Comments on: Why the IEA’s 2012 World Energy Outlook Could Be Wrong

By: Rick K.

Rick K. — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:35:04 +0000

Energy independence by
Energy independence by increased production of oil and gas is simply not sustainable. It must and will run out eventually. North American self sufficiency is possible but it requires a steady reduction in fossil fuel use and a steady switch to sustainable and renewable sources of energy. This may require major changes in lifestyle but growth in the meantime should not be curtailed. Rising prices for oil and gas should effect most necessary changes in time but may not happen without some intermediate crises in supply.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:30:01 +0000

David E.:
David E.: Yes, those of us who see the bigger picture and understand the role of organizations like the IEA usually know not to take their prognostications too seriously. Many people don't know that, however, and my post here is to help put things in perspective.

Cameron T.: Even more important than moving to renewables, perhaps, is figuring out how to use less energy overall.

Lucas D.: Thanks for the link to Tom Murphy's article. I hadn't seen that one. For those who want to check it out, here's a clickable link:

Ruthless Extrapolation

.

By: Lucas Durand

Lucas Durand — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:00:36 +0000

Hi Allison,
Hi Allison,
I think this is a good summary post…
To be sure, there is a lot of “white noise” out there these days and it is difficult to filter through it all for what might actually be something like truth, so it is good to see people like yourself making the effort to present balanced summaries.
Have you seen Tom Murphy’s post on “Ruthless extrapolation”?
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/06/ruthless-extrapolation/ 

Of course, “ruthless extrapolation” cuts boths ways, but it seems to be in very common use with proponents of BAU.
Personally, I always get suspicious about anything that seems to be built on a tower of “ifs” (like a large-scale build out of renewable energy infrastructure).
I think it is wise to be unassuming about anthing to do with the future.

By: Cameron Taylor

Cameron Taylor — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:25:03 +0000
I'm rather new to the peak
I'm rather new to the peak oil world, having my interest in it piqued (pun not intended but inevitable) by this very blog, which contained a link to Al Bartlett's talks on the subject. I have also read "The Long Emergency" (TLE), spent time on peakoil.com and theoildrum.com. Therefore I'm already seeing a healthy variety of what the significance of peak oil may be, ranging from exponetial growth is sustainable forever regardless of any data to the contrary (thereby negating peak oil) to TLE's "we're screwed, so get ready" essence. To study this subject thoroughly I believe it's necessary to understand the extents of the peak oil spectrum.

At this point I would say we're in for some bumpy weather ahead, but as for it being "we're screwed, so get ready", that depends on how well we can transition from finite to renewables, if that's even possible with current levels of world population growth. I do know, without citing countless sources, that our current way of living here in the USA is NOT perpetually sustainable. Industry and population cannot grow forever without consequence.

I also, from the moment I first heard the IEA story break on the news, felt from the start that something wasn't right about it. I'm glad to see you include this discussion in your blog, as it really merits discussion, beyond mere academic ponderance.

By: David Elfstrom

David Elfstrom — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:00:18 +0000
Funny, I don't give any
Funny, I don't give any weight to the IEA's predictions on fossil fuel production, so I ignored the whole kerfuffle over the 2012 report's US production estimates.

What intrigued me much more was the report's indication that over two-thirds of fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground. Nice to see them coming around to this. At the other end of the spectrum is 350.org saying that four-fifths must remain in the ground. So perhaps the real answer lies somewhere in between.

By: Allison Bailes

Allison Bailes — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:28:26 +0000
M. Johnson
M. Johnson: What I find even more interesting is the pie-in-the-sky psychology of people who believe the party can go on forever. To your point about predicting the end of civilization, though, yes, there are some peak oilers who do that, but most of us believe that it means significant change from the way we've lived for the past century. Collapse is one possible scenario but not inevitable.

By: M. Johnson

M. Johnson — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:50:47 +0000
Well yes military stategists
Well yes military stategists can be completely, totally wrong. Think about the Maginot Line as a military strategy.

The IEA could be wrong also, forecasting is notoriously difficult. The takeaway I see is, there ARE significant changes in the geology and technology being used, and it all is a step away from the fear which is promoted by peak-oil enthusiasts. There is something weirdly stimulating about predicting the end of civilization... and I think the endocrine system plays some role in the patterns of the various Chicken Little theories (of which there are many).