The limits to growth

Back in the 1970s a group called the “Club of Rome” sponsored a research study – carried out at MIT – called “Limits to Growth.” Over the years, it has been pilloried as alarmist and just plain wrong. Now with energy decline, environmental issues, and population it is interesting to see what tactics were used to discredit the study. The Oil Drum has a good essay on this:
The demonization of Limits To Growth
and I posted a comment:

I think a key problem for those of us trying to prepare for the future is the tendancy of humans (reenforced by the media) to want “predictions.” I was struck by how the Limits to Growth study discussed scenarios – which opponents then claimed were predictions. Problem is, no one can predict the future – but we can reasonably consider the evidence and anticipate different scenarios as to what might happen, so as to be prepared, as Limits to Growth was advocating.

Even though the Limits to Growth didn’t fall into The Prediction Trap (the title of my upcoming book, which you can preview at my web site), their opponents realized the power of painting the study as a prediction. As noted, if you demolish one prediction, credibility for the rest of the information plummets – though for some reason this doesn’t seem to apply to economic predictions…

In fact, maybe that is the way out for Peak Oil awareness. Rather than trying to convince people of peak oil, maybe we should make a significant effort to publicize the predictions of peak oil deniers – like the oil price predictions that the EIA and others have made for years, that are widely off base.

P.S. Another frustrating piece of history: Jimmy Carter’s speech on energy April 18, 1977.

Once again, denier’s twisted arguments

The World Has Plenty of Oil

By NANSEN G. SALERI
March 4, 2008; Page A17

Many energy analysts view the ongoing waltz of crude prices with the mystical $100 mark — notwithstanding the dollar’s anemia — as another sign of the beginning of the end for the oil era. “[A]t the furthest out, it will be a crisis in 2008 to 2012,” declares Matthew Simmons, the most vocal voice among the “neo-peak-oil” club. Tempering this pessimism only slightly is the viewpoint gaining ground among many industry leaders, who argue that daily production by 2030 of 100 million barrels will be difficult.

In fact, we are nowhere close to reaching a peak in global oil supplies….

This is the beginning of an opinion piece by Mr. Saleri “refuting” peak oil. The link is:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120459389654809159.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

It is so tiresome, but I guess is necessary, to continually refute the propaganda put out by peak oil deniers. (It seems I am now in the “neo-peak-oil” club – a label I have not heard before.)
Mr. Saleri relies on the tried and true misinformation principle. His title “The World has Plenty of Oil” has virtually nothing to do with Peak Oil. No one who has seriously studied peak oil claims there is not a lot left.
But Mr. Saleri stretches the reserves argument to a new height; by beginning with “global resources in place” of 12 to 16 trillion, and saying we have only used 1 trillion, he paints a far rosier picture than even Exxon-Mobil does when they claim there are 3 trillion recoverable barrels. But then, Mr. Saleri’s consulting firm is all about raising the percentage of recovery by a few percentage points, so this fits with his agenda.
But I have fallen into his trap; Peak Oil is not about how much oil is below the ground, it is about how much the industry can produce each and every day. The U.S. has been declining since 1970. Mexico is in decline. The North Sea has passed peak. Each of these countries produce less oil – by about 3% to 8% each year – than they used to. Put another way, about 4 million barrels per day of NEW production is needed each and every year just to offset declines from older fields – and each year every field becomes older.
It doesn’t matter 1. how much is below the ground, 2. what percentage is recoverable, or 3. what the consumption is, the key question is how much is produced each day. And as for Mr. Saleri’s 4th point, that a “widely accepted tipping point — 50% of ultimately recoverable resources consumed” is a definition of peak oil – again, no one who has studied it seriously argues this is the case any more.
The evidence is out there. Look at this map of world production decline:
world oil map or this review of what oil company executives are saying:
energybulletin.net

Finally, “the Stone Age did not end due to a lack of stones” ? Give me a break!
Randy Park