- #71
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,524
- 10,872
It's a paraphrase, not a quote, so I guess...yeah, you're right! But it is exactly what he meant.apeiron said:That is not exactly what the article quotes Campbell as saying.
Yes, he says that - he actually believes it was 2005. But even that characterization "the era of cheap oil" is different from the more straightforward supply peak that peak oil used to be about.For example...
1) The era of cheap oil has peaked, or is very close to peaking.
He doesn't mention that and in any case, I don't agree. Regular nuclear power is cheap precisely because it is high output for the input - and would be even a lot cheaper still if we didn't have fake political barriers. Regular nuclear power could provide for the vast majority of our energy needs, assuming a phase-in conversion of a large fraction of our cars to electric. The fusion and nanotechnology quip - that's just technobabble/non sequitur.2) The EROEI of known alternatives are not in the same ballpark (though maybe we will crack fusion, do something magical with nanotechnology, etc).
What it means is that the doom and gloom scenario assumes/requires an extremely low price elasticity of supply and the evidence from the recent recession implies a more reasonable level of elasticity.3) This is not a classic Economics 101 supply and demand equilbrium equation as we are talking about a finite resource and a supply inelasticity (with no easy substitutions, see 2).
That's all non sequitur. It has nothing to do with energy. I have a nuclear power plant 5 miles from my house and am confident I'll always have the power I need to run my computer and big-screen home theater system. If a lack of oil means I have to buy an electric car in a few years, so be it. I'll be fine. You think that's "consumerism" and a bad thing? Fine, but it doesn't have any bearing here.Will they move smoothly towards a power-down scenario where they kiss goodbye to the old consumerism that never really made them happy in the first place? (And I really hope that is the case, hence my warm feelings for Transition Towns, Oooby, Permaculture and other nascent social responses).
This "reverse de-growth mode" is the doom-and-gloom, collapse of civilization type scenario that is the essence of "Peak Oil" and is now what he is saying he doesn't believe will happen! You can't learn it in an economics class because it isn't economics, it's just fearmongering. But you can learn why it is just fearmongering by understanding elasticity in your econ 101 class.Economics 101 does not teach energy descent - how to run an economy smoothly in the reverse de-growth mode. I doubt you even get to study that in 401.
I don't see this change of position to be a very good marketing strategy. The decrease in fearmongering will result in a decrease in demand for books on peak oil! Though perhaps the strategy works as a hedge against having to keep pushing back the date of peak oil.
Last edited: