sources being 350m the math doesn't work in your favor especially when you consider that the entirety of the formation they claim to have discovered would have to be productive over the full extent of the Golan Heights. That is unlikely especially in light of their most recent updates shown below. The articles that I could find describing Golan Heights discoveries all use hyperbolic descriptions of oil potential combined with selected messianic prophecies of what it means for Israel and the world as relates to Old Testament scripture. I spent 40 years in the oil and gas business including several years working on data from the Eastern Mediterranean acquired as a joint venture between countries bordering the region. This geophysical work resulted in significant gas well discoveries in the region. Oil is found with those wells as expected but not in life-changing quantities to the best of my knowledge. None of the partner countries will be self-sufficient as a result of those discoveries. Until he died, there was a local geologist who became somewhat famous for his attempts to find oil mentioned in the Bible. His plan was to help fulfill prophecy by discovering the oil that would make Israel self-sufficient and bring about the second Temple. He worked for years spending lots of other people's money and Israel still was not self-sufficient. The oil discovery that you refer to is not being produced today and may not even be commercial. Add to that the fact that the well(s) were drilled in territory recognized to belong to Syria and cracks form in the story. Then you start to look at the players involved - the company is Genie Energy based in New Jersey. (from Wikipedia - this line gives a bit of historical information about their efforts) > In November 2017, the company announced that it suspended its exploratory drilling program as the well's target zone does not contain commercially producible quantities of oil or natural gas.[23] The link to the article [23] cited in Wikipedia: [23] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-suspends-exploratory-oil-and-gas-drilling-program-in-northern-israel-300558113.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-suspen... Their strategic advisory board has these common names (from Wikipedia) > Dick Cheney since 2009 (former vice president of the United States), Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of News Corp), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury), Bill Richardson (former Governor of New Mexico, ex-ambassador to the United Nations and United States Energy Secretary), Michael Steinhardt, Jacob Rothschild, and Mary Landrieu, former United States Senator from Louisiana. Frankly this looks like a great collection of right-wing evangelicals about whom this great song was written: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8B767itf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8B767itf0
belltaco 4y ago
Author of "Why we need a barrel of oil to cost $120" back in 2016 when oil was in the 40s. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-We-Need-120-Oil.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-We-Need-120-Oil.h...
redleggedfrog 4y ago
Start at page 11 (2010) and read backwards through the headlines, and maybe skim a bit. The message hasn't changed and the dire warnings don't match up to events years later. When things are down it looks right and when things are up it looks like hyperbole. I don't see what would appear to be actual insight and I suspect this is a shill for the oil industry. I'd like to see where she gets her money.
doodlebugging 4y ago
I hope everyone who made it to the bottom of the article ended up understanding that this person wrote a conspiratorial junk piece designed to undermine research and investment in sustainable energy sources.

51 points by harperlee 4y ago

I would like to dismiss this as just an alarmist conspiracy theory or something. Unfortunately, I have to consider the possibility that it is true, because failure to recognize or admit to the most severe problems, especially if they seem intractable, seems to be extremely common in daily life and history.

mistrial9 4y ago

How is it that efficiency is never discussed in public? Is it obvious that 'scarcity' fear words are played quickly, when talking to investors? check the writings from Rocky Mountain Institute / Amory Lovins for less scary, more quantitative view on energy and the economy.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Probably because the mentions of peak extraction of any fossil fuel has a tendency of coming together with arbitrary non-sequiturs like this: "Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations." If the peak oil discussion do not divorce from Apocalypse fantasizing, it will never popularize. (What is not a big issue, the public isn't a very relevant party on solving that one problem anyway, and Global Warming already takes care of getting the public's sympathy.)
- hef19898 4y ago
  Didn't we already have peak oil in the 80s? Anyway, if an analysis of the worlds respurces starts with "citizens can feel" I have a hard time taking it serious, this is about numbers, prices, distribution, transportation and the like. It is about how energy markets work to come up with prices. It is not about how people feel. That being said, gloval energy markets are screwed up right now, Russia is doing everything they can make it worse. And it is among the asiest way to generate clicks and traffic, after all we are still somewhat in the summer whole of news cycles.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Only the US peaked, IIRC, not the world. And even then only using the specifically limited types of oil that were common before fracking, which is a relevant distinction because "are we screwed?" is different from "did this model correctly predict decline of supply of $thing?"
- ben_w 4y ago
  I don't think peak oil is trying to be popular. There are two ways out of peak oil: The good outcome is we get alternatives (I've heard someone saying "the stone age didn't end for lack of stones", that is apt regardless of the original context of the quotation). PV etc. may be that alternative, I think they will be that alternative, but nothing is ever guaranteed until it is done. The bad outcomes are like the trees no longer on Easter Island or the phosphate mines of Nauru.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    One message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, what can we do to deal with it?" Another message is "One of our most important products will become scarce, prepare for the end of everything good!" One of those is constructive, and will get people to try to help you. The other one is destructive, and the best reaction people can have for it is to ostracize the message (and the messenger if he only has this to say). And about the outcome, well, the destructive one is lying, because the outcome is not certain.
ben_w 4y ago
Efficiency is publicly discussed in my experience. Generally in the form of people suggesting it can solve all our problems (be they energy efficiency or bureaucratic efficiency) without giving much consideration to the ever-present pressure to be as efficient as possible even in the absence of serious shortages, because "scarcity" is why energy isn't already zero cost.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > suggesting it can solve all our problems I would get away from the social media statements and more into research papers on this complex topic; even investor literature picked well will speak openly about pros and cons, with quantitative evidence to support it.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    The pros and cons of energy efficiency?
climate-code 4y ago
Energy efficiency is not a savior - increasing energy efficiency often leads to increases energy consumption, because of second & third order effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

AnotherGoodName 4y ago

Big companies are effectively 'apocalypse prepping' right now. This isn't your usual lone weirdo apocalypse prepper. These are mega corporations with the best advice possible. They are quickly enacting every method of frugality and internal rationing possible, far beyond what you'd expect from the current situation today. They know more than us. It's probably wise to follow their lead.

spookierookie 4y ago
Not sure I follow. How are they prepping? Can you say a few things more or past a link or two please?
- sp332 4y ago
  Freezing hiring, buying stock back, reducing risky investments to stockpile cash.
  - spookierookie 4y ago
    I'd call them recession-prepping but not apocalyptic.
  - gisely 4y ago
    Buying stock back is apocalypse prep?
    - sp332 4y ago
      Sure, when a company decides that investments or hiring are unlikely to pay off, but also that inflation is going to eat dollars.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        That's not apocalypse, though. That's just the normal economic cycle. If a company actually thought the apocalypse was coming, why would they buy back stock? The stock's going to be worthless, and so is the company. Use the cash to buy something that will be worth something in the apocalypse (food, bomb shelters, guns, maybe gold). If you actually believe the apocalypse is coming, buying corporate stock is a stupid response. So I don't believe your claim that stock buybacks indicate that corporations know the apocalypse is coming. Rough economic times, sure. Apocalypse, no.

rcarr 4y ago

“No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion. The real story is that we are already running short of oil, coal and natural gas because the direct and indirect costs of extraction are reaching a point where the selling price of food and other basic necessities needs to be unacceptably high to make the overall economic system work.“ This is the real problem and also the lie. The people to whom the prices are “unacceptably high” are the people at the top of the pyramid who would subsequently need to pay appropriate wages. I would hazard a guess that if you took the current wages of workers which have essentially stagnated and regressed for fifty years and raised them to where they would have been had they been increasing at their pre 1970s rate, and then compared that purchasing power to where prices are at now, all of a sudden the prices of things would not seem so out of whack. Executive suite are still getting ridiculous pay rises, investors are still getting ridiculous returns, meanwhile the same companies are continuing to try to shaft workers with below inflation pay rises. You cannot skim in this fashion indefinitely, eventually you get to the point we’re at now where the jig is up, you’ve put so much wealth at the top that it collapses the pillars holding the whole system up. You cannot just park billions of money in ‘safe’ assets (e.g housing) like Smaug the dragon because you’re afraid of losing money. The money represents resources. If you’re not smart enough or brave enough to choose worthwhile and worthy people and enterprises, organisations etc to invest the money in then you don’t deserve to have it and it should be reallocated via the mechanisms of the market to smarter people who do. Yet the government keep bailing out failing company or bank after failing company or bank rather than letting the natural reallocation occur. And so we end up with a zombie economy that preys on the living to feed the dead.

thrown_22 4y ago
You're making the mistake of thinking money means anything. Economics is a thin veneer we put over thermodynamics to make accounting easier. Whenever the thermodynamics doesn't work economics stops working either. The 1970s were a short period were thermodynamics were sub-optimal. The dark ages were a longer period. Money is ink on paper or bits in a computer. Neither of those things runs a tractor or lets water flow.
- andsoitis 4y ago

AndyMcConachie 4y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Russia is far "whiter" than the US. Venezuela's problem cannot be reduced simply to the US being evil / the West hating brown people. If you want to try that argument with Iran - why doesn't it work with KSA? It's more about geopolitics.
the_third_wave 4y ago
You must be a US-of-American or at least heavily influenced by their current culture seeing how easily you pull in terms like 'white people countries' in the discourse. It was not that long ago that people from your country were taught that skin colour only goes skin deep but the current crop of ideologues have not only forgotten that lesson but turned it upside-down. In other words, if all you can spout is racist discourse may I suggest you to do so in other places? While many good things have come from the USA this can not be said about these ideas so keep them to yourself and your comrades.

spookierookie 4y ago

"In physics terms, the world economy is a dissipative structure, just as all plants, animals and ecosystems are. " This reminds me of (spoiler alert) "Origins" book of Dan Brown.

hef19898 4y ago
The same Dan Brown who wrote books about the Illuminati and black holes being thrown out of helicopters above the vatican?

tpmx 4y ago

This article is primarily a lot of empty handwaving. It doesn't back up the headline.

hef19898 4y ago
For once I did read it before heading directly for the comments. Empty handwaving sums it up pretty well. Eitubsome click baiting for good measure.

wikitopian 4y ago

People keep carrying on about peak oil, climate change, and "corporate greed" because those are less humiliating conversations than admitting that Europe made a major tactical error in trying to sanction their primary energy supplier.

invalidname 4y ago
They didn't have a choice. What should they have done? Handed Ukraine while paying Putin for the privilege? There are lots of things they should have done: * Not shut down nuclear until they had alternatives * Reduced dependencies on Russian exports * Invested more in clean energy and reduced regulatory barriers to green projects Supporting Ukraine fully wasn't a mistake.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  How about making Ukraine observe ECRML rules instead of having a hundred NGOs actively promoting the ideas of suppressing Russian language use? How about not helping overthrow legally elected presidents?
  - invalidname 4y ago
    I have many Ukrainian friends. They aren't Russians and don't think of themselves as Russians. Why should they priorities that language when they want to be a part of the west more than they want to be a part of Russia? They elected a president who's policy is just that. The rebellion was against a puppet installed by Russia. You might not accept those facts and claim the west is lying here. That's an option and it won't be the first/last time that happened. In terms of track record for lying, I'm going to take the west as more reliable than the east. Pretty much all my Russian and Ukrainian friends would agree to that assertion.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      > The rebellion was against a puppet installed by Russia By the means of democratic general elections? They won't have to be a 'part' of Russia provided that they has observed some basic precautions, which I have listed and whose violations you are vehemently defending.

mjhay 4y ago

There's plenty of fossil fuels, even if marginal extraction costs are higher than they once were. If anything, the price is far too cheap for the negative externalities it causes.

chrisco255 4y ago
Negative externalities like what? Abundant food, cheap travel, and reduction in global poverty enabled by global supply chains? Certainly, it has been good for plant life: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
- mjhay 4y ago
  Oh, just ecological destruction, millions of deaths from air pollution, climate change, that kind of thing.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    What ecological destruction? There is more plant life by volume and leaf area on the planet now today than whenever you were born. CO2 is plant food. That's what carbohydrates are made of, H20+CO2. Warmth is generally far better for plants than freezing cold temperatures. There is no evidence of widespread ecological destruction from CO2. The argument has always been that warming would become some runaway greenhouse effect (note, greenhouses are good for plant growth) but that has not born out. It's 2022, crop yield is at all time human history highs right now. As shown in the satellite record, the leaf area index for plants is up 25-50% over the last couple decades across most land on Earth. See for yourself, the dark green areas are a whopping 50% increase: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... That means literally the opposite of what you think is happening. Anything that is good for the base layer of the food chain is generally good for all living things. We do not have millions of deaths from CO2. In fact, there are billions and billions of lives that would have never existed were it not for the miracle of modern day infrastructure and transportation systems, fertilizer made from mining minerals, farming equipment that enables massive efficiency, etc and that's all been powered by fossil fuels. Basically the whole industrial revolution that ultimately ended slavery and enabled humans to be the most prosperous they've ever been on a massive scale.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The switching between energy and fossil fuels is becoming more transparent. Energy problem? It's a high gas price problem. You can make fertilizer from Green Hydrogen, no methane needed. It's already being produced, with lots of big projects getting built, because it has less GHG emission, though it needs to ramp up. But that basically puts a limit on how high gas prices can go before it gets replaced for that (and many other uses). So, hopefully the production cost of fossil fuels is as bad as they claim, because that will speed things along. So Putin's got one last winter to try to rally the reactionaries of Europe to topple their democratic governments. I guess there's some small chance he'll succeed, but it's not going to stop China and Australia, Africa and the US rolling out renewables, so what does it actually gain them?

ceroxylon 4y ago

Ms. Tverberg seems to exclusively write panicked clickable headlines about oil and energy, dating back several years, with none of the prophecies/projections coming close to fruition. Not a lot of strong data in the article for such an extreme claim.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Agreed, this is a garbage article.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  On the plus side it cites economic data to back up its thesis, on the down side, it cites it from the Book of Revelation.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Sarcasm right? Kind of disturbing that the top thread here is dismissive without engagement with the arguments.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > We know that Revelation 18:11-13 in the Bible provides a list of a number of commodities, including humans sold as slaves, for which prices dropped very low at the time of the collapse of ancient Babylon.
      - eternalban 4y ago
        For the curious: (11) The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore: (12) cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; (13) cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves. [New International Version] The King James Version includes "souls": (11) And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: (12) The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, (13) And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

Gravityloss 4y ago

Food used to be more expensive and rents a lot lower. If the reason for rent growth was that people were able to afford it, then probably rents (excluding energy part) will go down.

rdedev 4y ago

The article talks about how Saudi Arabia is not reinvesting it's profits on expanding oil extraction and chalks it onto higher costs to extract said oil without any proof. Another completely valid explanation is that the Saudi govt knows they can make pretty good profits for some time if they don't increase supply

bequanna 4y ago
Lucky for the Saudis (and other unfriendly nations) the current regime in the US has handed them all the pricing power as the US Gov't does everything possible to hinder domestic exploration/production.
Ekaros 4y ago
And it is not like oil goes bad when it is in ground. Much better to make more money on the cheap to extract stuff and then later some money with more costly to extract oil. Also there is consideration what to use the extra money now. If there really isn't need for it, why even get it.

carlivar 4y ago

I don't believe this in a majority of my brain, but the thought has crossed my mind that China's draconian COVID response is to hide their real estate collapse and other macroeconomic problems.

ripper1138 4y ago
Their COVID response is mainly about control. for a time it was also about nationalism (look at how many people are dying in the west). At this point it’s control and a little bit of Xi not wanting to change the policy until after he has secured another term.
- carlivar 4y ago
  But that can also be true. Global economic stuff is out of China's control so how better to hide it than with something where they are in control?

irthomasthomas 4y ago

They recently found the largest oil fields in the world under the Golan Heights, and I don't think those have come online yet. So, I don't think we are quite at peak oil, yet.

doodlebugging 4y ago
>They recently found the largest oil fields in the world under the Golan Heights There is no way anything under the Golan Heights comes close to the largest oilfields in the world. The Golan Heights only cover an area of about 690 square miles. The Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia is more than 3200 square miles by itself. It is around 85m thick, and with the field described in your sources being 350m the math doesn't work in your favor especially when you consider that the entirety of the formation they claim to have discovered would have to be productive over the full extent of the Golan Heights. That is unlikely especially in light of their most recent updates shown below. The articles that I could find describing Golan Heights discoveries all use hyperbolic descriptions of oil potential combined with selected messianic prophecies of what it means for Israel and the world as relates to Old Testament scripture. I spent 40 years in the oil and gas business including several years working on data from the Eastern Mediterranean acquired as a joint venture between countries bordering the region. This geophysical work resulted in significant gas well discoveries in the region. Oil is found with those wells as expected but not in life-changing quantities to the best of my knowledge. None of the partner countries will be self-sufficient as a result of those discoveries. Until he died, there was a local geologist who became somewhat famous for his attempts to find oil mentioned in the Bible. His plan was to help fulfill prophecy by discovering the oil that would make Israel self-sufficient and bring about the second Temple. He worked for years spending lots of other people's money and Israel still was not self-sufficient. The oil discovery that you refer to is not being produced today and may not even be commercial. Add to that the fact that the well(s) were drilled in territory recognized to belong to Syria and cracks form in the story. Then you start to look at the players involved - the company is Genie Energy based in New Jersey. (from Wikipedia - this line gives a bit of historical information about their efforts) > In November 2017, the company announced that it suspended its exploratory drilling program as the well's target zone does not contain commercially producible quantities of oil or natural gas.[23] The link to the article [23] cited in Wikipedia: [23] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-suspends-exploratory-oil-and-gas-drilling-program-in-northern-israel-300558113.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genie-energy-suspen... Their strategic advisory board has these common names (from Wikipedia) > Dick Cheney since 2009 (former vice president of the United States), Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of News Corp), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury), Bill Richardson (former Governor of New Mexico, ex-ambassador to the United Nations and United States Energy Secretary), Michael Steinhardt, Jacob Rothschild, and Mary Landrieu, former United States Senator from Louisiana. Frankly this looks like a great collection of right-wing evangelicals about whom this great song was written: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8B767itf0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8B767itf0

belltaco 4y ago

Author of "Why we need a barrel of oil to cost $120" back in 2016 when oil was in the 40s. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-We-Need-120-Oil.html https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-We-Need-120-Oil.h...

redleggedfrog 4y ago

Start at page 11 (2010) and read backwards through the headlines, and maybe skim a bit. The message hasn't changed and the dire warnings don't match up to events years later. When things are down it looks right and when things are up it looks like hyperbole. I don't see what would appear to be actual insight and I suspect this is a shill for the oil industry. I'd like to see where she gets her money.

doodlebugging 4y ago

I hope everyone who made it to the bottom of the article ended up understanding that this person wrote a conspiratorial junk piece designed to undermine research and investment in sustainable energy sources.