So while total oil may put us into the much-hoped-for "undulating plateau," the underlying threads will be an inexorably diminishing supply of the cheap oil we've come to depend on, coupled with some amounts of energy-inefficient (therefore quite costly) and incredibly dirty "unconventional" oil derived from tar sands, etc.

Your observation about the scale and scope of the changes needed to wean ourselves from the infernal combustion explains much of my objection to what I understand to be those who suggest that the peak oil discussion is needlessly sensational and overly negative; it reminds me very much of the calming words issued by the coal lobby throughout the Nineties re: the climate crisis.

The 5% Project

What do you mean?  Oil is a transition fuel.

The point of a transition is that it's supposed to end.

-David Ahlport

I think it's possible that we might have passed something like peak for conventional (light sweet?) crude ... but as you say there is uncertainty.  We have to add that "unless and until" caveat.

But I think too if we were standing at it, it would be a little more obvious.  If world oil companies were finding they could not ever again boost production, alarms would be going off.

When that happens, governments will be pulling all levers.

By all means, let's build some consensus for to pull the right levers.

What do you mean?"

I think it means "I know this fuel doesn't make sense, but I don't want to return those checks."

Peak Oil is gonna happen.

But Peak Oil is primarily a PRICE issue for the foreseeable future, not a SUPPLY issue.

So that really begs the question if we should be giving welfare to the cost of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, in a vain attempt to ignore market forces the same way the USSR did before their collapse.

-David Ahlport

JMG, I personally agree that conventional oil could have more-or-less permanently peaked a bit ago; although I suppose biofuels could keep supply going up a little, at least until it reaches 15% for e85, which is a scary thought (by the way, I like the "infernal combustion engine", I'll put that in my files next to "carburban")  

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

But I think too if we were standing at it, it would be a little more obvious.  If world oil companies were finding they could not ever again boost production, alarms would be going off."

The US lower 48 peaked right on schedule but it was not clear until several years passed.  The urge is to say that the present slight dropoff is a temporary aberration, and all the oncoming drilling is going to rectify the problem (just as we're drilling like mad for natural gas, just to stay in place, a Red Queen problem of massive proportions).

And why exactly would the oil producers wish there to be alarm about the security of future oil supplies?  The LAST thing OPEC wants is for the everyday person in the West to become aware that the jig is up; as long as the voices murmur that all will be well we'll keep sprawling, keep building SUVs, and keep on screwing around with ethanol rather than getting on with the real massive switchover needed.

The 5% Project

I don't think we will be able to fix the things that are needed to be fixed.

Where I would start is a tax trade, carbon taxes at the same time SSI, sales, property and income taxes come down a little.

Then would be a series hybrid electric/gasoline car.   hybrid cars are now parallel gas/elec.
A car could have a 30-50 HP engine that only runs at its most efficient RPM's and uses a variable speed transmission and electronics to sort out how the power to the wheels works out.

But all the changes that are needed in how we are going heat and power our world and will we do it better than catastrophe?    and it time?   I don't think so.  

Because the world is not clearly divided between those who are 100% consumers and those who are 100 producers?

If it were, secret knowledge held by "them" but unknown to "us" would be a little less suspect.

BTW, a recent book talks about betting on "missing data" ;-)

It's a fuzzy bet, even if I lean toward it being "true" in a fuzzy sense.  And I can still be wrong.

 "Wouldn't it force humanity to live within our means if gasoline was $10 or even $20 dollars per gallon, as it will eventually be?"

As a writer recently wrote, and I borrow here, poor developing nations have no concept of peak oil cause many of them never had much of it to begin with.  Our wasteful consumption of oil here has already driven oil past the price they can afford, so they will continue to do without. And if you want a vision of what the world might look like without oil, you might think of them, a big chunk of humanity that we often lose thought of.  

"The problem of peak oil for the biosphere is that the current global civilization will become so hysterical and single-minded about keeping the oil or oil substitutes flowing that it will greatly exacerbate both global warming and ecosystem destruction."

Yes, you can think of man as becoming the primary tipping point, the main contributor to the cascading of tipping points.  As the heat turns up, man could very well increase the use of fossil fuels to adapt to the heat, growing scarcity of resources, and diminishing ecological services from ruined ecosystems.

Wars.

At this critical time, a major war would most certainly become the major contributor to making our reckoning with peak oil and global warming a very, very hard if not fatal landing.  The world absolutely cannot afford another major war!

Transportation.  We are so dependent on trucks it is scary.  We have got to rebuild the rail infrastructure.  At time during the heyday of rail in Illinois, there was no location that was more than 5 miles from a railway!  We really need to look to Europe for a better model here.

"Then there are the other uses of petroleum, perhaps most critically in agriculture, which could involve a wholesale change from industrial agriculture to localized, more labor-and-knowledge intensive organic forms of agriculture"

Folks, I am a farmer, a small scale, labor intensive farmer.  I do a lot of tough physical labor that they say Americans won't do anymore.  Believe me, most people would rather die than do the kind of work that I do. But they would not have to because, before this would ever happen there would be a massive dieoff.  Plus, the skills needed to pull this off largely died with my grandparent's generation.  And despite what anyone says about organic, there is absolutely no way it would support 9 billion people.  Just won't happen.  My guess is the short emergency would preempt the long emergency where the rural landscape is repopulated by subsistence farmers.  

" The big question remains, how do we move from one sort of society to another?"

I am borrowing again here:  Making the transition will be easier when we are rich in oil, when oil is still relatively cheap, than it will when oil is scarce and expensive.  So, now is the time.  

We need to get the mass media working on images of what a world without oil could look like. And depicting real images of people who are already living it.  I could use a shot of hope myself.

And we need truly visionary leaders.  Do you see any?    

whether you have data on that or not, I do think that thinking about constructing visions of how this might look(never mind how we'd get there politically, we just need "proof of concept" at this point) might serve the double function of actually being useful and also getting us to think in a positive direction.

Peak oil may imply "no oil" ... some decades hence, but it may not be the right motivator for most people, to talk about 40-50 years from now.

And our responsibility might be more to do the right things for the next 10 years in front of us, when oil in the US may be no more expensive than it is in Europe today.

* - as with that Time magazine article it might lead us to fears that are easily visualized but remote.

We don't know how it will all work out though, because we don't know if society has got the right sense of the problem.  We won't know "unless and until" we hit some crisis.

And we have, for better or worse, the gas crunches of the 70's and 80's for reference.  Those looked like energy transitions (Peter Tertzakian does an excellent job of summarizing them in "A Thousand Barrels A Second").  But they didn't stick, because they didn't prove to be the oil "endgame."

I've thought about that a little, but I got it wrong enough to notice.  I used to say "imagine supermarket shelves and just think of all the silly things that will drop out of the 30,000 items they carry as energy prices rise."  I singled out snack foods and potato chips as "mostly air" and I thought shipped with mostly waste.  Then that darn Walker's Crisps bag had it's CO2 footprint calculated out to 75 grams, and by that measure, it's upstream gasoline demand identified as 1/120 gallon.

If that wasn't enough, we just had early warning here on gristmill that fossil fuel might be better for GHGs than biofuels!

What's a would-be planet designer to think!

(It will be interesting to watch the future pieced together out of these twists and turns.  With vim and vigor we might just make it.)

Nuclear-generated hydrocarbon ...
could fuel internal combustion engines for very much longer than mined hydrocarbon. Nuclear-generated dimethyl ether, an oxohydrocarbon, has its fans, although unfortunately for it they don't include me. Carbonaceous fuel, however acquired, has the problem of emitting oxides of carbon; that is why I argue for the development of internal boron combustion.

Exactly, we don't have a supply issue.
What we have is a greenhouse and a price issue.

And we aren't going to get past the price issue by creating even more expensive fuels.

And we certainly aren't going to get past the greenhouse issue if we waste 2.5x the current US grid electricity capacity to fuel inefficient vehicles.  Our dollars could be far better spent designing better cars, or getting coal plants not built or out of commision.
http://greyfalcon.net/h2car.png

-David Ahlport

Well, I don't think it can be done in the present political environment and that it can only be done by building a progressive movement. (See the first question in this decent interview with George Lakoff for a definition of "progressive".)

As Naomi Klein put it at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society:

The real problem, I want to argue today, is confidence, our confidence, the confidence of people who gather at events like this under the banner of building another world, a kinder more sustainable world. I think we lack the strength of our convictions, the guts to back up our ideas with enough muscle to scare our elites. We are missing movement power. That's what we're missing. "The best lacked all convictions," Yeats wrote, "while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Think about it. Do you want to tackle climate change as much as Dick Cheney wants Kazakhstan's oil? Do you? Do you want universal healthcare as much as Paris Hilton wants to be the next new face of Estee Lauder? If not, why not? What is wrong with us? Where is our passionate intensity?

It is hard to imagine that our civilization will not find some means of powering agriculture with some kind of fuel, fossil or bio.  This might entail rationing and allocation. But this assumes that the rest of the consumer economy has found other sources of energy to maintain itself for without a market there would be no demand for ag production.  And it does make some sense now that we would use biofuels primarily to fuel the bread basket instead of say, shipping ethanol from the midwest to the west coast.  Installing E85 pumps in Illinois is one thing but mandating them in CA is just assinine.  And Brazilian ethanol should stay in Rio.  Creating a sustainable agriculture should be a first priority for an ag based civilization.  One good thing that biofuels has brought to this civilization is a growing awareness of its dependence on agriculture.  

First, when we are Peaked on any resource -- conserve, conserve, conserve!  Apply the brakes early and gently!  Take your foot off the accelerator.  Question a system based on growth.  

I don't think it can be done in the present political environment and that it can only be done by building a progressive movement.

If by "progressive movement" you mean a group of people willing to let 80% of the current people die or even help them along, I'm not willing to participate. We're so far up the creek, that there just isn't going to be an orderly transformation of society into something more sustainable. That doesn't mean I believe we cannot get there, we just won't have a whole lot of input into how the transformation happens.

In terms of energy, I see the world coming up with only 20% of the amount needed to replace what we get from fossil fuels currently. That doesn't account for demand growth. Even worse, we're running into a wall in regards to food supply. I know I can live without lights, but I'm not able to live without bread.

I have moved beyond the idea that real leadership will arrive in time for cultural changes needed to head off a calamity.
The US peaked in oil production in 1970-71. Since then, we have been importing oil to meet our needs. In that respect, we have been "Clinging" to a lifestyle fueled by the stuff, and now we are holding a gun to the heads of our many dealers, desperate for our fix.

Americans, either ignorant or apathetic, have refused to revolt against the policies set by our government. That means no leadership has told people the hard truths that require action in the form of complete relocalization.

Now, how are people in apartment building supposed to grow all the food they need for a year? Okay, that won't happen, so they would rely on local farms.

Unless those farms diversify their crops to grow multiple edibles that provide the mixed nutrition needed, it won't work. For instance... if farmers remain tied to the "system" and grow mono-crops, then you have local populations stuck with bulk items of a limited nature.

To me, it seems, national leadership should immediately help farmers diversify their crops for both food and fuel use, and hire David Blume as a national consultant.

Right now we need smart farmers, not war-minded politicians.

Picture it this way: we have to get the current gas burning cars off the highway.   The mid term is plug in hybrids running on electricity most of the time (hopefully).    Yes, that will demand more electricity, but if, say for the next 50 years, we can depend on coal, and create far, far less pollution from centralized coal burning electric plants, and keep the pollution off the roads and highways, then it would be a good thing for most.

So good, it makes me want to sing:

COAL!

Gimme a plant with coal.
Black beautiful coal.
Shining, gleaming,
Dark, heavy and lumpy.

Give me anthracite
Bituminous or liquefied
Here baby, there mama
Everywhere daddy daddy

Everywhere COOOOAAAALLLLLL!!!!!

• There was a lot of land ruined by farmers long before tractors were invented.  So, it isn't so much the technology, but how it is used.  An old saying is still pretty true, "Poor people make poor land and poor land makes poor people."  It might very well be that a world poor in energy and resources will make a lot of poor people and a lot of poor land too.  Some people at the ag schools are working on sustainable solutions but they are really sucking the hind teat of ag funding and priorities.  
  
• There is a case for both the redistribution of people closer to major ag areas and the revitalization of rural towns and for the preservation of farm land near the major metropolitan areas.  Both will become part of the equation.  Sustainability implies closing the nutrient cycles between farm and city vs. flushing all that wealth down the shitter to the sea. Another case of a needed redesign of critical infrastructure vs. just patching up what we have.  
  

He is a farmer, permaculturist, alcohol fuel specialist... and all around genius.

Permaculture has been proven to improve soil as well as deliver higher-than-normal yields from crops. He fed over 400 people as a CSA farmer with just a tiny amount of acreage.

I highly advise ordering a copy of his new book, "Alcohol Can Be A Gas". Here are some early reviews:

"Brilliant! This book should be on the reading list of every American!!" - Thom Hartmann, New York Times best-selling author, and nationally syndicated host of The Thom Hartmann Program on Air America.

"Humanity has used up roughly half of the world's oil and topsoil. Just in time, David Blume has given us Alcohol Can Be A Gas! It's a practical road map for supplying all of our energy needs without drilling, strip-mining, and/or depleting the soil. In fact, following Blume's model, soil fertility would actually increase worldwide; energy production would be not only sustainable, but democratic- and highly profitable on the small scale. This is a brilliant visionary work. And, with Mr. Blume's witty personality, reading it is certainly a gas." - Larry Korn, Soil Scientist, Translator, and Editor of The One-Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming.

"Dave Blume has written the definitive opus on alcohol as a fuel. From the 30,000-foot view to the most minute technical detail, Alcohol Can be a Gas! makes a strong case for the practical, ecological, political, and economic sense in converting to ethanol. It's heartening to see the world's original "alcohol pioneer" stay abreast of the times with a book that has the promise to knock some sense into our insidious fossil-fueled economy. This book is much needed in this era of Peak Oil and fast-accelerating climate change." - John Schaeffer, President and Founder of Real Goods, and Executive Director of the Institute for Solar Living.

As intersections of the food-energy-climate matrix form in Iowa cornfields, Amazonian rain forests and Canadian gene splicing labs, and end-game battles for their control pit theocratic flat-worlders against biologists, climatologists, and tree-huggers over the very survival of life on Earth, David Blume emerges like a wizard on a misty pinnacle, back-lit by the full moon, revealing a gemstone in his extended palm.
Albert Bates, author, The Post Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times

The over-arching importance of this delightful book is that it demonstrates how beside the point is the current pseudo-debate about the net energy from corn ethanol. As Blume demonstrates, fuel alcohol must be an important component of our solar-based future. It can be made from a huge variety of feedstocks, including sugar beets and cane, nuts, mesquite, Jerusalem artichokes, algae, even coffee-bean pulp; there is no real scarcity of land to grow fuel. There is a scarcity of independent, original thinking--and Blume's book provides plenty of it, along with ample doses of amazing, startling, and sometimes scary information--ecological, technological, and political-economic. This is a vast, detailed compendium drawn from decades of experience by an alert, smart, and skeptical hands-on thinker. Blume has given us his biofuels bible, and we can learn from him and survive quite nicely, or follow what he calls MegaOilron into oblivion.- Ernest Callenbach, author of Ecotopia, Ecotopia Emerging, and Ecology:A Pocket Guide

What a tour-de-force! This is the most comprehensive and authoritative guide through all the controversy about ethanol as transportation fuel, showing it as a clear winner in the quest for solutions to our environmental and geopolitical problems. Engagingly written, full of important and amazing information and resources, this book meets every challenge to the vision for a clean, democratic path to a prosperous future for all.-Joe Jordan, Atmospheric Researcher, NASA/Ames Research Center
Finally, an alcohol book for the layman and backyard enthusiast. In our culture's collective, industrialized love affair with mega-everything, Blume cuts across the government-subsidized factories with ecologically practical models. Here is a viable energy system that can be embedded in a region, linking rural producers to urban users of energy and food. Self-reliance and resiliency follow community-based alcohol production, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to Blume for codifying his life's passion in what is a veritable compendium of information. - Joel Salatin, Farmer, and Author of You Can Farm and Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal.

Ethanol champion David Blume has completed his opus, Alcohol Can Be a Gas! It is a great read. The history of petroleum, history of alcohol, technical coverage of production process, vehicle development (conversion), and feedstocks: It's all in the text, complete with charts and pictures. David's wit, wisdom, and hardcore experience illuminate this biofuels potential. We have eagerly awaited this publication and will use it in our Sustainable Transportation and Biofuels courses. - Dr. Jack Martin, Appropriate Technology Program, Appalachian State University; Vice-Chair of Renewable Fuels and Transportation Division, American Solar Energy Society

We will eventually need to find an alternative to the internal combustion engine of today.  But we do have time to do that, and as the cost of oil goes up, incentives will be created to do so.  A solar or electric car isn't worth the cost today, but if it's that compared to $10/gallon gasoline, suddenly that car seems cheap by comparison.

I do believe that we could do a lot more to make this transition smoother, but ultimately we will make it when we have no choice.  The economy will go into the crapper for a while, inflation will climb, and our basic way of living will have to change.  But since there are alternatives, we're not completely doomed.

justlou: if we have farmers that think as you do,
i don't feel so bad about America's future. you should think about running for congress. people who can see the truth while still entrenched in the status quo are very valuable to this planet.

and jabailo: coal will not produce "far far less pollution." you need to do more research.....your song is cute, though maybe you could rewrite it after you DO MORE RESEARCH. (if it is sarcasm, be MORE sarcastic, you're too subtle!).

Subsurface graywater feeds fruit trees on the streets. Planters everywhere grow annuals and every scrap, every fallen leaf gets fed to animals or composted for plants. As a permacultural gardener, I'll second pealoilboy's claim: you can grow a lot of food in not much space if you do so certain ways and with lots of care and attention. It is a lot of work to get started, but it pays off (Here's our garden, which provides all of the herbs, most of the summer vegetables and nearly all of the fodder - as opposed to feed - for our rabbits and chickens).

The policy and attitude shift to try to do this boggles my mind. A few years ago in Sebastopol, a wonderfully progressive town, the newly elected mayor, a permaculturalist and gardener, tried to get the town public works to use fruit trees for new city tree plantings. Not to replace all the current trees, just where new ones were going in, maybe one or two a year. The director of public works threw a fit, said the fruit would mess up the streets, that kids would throw them at each other and buildings, etc. If the idea got killed in hippiest West Sonoma County, how is NYC public works going to react to the notion of fruit and nut trees everywhere? Not to mention chickens.

Eat what you grow, grow what you eat

If we accept a multi-decadal transition, isn't there a little less pressure on Jon to feed everyone?

Maybe all Jon has to do is help move things along, improve the energy (and environment!) footprint of his family, his town, his nation ... and share responsibility with the 6 billion people facing the same future.

I remember living in Berkeley with a lot of wild fruit trees, and it didn't seem to be a big problem, but yes, what your're seeing I have a feeling is also what is preventing zoning changes from happening to allow for mixed use -- changing from business as usual is what drives much of what we see today, e.g., sticking with building coal plants when wind/solar/storage is cheaper.  thanks for the pic.

While it is probably useful to imagine futures, it is probably outmoded thinking to cast one in balsa wood.  What do the actual Futurists do now?  Maybe imagine a bundle of futures possible from here on out?