A good fortune for one man, means less for some

[Firn]

'Brief' local shortages, surely, 'sustained' system-wide shortages, surely not...humans are way too adaptable...when we ran out of caves, we built....

Ask yourself, who is it that definitively knows where the brain-pan currently resides that will help our species to leap today's perceived hurdles? Perhaps that answer should guide our actions in the world...

I think a key matter will be how a brief global shortage of a central element of our modern society, like petroleum will influence the global economy. Today it's slice of the costs in manufacturing most goods and transporting them over the sea is pretty small. A sustained high price should have a ripple effect, allowing for the extraction of so far too costly sources of fossil fuels, make alternative energetic sources more attractive and shift demand away from uses such as heating. The big question is just how smoothly and quickly such adaptions can happen and how far the finite ressourcs can be streched.

[Surferbeetle]

I think a key matter will be how a brief global shortage of a central element of our modern society, like petroleum will influence the global economy. Today it's slice of the costs in manufacturing most goods and transporting them over the sea is pretty small. A sustained high price should have a ripple effect, allowing for the extraction of so far too costly sources of fossil fuels, make alternative energetic sources more attractive and shift demand away from uses such as heating. The big question is just how smoothly and quickly such adaptions can happen and how far the finite ressourcs can be streched.

Firn,

Energy disruption resulting from today's geopolitical situation will of course have varying political and economic consequences depending upon one's location, however I do not see it as resulting in the extinguishment of our species. Anything less than the absolute worst case can be dealt with....find a way, make a way!

Leider habe ich diese bucher nur auf englisch, aber, IMHO they are worth the read:

• For context on our global petroleum economy:

Daniel Yergin's The Prize and The Quest

• For an excellent in depth technical counterpoint to petroleum dependency:

Dr. George A. Olah (Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry), Dr. Alain Goeppert, and Dr. G.K. Surya Prakash, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy

• For a 'how-to' hobby (if only there was enough time ):

Joshua Tickell, From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank

And for a quick read...

Gas Bears Up Bets on Catastrophic Surplus, By Asjylyn Loder, January 16, 2012 11:03 AM EST, Bloomberg News

Hedge funds turned bearish on U.S. natural gas for the first time in eight weeks as a surplus and warmer-than-normal weather pushed the price of the heating fuel to the lowest level in more than two years.

The funds and other large speculators switched from bets that futures will rise to a bearish, or short, position of a net 10,344 futures equivalents in the week ended Jan. 10, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commissions Commitments of Traders report on Jan. 13.

Natural gas plunged 13 percent last week on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the biggest decline since August 2009, after forecasts showed above-average temperatures through January. Stockpiles in the week ended Jan. 6 stood at 3.377 trillion cubic feet, 17 percent above the five-year average, the U.S. Energy Department reported on Jan. 12.

Storage slipped 95 billion cubic feet in the week ended Jan. 6, compared with a five-year average decline of 128 billion, the Energy Department reported. Inventories rose to an all-time high of 3.852 trillion cubic feet on Nov. 18.

Supplies may reach a seasonal record of 2.4 trillion cubic feet in March, which is when heating demand usually ends and producers begin piping more gas into storage, Cooper said. Unless production falls or cold weather bolsters demand, prices will drop to $2.40 per million Btu, and perhaps below $2, as gas overflows storage caverns and clogs pipelines, he said.

This is a situation that has never been seen before, Cooper said. If we hit 2.4 trillion, youre looking at storage capacity constraints by July or August where you literally have system problems because the system is so full.

Oil refiners: Europe runs out of gas, Lex, January 8, 2012 5:45 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

Vanishing operating margins and chronic overcapacity. No, not the airline industry. Think Europe’s oil refineries. Petroplus, a Swiss refining company, is dangerously close to collapse. Nine European refineries have closed since mid-2008 and 2.6m barrels a day of refining capacity has been removed from advanced economies since the global financial crisis, according to the International Energy Agency. Moreover, operating margins were negative in November. There could be more casualties ahead.

A decisive shift in the equation of global energy supply, Roger Altman, January 2, 2012, The A-List, Financial Times, www.ft.com

Since the embargo of 1973, there has been a global preoccupation with the centrality of oil, its supply, its cost and the international politics of it. As economies grew and global demand for energy increased, oil and gas exploration and production increasingly moved to distant and politically unstable countries, such as Russia, Iraq, Libya, Iran and Venezuela. At the same time, Opec rose to power; the US military assumed protection of the Persian Gulf; and concerns grew that the world might run out of oil.

This difficult era is now approaching an end, and technology is the main reason. New techniques of exploring and drilling in very deep water and tar sands have been developed. New approaches to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have made it possible to extract deposits of oil and especially gas profitably from shale. The implications are huge. Vast reserves of natural gas are now accessible, and the role of gas in world energy supply is growing fast. Within 25 years, gas should outstrip coal to become the second biggest source of global supply, behind oil. This is positive because gas is much cleaner than coal.

[AmericanPride]

Firn,

I don't see a dramatic or apocalyptic end to the age of oil for humanity in general, though it may more difficult for some states to manage than others. Estimates vary, though I think it's safe to conclude that there's enough recoverable oil to supply the global economy for about a half century or so. States and corporations are already posturing themselves for transition by exploring alternative (and renewable) energy resources. The end of the oil age may mark the end of the current global regime (at least as how we know it), depending on what emerges to replace it and who is best positioned to exploit it. Natural gas seems to be an obvious answer, but it's little more than extension, since consumption-wise, there's plenty of uncertainty and most estimates point to a longevity similar to that of oil. So, a transition is underway, slowly and surely, but without a clear end in sight, nor a clear picture of the winners and losers in the potential outcomes.

[Bill Moore]

If you let this discussion degenerate to discussions on oil it will turn into spin pieces published by those who have the money to buy the research results they want to project, no different than global warming. The truth on these topics are hidden behind a think veneer of spin.

There are plenty of other commodities where secure access to will become increasingly competitive and potentially lead to conflict such as water, farm land, fishing areas, access to precious metals, food, etc. We're seeing chest bumping over fossil fuels in the Asia-Pacific, but we're seeing more aggressive chest bumping over access to fishing rights. Having to pay $5.00/gal for gas is one thing, not being able to put on the table is another.

Watching the demographics in certain countries like China, there will soon be a lot lusting young men and a serious shortage of women. No telling how that will play out, perhaps women from economically deprived areas will migrate to China (assuming their economic growth continues), perhaps illegal human trade will increase, etc. The bottom line is we have no idea what tomorrow will look like, but we can identify "potential" points of conflict now.

Additionally it isn't all about state versus state, but about one the gravest security concerns globally and that is the increasing economic disparity between classes. Combine that with increasing awareness due to information technology and the ability to mobilize identity groups through social media you have the ingredients for some interesting times.

[AmericanPride]

Additionally it isn't all about state versus state, but about one the gravest security concerns globally and that is the increasing economic disparity between classes. Combine that with increasing awareness due to information technology and the ability to mobilize identity groups through social media you have the ingredients for some interesting times.

It is interesting you say that, since globalism, the war on terrorism, and now the economic crisis has seemed to spawn at least a noticeable movement towards some kind of international class consciousness, even if it's identity is really only defined at this point by opposition to the establishment. Historically, this kind of class consciousness has been torn apart by nationalist and ethnic bitterness (i.e. the US south). That challenge definitely remains but I think the way social media tools helped enable the Arab Spring may provide some insight into how overcome traditional barriers to class mobilization. Will we see the re-emergence of prominent roles for international political parties? Will it be introduced to the United States? Will such a development fuel insecurity or instability?

[Surferbeetle]

AP,

This one is for you...


Self-interest, without morals, leads to capitalism’s self-destruction, by Dr. Jeffery Sachs, 18 Jan, 2012, The A-List, Financial Times

Capitalism earns its keep through Adam Smith’s famous paradox of the invisible hand: self-interest, operating through markets, leads to the common good. Yet the paradox of self-interest breaks down when stretched too far. This is our global predicament today.

Self-interest promotes competition, the division of labor, and innovation, but fails to support the common good in four ways.
First, it fails when market competition breaks down, whether because of natural monopolies (in infrastructure), externalities (often related to the environment), public goods (such as basic scientific knowledge), or asymmetric information (in financial fraud, for example).

Second, it can easily turn into unacceptable inequality. The reasons are legion: luck; aptitude; inheritance; winner-takes-all-markets; fraud; and perhaps most insidiously, the conversion of wealth into power, in order to gain even greater wealth.

Third, self-interest leaves future generations at the mercy of today’s generation. Environmental unsustainability is a gross inequality of wellbeing across generations rather than across social classes.
Fourth, self-interest leaves our fragile mental apparatus, evolved for the African savannah, at the mercy of Madison Avenue. To put it more bluntly, our sense of self-interest, unless part of a large value system, is easily transmuted into a hopelessly addictive form of consumerism.

For these reasons, successful capitalism has never rested on a moral base of self-interest, but rather on the practice of self-interest embedded in a larger set of values. Max Weber explained that Europe’s original modern capitalists, the Calvinists, pursued profits in the search for proof of salvation. They saved ascetically to accumulate wealth to prove God’s grace, not to sate their consumer appetites.

Dr. Jeffery Sachs, bio by Wikipedia

Jeffrey David Sachs (pronounced /ˈsæks/; born November 5, 1954, in Detroit, Michigan) is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. One of the youngest economics professors in the history of Harvard University, Sachs became known for his role as an adviser to Eastern European and developing country governments in the implementation of so-called economic shock therapy during the transition from communism to a market system or during periods of economic crisis. Some of his recommendations have been considered controversial. Subsequently he has been known for his work on the challenges of economic development, environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, debt cancellation, and globalization.

Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia's School of Public Health. He is Special Adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and the founder and co-President of the Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the Millennium Development Goals, eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger, and disease by the year 2015. Since 2010 he has also served as a Commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, which leverages broadband technologies as a key enabler for social and economic development.[3] He is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, Spain's Socialist Party's think tank.

Sachs has written several books, including The End of Poverty and Common Wealth, both New York Times bestsellers, and his latest one, The Price of Civilization, released on October 4, 2011. He has been named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People in the World" twice, in 2004 and 2005.

The End of Poverty, by Dr. Sachs

In order to address and remedy the specific economic stumbling blocks of various countries, Sachs espouses the use of what he terms "clinical economics", by analogy to medicine. Sachs explains that countries, like patients, are complex systems, requiring differential diagnosis, an understanding of context, monitoring and evaluation, and professional standards of ethics.[1] Clinical economics requires a methodic analysis and "differential diagnosis" of a country's economic problems, followed by a specifically tailored prescription. Many factors can affect a country's ability to enter the world market, including government corruption; legal and social disparities based on gender, ethnicity, or caste; diseases such as AIDS and malaria; lack of infrastructure (including transportation, communications, health, and trade), unstable political landscapes; protectionism; and geographic barriers. Sachs discusses each factor, and its potential remedies, in turn.

In order to illustrate the use of clinical economics, Sachs presents case studies on Bolivia, Poland, and Russia, and discusses the solutions he presented to those countries, and their effects. The book also discusses the economies of Malawi, India, China, and Bangladesh as representative of various stages of economic development.

[Entropy]

We've also talked about shared prosperity, and the principles that when a state, tribe, or even a culture enjoy increased prosperity, we all stand to benefit and some of the factors that cause small wars recede. Is this general premise true though, across the long term, and where is the tipping point?

I don't think it's true at all. There's this belief by many Americans that prosperity and democracy bring peace and IMO, such beliefs are dangerous.

If we work to increase prosperity around the world, how can we do it in a fashion that does not increase the demand for resources to such a degree that conflict ensues? Whether it's water, arable land, oil, or access to minerals and metals, as tribes and states prosper, consumption increases and the realist in me tells me that conflict is inevitable. In logical terms, it seems counter-productive to try to reduce the number of have-nots in the world.

Who is the "we" you're talking about?

I think we (the American people and by extension, the American military) need a bit more humility when it comes to what we think we can do. Look at Afghanistan. We went there in the 1950's, built some great projects, did a lot of nation and capacity building. That worked for a while and Afghanistan even became a hippy mecca in the 1960's. Now those agricultural projects from the 1950's are the reason we've spilled so much blood in Helmand and that green zone is used for a very different purpose than originally envisioned - what if, for example, the Helmand river valley project was never built?

The point is that we cannot control the future and we should realize that our attempts to improve the lot of others are limited. We should take, at maximum, a "help people to help themselves" approach assuming we need to get involved at all.