Excellent summary of where "humanity " is at; if only it could lead to serious action from those in power.
Anonymous
Good summary about one of the most important issue of the 21th century - unfortunately still missing in the polical agendas. Changes are pushed at the margin - renewable energies development, energy efficiency - but the efforts are ridiculous in comparison with the challenge that the world economy is facing. The transition is likely to be tough while the conversion of our economy could have been smoother if we had been far-sighted.
Soisic - UK
Bulent Gokay has provided an excellent summary of the situation but ends the article at the point at which a more useful piece might begin - "it follows that we consume less products. The only rational response to the impending end of the cheap oil age is to redesign all aspects of our lives."
Easy to say but the more immediate problem is that it is only by economic growth across every sector and world wide do we have any chance of handling the debt problems we currently face.
Is it not reasonable therefore to "reset" the entire world economy along more more sustainable lines? No winners, no losers.
Larry Langman - Australia
I agree wholeheartedly but I think it's going to be a lot more radical than that. The whole society dynamic will revert back to pre-industrial age - small cities and villages with small electricity usage for essentials like medicine, research etc. The global economy will contract to next to nothing and countries will become once again self-sustaining. The way it's meant to be. Of course the point we all seem to overlook so we can sleep at night is that surviving the transition is going to be horrific, especially if governments like ours sit back and do nothing which is the current modus operandi. Go to your local gardware store and try to buy tools that don't require electricity e.g. a bit and brace or small hand drill. We need to change our way of thinking fast. The world population must contract back to pre-oil, pre-coal times i.e. around a billion. Currently we are at 6 billion. I have gone through various emotional stages over this topic ranging from terror to depression. I'm now quite happy. Lets face it what else is going to sort out these puppet governments who dance to the tune of the carpetbaggers. Bring it on. If my family and I survive, good. If not, Ces't la vie. I just want to know that we died without completely destroying the planet.
William - Australia
We won't destroy the planet, but we may destroy the current life systems on it. The planet will recover when we are gone with a new life system.
We must rebuild the banking system into one that can survive without growth. This will mean no more interest payments to or by banks or other financial institutions.
The system is about to break at the moment so if governments wish to stay in charge perhaps they ought to have a plan B in existence, for when the inevitable happens. If there is no plan B, chaos will reign when the financial meltdown occurs.
Ken Neal - Newbury, UK
Yep, university profs haven't changed much - they think the world would be a better place if everybody spent their time cycling around campus and indoctrinating students into socialism. Meanwhile in the real world, we have seen a fantastic increase in standards of living around the globe due to fossil fuels. The exact same arguments for peak oil could have been - and were - made 100 years ago. We could have all gone into self-righteous, self-depravation then and missed 100 years of progress.
There are centuries of fossil fuels left, but every time there is a price spike, there will always be a few opportunists making a fast buck on snake oil "alternatives" or power hungry politicians trying to repress economic freedom. Don't fall for it.
Threepwood - Michigan
Threepwood - I have been alive long enough and witnessed the change's that have taken place to say you are wrong. Consider yourself lucky you have experienced this progress, but you must live in isolation not to realise its falling apart.
I came of age in the 1950s, where anything was possible and am well aware of the technological advancements that have been made - which we enjoy.
I also realise there has been a decline in many areas including the most important one (energy), discussed in this article. How anyone can make the unsubstantiated statements you have and expect people to believe it is beyond comprehension.
There is a worldwide consensus by people more qualified than you or I, that we have reached a critical time in mans evolution to address these problems. Only the uneducated or stupid are oblivious to these facts and unaware of their own history on the planet. This article is spot on.
Insight - Oboro USA
Insight, yes, I remember that 'qualified worldwide consensus' in the early seventies, when I was shown the same exact charts and told by the same politically aligned academics that I would be using public transport or driving a golf cart because all the oil would be gone.
Meanwhile in off-campus reality, we saw an unprecedented global glut of the stuff, sending prices plummeting to near $10 a barrel by the 90s. Hmmm. How did they get it so wrong?
In reality, tight supply and price spikes are not caused by lack of physical resources, but political interference, self imposed ideological restrictions, massive taxes here, massive subsidies there, state run oil, cabals etc.
Look past the Malthusian hype and there is plentiful supply. I agree that political interference, and hence future supply/price is difficult to predict, but this is a constant for any source of energy, not just oil?
Threepwood - Michigan
Threepwood - If by driving a golf cart, you mean a small fuel efficient car, the last time I looked that seems to be what is happening. There have been many events affecting the price of oil at any given time.
Your plentiful supply comment is a generalisation, it's much more complicated than that. There is oil out there, but is it easily extracted or do we want to pay the price for this either monetarily or environmentally?
Are you taking into account increasing world-wide demand? China is now producing more cars than America. Oil discoveries have been less than annual production since 1980.
According to several sources, production is past or near its maximum. The world population has grown faster than oil production. Because of this, oil production per capita peaked in 1979 (preceded by a plateau during the period of 1973-1979).
According to a study of the largest 811 oil fields, conducted in early 2008 by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, the average rate of field decline was 4.5 per cent per year. The IEA stated, in November 2008, that an analysis of 800 oil fields showed the decline in oil production to be 6.7 per cent a year, and that this will grow to 8.6 per cent in 2030.
Of course, any new fields would delay this decline but demand is also increasing. I do look past the hype and rely on industry reports for information as well as my own observations when working here and abroad.
It would seem an intelligent move to look to a future possibility without cheap oil and prepare for it, even the military are doing this.
insight - Oboro, USA
Declining production data from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010's expected crude oil production from "existing fields" plus part of the IEA's "fields yet to be developed" and "fields yet to be found". Quite generous, really.
And consumption data from the CIA World Fact Book.The net-exporter's consumption is incremented by a modest 2.9 per cent per year from 2010 levels.The premise is that net exporting nations will continue to favour supplying their internal consumption over exporting their oil during the next 20 years.
These nations will, therefore, become prime locations for global manufacturing as oil supplies to the net importing nations become more tenuous. At the same time their production capacity will be affected generally in the same way as the rest of the world, as depicted by the IEA's WEO2010.
The suggested rate of increase in consumption within exporting nations of only 2.9 per cent per year is likely to be very "conservative", but things get quite bad enough fast enough with that rate; people can make their own assessment of the more likely rate and the subsequent implications. Saudi Arabia's internal consumption is rising at about 5.5 per cent per year, for example.
The largest oil importers - say the top ten importers including USA, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea and India - will make have made agreements with other exporters to assure supply of their import requirements over the same period - at any cost.
This leaves what's left of global oil exports for the other 140 net importing nations, including many nations with little or no internal oil production at all. What's left for these 140 nations is depicted as what could be termed a "triangle of hope" spanning on the y axis from about 22 to 52 million barrels per day for them today - providing them with about 30 mmbbl per day today, running out to zero available to them in 10 years time. Zero in 10 years time.
And the internal demand of the net exporters crosses the declining global production curve in about 20 years time. At which time there is nothing left to send to any of the importers. At that stage, 20 years out from now, the only oil that will be available to any nation will be the oil it produces itself; with the caveat that IEA predicts that generally all production by then will be down to about 40 per cent on present-day levels.
It appears that there will not be any nation with a surplus of supply over demand. It's my guess that past that date, any global oil movements will be by way of private treaty between parties with something of value to trade rather than within any open market.
Nigwil - New Zealand
