Peak Water/Peak Oil

[The American]

Which is a more pressing issue, peak water, or peak oil? Are they real threats or far-off possibilities? I keep hearing people talk about them but they never come up with hard facts that show how far down the road peak oil/water will affect us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Which is a more pressing issue, peak water, or peak oil? Are they real threats or far-off possibilities? I keep hearing people talk about them but they never come up with hard facts that show how far down the road peak oil/water will affect us.These are real issues but I don't know if there is a scientific consensus about when these things will begin to effect us.

It seems like the US military sees conflicts over water as a distinct possibility and they have been trying to develop liquid-coal that can be used for military vehicles in case petrol supplies are interrupted.

The one thing about peak oil is that there are still large coal reserves and reserves of that sand-oil stuff they are destroying the north of north America to dig up. The end of oil (really the end of profitable extraction and use of oil) will only be a slight bump for the ruling class because they are willing to switch to far more harmful and dangerous alternatives to keep the profit-monster eating. But for the earth and the people on it who can't build hurricane-proof temperature controlled shelters for themselves, Manchester during the industrial revolution would be an oasis in comparison.

In the short-term, the danger of resource conflicts and decreased oil access comes much more in the form of war and potential imperialist all-out war. The US and China are already jockeying for the strategic upper-hand in Africa, and the wars in the middle east are more for America to control oil going to China and Europe than to get more oil for America itself. Personally I think a huge war between major powers is the more likely result in the short-term. Capitalism may not even get a chance to destroy the earth or use up all the oil.:(

[thesadmafioso]

It is hard to say how the transition from oil to alternative fuels will go, but it is very likely that the transition will be as late as possible and that it will not exactly go over as smoothly as people would like it to. All of the worlds oil has already been discovered and at the current time humanity is using more oil than it is discovering on a yearly basis, so all of the facts to show the trend of peak oil are quite clear. Given this information and the lack of movement towards putting alternative fuels into greater use, it is easy enough to predict that the world will hold onto oil usage for as long as possible, which will inevitably make the switch away from it all the more difficult. Most every facet of the modern globalized economy is heavily dependent upon oil, meaning that the entire global economy will need to either shift its dependency to another reliable and widely available energy source or that it will need to become far more localized. Either way, the economic ramification will be very serious, though it is hard to say how they will effect the actual makeup of capitalism itself. Regardless, peak oil looks to be an issue of tremendous significance in years to come and I would say its importance is more than that of something like peak water, which is a conflict thatlooks to be based more in the logistics of water management, a relatively easy issue to overcome when compared to something like peak oil.

[Fulanito de Tal]

This is a documentary on destroying the planet and they discuss what oil is used for, how acquiring effects the environment, and using it as well. My summary does not do it justice though. If you have the time, I recommend you watch it. It gave me understanding of our huge dependence on oil.

jqxENMKaeCU

I've seen it available in Russian, Arabic, and Spanish on YouTube as well.

[Ocean Seal]

Which is a more pressing issue, peak water, or peak oil? Are they real threats or far-off possibilities? I keep hearing people talk about them but they never come up with hard facts that show how far down the road peak oil/water will affect us.
The truth is no one knows. I can speculate that peak water won't necessarily be a problem because of improved filtration methods and the potential for a better distribution. However, oil is limited and once its gone we have no method for reproducing it, or getting it from somewhere else. But then again oil could be replaced with alternatives, but that's less likely to happen given the oil companies reluctance to lose their cash cow.

[Magón]

It depends on who you ask. For some, Peak Oil had already happened, and has just plateaued, or is already starting to go on the decline. Now most who theorize about Peak Oil, don't think that oil itself will completely go away, just that all the easy to reach oil will be gone, and we'll have to start trying for more harder to reach oil spots like in the Gulf of Mexico, and other offshore drilling areas. Which in fact, most of the easy to reach oil that is found nowadays, isn't on land, and is in fact out in the seas and oceans, which makes it harder to reach.

I haven't looked into Peak Water all that much, but what little I have researched on it, the threat of Peak Water is a lot more threatening than Peak Oil is, but in todays world, it's obviously not as big of a threat as most people think it is. (Oil trumps Water any day to people in this world, sadly, they don't realize it's actually the other way around.)

For some Peak Oil insight, here's some links to Hubbert's Peak Theory, and some books I've read on the matter.

Hubbert's Peak Theory Link 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert%27s_peak_theory)

Hubbert's Peak Theory Link 2 (http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1589.shtml)

Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage (Book) (http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691141193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295283859&sr=1-1)

The Part's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (Book) (http://www.amazon.com/Partys-Over-Fate-Industrial-Societies/dp/0865715297/ref=pd_sim_b_4)

The Long Emergency (Book) (http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/0802142494/ref=pd_sim_b_2)

Powderdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (Book) (http://www.amazon.com/Powerdown-Options-Actions-Post-Carbon-World/dp/0865715106/ref=pd_sim_b_16)

[revolution inaction]

I havnt looked at peak water at all, but it sounds like a vary regional thing, i really dont seen any danger of this in places where there is lots of rain like europe.

[Magón]

I havnt looked at peak water at all, but it sounds like a vary regional thing, i really dont seen any danger of this in places where there is lots of rain like europe.

If the UK only got their water through rain or snow, it still wouldn't be enough to keep them going like nowadays. Same goes for the US and anywhere else.

[Tablo]

This is a documentary on destroying the planet and they discuss what oil is used for, how acquiring effects the environment, and using it as well. My summary does not do it justice though. If you have the time, I recommend you watch it. It gave me understanding of our huge dependence on oil.

I've seen it available in Russian, Arabic, and Spanish on YouTube as well.
Just watched. I enjoyed it. :)

[revolution inaction]

If the UK only got their water through rain or snow, it still wouldn't be enough to keep them going like nowadays. Same goes for the US and anywhere else.

a large proportion of the uk does get its water from rain/snow

[Magón]

a large proportion of the uk does get its water from rain/snow

That's just one place though, and most of the world that does get rain or snow, couldn't depend on it as their only source of water, because you also have to take into account the amount of people, water they consume, drought, etc.

Simply put, there are too many variables that are against people getting all their water from rain or snow alone. Even places like Washington State or Oregon, in the Pacific North West, where it rains a lot there, (probably as much as in the UK in some places,) couldn't depend on their yearly water supply without coming up short.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's just one place though, and most of the world that does get rain or snow, couldn't depend on it as their only source of water, because you also have to take into account the amount of people, water they consume, drought, etc.

Simply put, there are too many variables that are against people getting all their water from rain or snow alone. Even places like Washington State or Oregon, in the Pacific North West, where it rains a lot there, (probably as much as in the UK in some places,) couldn't depend on their yearly water supply without coming up short.

Well the most significant variable factor is Capitalism and production for profit. In the US, water-use does not coincide with population levels, it coincides with agribusiness (40% of US water use) which relies on heavy irrigation and destroys a lot of useful water in crop production. This water could potentially be recaptured and reused, but pesticides and industrial chemicals get into the waste water making it useless. "Flood Irrigation" is the most widely used form of irrigation by agribusiness and in places like here in California (the leader in farming and water use among individual US states) about 50% of irrigation is "flood" irrigation. In some southern states up to 80% is "flood irrigation". Controlling water (preventing restrictions on farm-water-use, preventing regulations) is one of Agribusiness' biggest efforts here in California.

A lot of industrial water is re-used because it is used in cooling and use of water by populations is only 13% (which I think includes private homes as well as public areas like parks and municipal buildings) so spraying down your car or leaving the water running while you brush your teeth is needlessly wasteful, but don't believe the hype, it's not the major problem with wasting water.

The best thing for slowing problems of decreased water would be an overhaul on current agribusiness methods. From a liberal perspective, regulations and incentives could be given to encourage drip and other forms of irrigation where possible, but from our perspective, agriculture needs to be done on a totally different basis for a variety of reasons, not just water. Considering that "liberal" California would rather force people to stop watering lawns (no big loss IMO) and restrict personal use that do anything to interfere with ag's unlimited use of water, I don't hold much hope for the liberals to act quickly and decisively enough to make the needed changes while there's still time.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'd say peak oil is the more pressing concern, however don't let the doomers like Kunstler fool you into thinking it will be the end of civilization. There's a whole industry devoted to scaring the shit out of curious people and intimidating them with figures. They always attempt to dismiss all the options in between life as we know it and imminent destruction as "to little, to late." Of course this takes a great amount of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

I know I plug this blog quite a lot, but it really is that good:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html

And if you want to hear the Doomer side of things, they are quite vocal in the comment section.

[Psy]

These are real issues but I don't know if there is a scientific consensus about when these things will begin to effect us.

It seems like the US military sees conflicts over water as a distinct possibility and they have been trying to develop liquid-coal that can be used for military vehicles in case petrol supplies are interrupted.

The one thing about peak oil is that there are still large coal reserves and reserves of that sand-oil stuff they are destroying the north of north America to dig up. The end of oil (really the end of profitable extraction and use of oil) will only be a slight bump for the ruling class because they are willing to switch to far more harmful and dangerous alternatives to keep the profit-monster eating. But for the earth and the people on it who can't build hurricane-proof temperature controlled shelters for themselves, Manchester during the industrial revolution would be an oasis in comparison.

In the short-term, the danger of resource conflicts and decreased oil access comes much more in the form of war and potential imperialist all-out war. The US and China are already jockeying for the strategic upper-hand in Africa, and the wars in the middle east are more for America to control oil going to China and Europe than to get more oil for America itself. Personally I think a huge war between major powers is the more likely result in the short-term. Capitalism may not even get a chance to destroy the earth or use up all the oil.:(
The real problem with peak oil is a peak production rate where diminishing rates of returns gets to the point you are using more labor value then you get back in the increase in exchange value thus shrinking surplus value as production passes the peak production rate even without factoring in the devaluation of commodities as production increases.

For lets say it takes 1 hours of labor to produce 2 tonnes of oil a hour followed by

2 hours of labor to produce 4 tonnes of oil in a hour
4 hours of labor to produce 7.5 tonnes of oil in hour
8 hours of labor to produce 9.5 tonnes of oil in a hour
16 hours of labor to produce 9.6 tonnes of oil in a hour
32 hours of labor to produce 9.7 tonnes of oil in a hour
64 hours of labor to produce 9.8 tonnes of oil in a hour
128 hours of labor to produce 9.9 tonnes of oil in a hour.

[Magón]

Well the most significant variable factor is Capitalism and production for profit. In the US, water-use does not coincide with population levels, it coincides with agribusiness (40% of US water use) which relies on heavy irrigation and destroys a lot of useful water in crop production. This water could potentially be recaptured and reused, but pesticides and industrial chemicals get into the waste water making it useless. "Flood Irrigation" is the most widely used form of irrigation by agribusiness and in places like here in California (the leader in farming and water use among individual US states) about 50% of irrigation is "flood" irrigation. In some southern states up to 80% is "flood irrigation". Controlling water (preventing restrictions on farm-water-use, preventing regulations) is one of Agribusiness' biggest efforts here in California.

A lot of industrial water is re-used because it is used in cooling and use of water by populations is only 13% (which I think includes private homes as well as public areas like parks and municipal buildings) so spraying down your car or leaving the water running while you brush your teeth is needlessly wasteful, but don't believe the hype, it's not the major problem with wasting water.

The best thing for slowing problems of decreased water would be an overhaul on current agribusiness methods. From a liberal perspective, regulations and incentives could be given to encourage drip and other forms of irrigation where possible, but from our perspective, agriculture needs to be done on a totally different basis for a variety of reasons, not just water. Considering that "liberal" California would rather force people to stop watering lawns (no big loss IMO) and restrict personal use that do anything to interfere with ag's unlimited use of water, I don't hold much hope for the liberals to act quickly and decisively enough to make the needed changes while there's still time.

Couldn't agree more, and that's the problem we're having when it comes to Peak Water. Not just here in Cali, but all over the world as well. The lack of concern by Liberals, Conservatives, etc. is growing in a way, and people take these water conservation commercials like they do with any other commercial on TV or Radio. They don't realize that we could actually be saving water properly, rather than wasting it to a spoiled crop, or whatever else.

There's even a group on my campus, (not very big by the way) that's always speaking about water conservation to students and teachers, doesn't grasp what can be done to conserve water.



I'd say peak oil is the more pressing concern, however don't let the doomers like Kunstler fool you into thinking it will be the end of civilization. There's a whole industry devoted to scaring the shit out of curious people and intimidating them with figures. They always attempt to dismiss all the options in between life as we know it and imminent destruction as "to little, to late." Of course this takes a great amount of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

I know I plug this blog quite a lot, but it really is that good:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/07/307-confessions-of-ex-doomer.html

And if you want to hear the Doomer side of things, they are quite vocal in the comment section.

I don't think Kunstler's as doomsday-esque as you think he is anymore. Maybe in '07 or '08, but the past couple of years, he's actually just stuck to predictions and the sort that aren't so grim and end of civilization as we know it. (Sure some of them are grim still, but that's only because most people focus on the grim outlook he gives, rather than the other things he says.)

And he does have good sources and the like to back up what he's saying, unlike others who are doomsday "prophets", and their words are really hollow.



The real problem with peak oil is a peak production rate where diminishing rates of returns gets to the point you are using more labor value then you get back in the increase in exchange value thus shrinking surplus value as production passes the peak production rate even without factoring in the devaluation of commodities as production increases.

For lets say it takes 1 hours of labor to produce 2 tonnes of oil a hour followed by

2 hours of labor to produce 4 tonnes of oil in a hour
4 hours of labor to produce 7.5 tonnes of oil in hour
8 hours of labor to produce 9.5 tonnes of oil in a hour
16 hours of labor to produce 9.6 tonnes of oil in a hour
32 hours of labor to produce 9.7 tonnes of oil in a hour
64 hours of labor to produce 9.8 tonnes of oil in a hour
128 hours of labor to produce 9.9 tonnes of oil in a hour.

You also have to take into account, (this maybe getting to detailed for what you're trying to point out,) but you also have to look at where you're oil's coming from, the amount estimated in the surveys, etc. to be there, and that sort of thing. You can't just go off hours and the labor that produces the oil. We'd have more oil in the world, and still probably be pumping out of places like Baku, if we just went off what you're describing.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't think Kunstler's as doomsday-esque as you think he is anymore. Maybe in '07 or '08, but the past couple of years, he's actually just stuck to predictions and the sort that aren't so grim and end of civilization as we know it. (Sure some of them are grim still, but that's only because most people focus on the grim outlook he gives, rather than the other things he says.)

And he does have good sources and the like to back up what he's saying, unlike others who are doomsday "prophets", and their words are really hollow.

Truth be told I haven't been keeping up on Kunstler, I'll put his blog in my RSS and see what comes up. :)