User:Americanus/future energy

Due to the reality of peak oil and my inability to find anyone that is working on a realistic solution to fixing it thoughfully, I am going to use this page to begin working on a strategy that can be implemented globally to not only allow survival, but to bring prosperity.

In advance, I would like to say that I am not 100% sure about anything at all.

I am also going to be fielding a lot of ideas which are beyond my area of expertise. It is going to take a concerted effort of people with a wide range of knowledge to come up with a plan that won't end up destroying some portion of humanity, the environment, or our constructed infrastructure.

While I expect there may be critics. They may say that my proposals are illogical, unfeasible or naive. My concern is how to make prosperity happen. I have no doubt that a plan will initially be very full of holes and flaws. As people begin collaborating, it will become stronger and more realistic.

This situation is very much like a strategy game, where winning can occur long before the game begins. For example, if I were to play chess against my young nephew, I would win, because I have prepared long in advance.

Thank you in advance for your reading and consideration. If you are ready to join the effort, please let me know on the talk page.

I hope you enjoy this article and explore some of these ideas throughout the wikipedia, the Internet, and print literature.

Prosperity through Peak Oil

The next generation of humans will be living in a world free from fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are currently be used at an ever accelarating rate. Currently, supply is keeping up with demand, but estimates predict that global oil supply will go into permanet decline. One estimate cites 2007 for the year of the decline. In order for humans to make the change from an oil rich world to an oil free world, a strategy must be devised to make the transition.

Decreasing Demand

Decreasing demand is one way to lenghten the time humans have to make the transition. But decreasing demand is not as simple as it seems. Purchasing less gasoline does not necessarily lead to decreased demand for oil, in fact, it can cause increased demand. The reason behind this lies with where the money is going that would have been spent on the gasoline.

For example, if a person would normally purchase 100 gallons of gasoline in a month, they might be able to decreasing use to 80 gallons per month by driving more energy efficiently, mowing the lawn less frequently, planning trips more carefully, and sharing rides. If gasoline and oil prices remained steady during this time, with gasoline at $3 per gallon, for instance, then the person would reduce their direct purchase cost from $300 per month to $240 per month.

The enigma comes when the person decides what to do with the $60 they would have spent on gasoline. If they spend that $60 buy things, they may increase the demand for oil. Some products that people buy use very large amounts of oil in their production. Plastics, foams, foods and many other products use significant amounts of oil not only in the production, but also in the delivery and storage.

The effect is similar if the person saves the $60 in a bank. The bank will now have more money to loan out, which after borrowed, will be spent, again very possibly on oil rich products or services.

If the person keeps the money at home, in their safe, they have prevented spending, but they have also slowed the economy by some very small but measurable amount. One person saving an extra $60 per month at home will not effect the economy, but if a significant fraction of people were doing the same thing, the economy would be slowed, sales would slow, prices would drop, and layoffs would ensue.

So what is the solution? It seems that the best solution would be to spend the money, at the same rate as it would have been spent before the gasoline saving measures were enacted, BUT that the spending be focused only on products and services that required LESS oil than the amount used in making the gasoline. This might mean purchasing more local services, locally grown foods, or other low oil consumption products. Of course, this would cause a shift in the money from the oil using companies and industries to ones that use less, and an employment shift would follow, unless industries adjusted by diversifying into high energy and low energy fields.

Problem of Decreasing Use

Decreasing use is a problem in its own right. If use decreases faster than production, then oil prices will fall, demand may increase, and use may exceed supply, leading to rising prices.

The best situation is for the use of oil to decline just barely ahead of declining production. Variations in production are normal, and yet use follows a very cyclical nature as more oil is used for heating in the Northern Hemisphere in the winter. In order to carefully balance production with use, a large reserve would be needed to store oil to accomodate times of high use when production is lower.

War

A living thing will by nature do everything in its power to survive.

Imagine yourself in front of a button. If you press the button, you will be killed. If you don't press the button, a stranger will be killed. If you push the button, you are choosing compassion. If you don't push the button, you are choosing survival.

There are several variations on the button scenario.

Button causes pain rather than death.
You are in pain and while you hold the button, the pain is transferred to the stranger.
You can see the stranger.

War is when a group decides that survival (or life) is a higher value than compassion. All groups with this value system are, by definition, at war. Currently, the United States is at war with the Middle East.

Peace

The ulitmate benevolent goal of societry is to ensure that all groups will survive, avoid conflict, and prosper. In order to avoid conflict, groups must work together. It is possible to have periods free from conflict even while some are at war.

A long term goal is to ensure that none are at war. In order to do this, each group must decide that compassion is a higher value than survival (or life). Jesus and Ghandi taught that compassion is always the correct choice. They emphasised the concept of self-suffering. In Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, he taught people to turn the other cheek and not to resist evil. Jesus exemplified self-suffering when he suffered to death for his beliefs. Ghandi taught ahimsa and satyagraha. He worked extensively in India throughout his life.

User:Americanus/future energy

Prosperity through Peak Oil

Decreasing Demand

Problem of Decreasing Use

War

Peace

See also

Americanus

Wikipedia Articles

Web Sites

Web Logs

Static Articles

Awareness Items