Christianity: February 2014

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 8

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 8

For the love of the human race.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Our Thesis

We believe that Dr. Bartlett’s work is unfinished: it must be continued; newer, creative solutions, which may not have been apparent a few years ago, when Dr. Bartlett did his primary investigations, need to be uncovered. The single human mind is always limited in its abilities: this work needs the contribution of every mind. New solutions must be found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 8

http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html Better results were achieved by playing the video clip directly from this site, rather than by linking through YouTube. Click on the arrow in the middle of the picture, rather than on the black bar at the top. This is Part 8.

Part 8 begins with a terse series of quotes and remarks:

“So to be successful with this experiment of human life on earth, we have to understand the laws of nature as we encounter them in the study of science and mathematics.”[1]

Cartoon: “Thinking is very upsetting. It tells you things you’d rather not know.”[2]

Galileo (1584-1642): “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forego their use.”

We should remember the words of Aldous Huxley, “Facts do not cease to exist because they're ignored.”

H. L Mencken believed, “It is in the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting.”

We should remember the words of Eric Sevareid; he observed, “The chief source of problems is solutions.”[3]

Dr. Bartlett then observes that the story of the Aswan Dam is an excellent example of how our solutions to problems frequently make things worse. The Nile flooding, for thousands of years, produced a sustainable agriculture, but was a nuisance for the cities. The high dam at Aswan was built. The silt is building up behind the dam, limiting its life to a few hundred years. The effluent is clear, so the fertile Nile soils are no longer renewed. The delta is being washed into the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean fishery is in serious decline. Fertilizer must be purchased to sustain agriculture. Agricultural workers are subject to Schistosomiasis.

“This is what we encounter every day: solutions to problems just make the problems worse.”¹

Dr. Bartlett throws down this gauntlet:

“So here’s a challenge. Can you think of any problem, on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long term solution is in any demonstratable way, aided, assisted, or advanced by having larger populations in our local levels, state levels, national level, or global level? Can you think of anything that can get better if we crowd more people into our cities, our towns, into our state, our nation, or on this earth?”

Our answer is, “Yes, we can think of at least one problem that might be resolved by an increase of population.”

The key operative word is crowding. We agree that crowding is a bad thing. However, crowding is a pejorative term that assumes the conclusion. Since crowding has, very possibly, extreme negative consequences, perhaps we should consider distributing as a possible alternative.

The problem is this. An automobile is roughly equivalent to between two and five hundred horses in its capacity to do work; perhaps two to five thousand men in terms of work capacity. It may be desirable to maintain the work output after the demise of fossil fuels. At least one of three things must happen: 1. We will need a lot more horses and men to sustain the existing workload. 2. We will need to be a lot more efficient in our use of horses and men to sustain the existing workload. 3. We will be forced to reduce our work output, and tighten our belts.

That being said, what will we give up? Water? Sewer? Police? Fire?

We return to the idea of distribution to suggest that a well distributed population is a more efficient and productive population. This suggests a return to the family farm, the use of septic tanks that require less maintenance, and hand or wind pumped water wells that function without grandiose treatment plants and massive plumbing systems. This suggests an attempted return to sustainable agriculture.

What the age of fossil fuels has done for humanity is introduce an illusory bubble of wealth and prosperity that will come crashing down to the ground when the fossil fuels are gone. We are suggesting that now is the time to find ways to soften the blow. The age of fossil fuels has been like living in a dream; it is not a long-term reality.

Dr. Bartlett closes:

“And I'll close with these words from the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. He said, ‘Unlike the plagues of the dark ages, or contemporary diseases which we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble with means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.’ ”

This returns us to a modernized version of the Malthusian Catastrophe.[4] We certainly agree that this is a grave problem and that education lies at the core of its solution. However, the utopian delusion created by the age of fossil fuels, greatly clouds our perception of reality. The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) voiced his concerns long before fossil fuels, except perhaps for coal, became a dominant source of world power. Malthus has the advantage of observation unobscured by fossil fuel smoke. On the other hand, he lived on a rather constricted and overpopulated island. That being said, it is impossible for us to know until we have resolved the fossil fuel riddle, and developed a complete set of necessary conditions.

Our Conclusion

Dr. Bartlett has certainly “made a reasonable case for my opening statement, that I think the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand this very simple arithmetic.” Along the way, he exposed some, but not all of the necessary conditions for a practical analysis and solution. These necessary conditions must be ferreted out and employed to good use. The absence of a complete set of necessary conditions throws Dr. Bartlett’s concerns back upon a new version of the Malthusian Catastrophe, into partial league with thinkers like Kenneth Arrow[5] and Paul Ehrlich,[6] and into conflict with the likes of Julian Simon.[7] We have dismissed Dr. Simon as a bit of a utopian fool: but, all of his objections are not so easily dismissed. That being said, the idea that science can solve every problem, is a silly myth; a myth that needs to be unmasked before it causes more damage. Unrestrained science lies behind the Aswan Dam fiasco, and other modern solutions that have only made matters worse.

Finally, how will we produce the level of work output that we have grown to expect when fossil fuels are gone? Will external combustion engines return to use? Will we be able to master the necessary skills, efficiencies, and quantities of horse and man power to take up the bulk of the slack in a satisfactory way? The time to learn the answers to these and other pressing, life and death questions is now, not ten years from now.

[1] Dr. Bartlett

[2] Brickman, the small society

[3] CBS News, December 29, 1970

[4] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arrow

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon

Monday, February 24, 2014

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7

For the love of the human race.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Our Thesis

These obstacles can defeat us: 1. Unwillingness to change in the face of the facts. 2. Inadvertently or deliberately ignoring the facts. 3. Failure to collect accurate, up-to-date data. 4. Inability to find sufficient meaningful solutions.

This is not a game of blind chance. This is not a game of fear mongering. This is a zero-sum game of war: if rationality does not prevail in this war; we, our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren will lose. Deciding not to play is a decision to lose. If rationality does not prevail, the forces we call nature will make the necessary decisions for us: we will lose and be stranded without the necessary survival map and plan. Nobody will like the solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7

Dr. Bartlett begins by addressing the problem of technological optimism. In spite of the fact that it is obviously untrue, many people, including engineers, mathematicians, and scientists continue to embrace the delusion that man can solve any problem: if we only had enough time and money.

“We must educate people to see the need to examine carefully the allegations of the technological optimists who assure us that science and technology will always solve all of our problems of population growth, food, energy and resources.”[1]

Dr. Julian Simon (1932-1998) of University of Illinois, University of Maryland, Heritage Foundation, etc.[2] “Copper can be made from other metals.”[3] … “Clearly there is no meaningful limit to this source except the sun’s energy…. But even if our sun were not as vast as it is, there may well be other suns elsewhere.”[4]

These and other statements that result from cornucopian theories need little refutation.

“In 2010, worldwide biofuel production reached 105 G-liters (28 G-gallons US), up 17% from 2009, and biofuels provided 2.7% of the world's fuels for road transport, a contribution largely made up of ethanol and biodiesel.” [5]

NB: gallons, not barrels, this amount is minuscule. At this rate, when fossil fuels run out, the world will face a 97% reduction in energy resources: this must be viewed as a catastrophic drop.

Biomass may be a scientific posibility; but. it is far from being a practical reality. It’s development threatens the food suply, and it has yet to be shown that it is truly exothermic in the overall scale. Presently, the only biomass fuels really on the table are biodiesel and ethanol. Even Dr. Simon cannot possibly be suggesting that we burn hay, straw, and wood in internal combustion engines. The return to external combusion steam engines as the principal mode of transportation would be a major problem.

Even so, Simon “was a trusted policy advisor at the very highest levels in Washington D. C.”¹

Simon’s supporters include Kemp and Forbes.

“People are not a drain on the resources of the planet.”^{^[6]}

“CNN recently ran a silly series purporting to show the world is in mortal danger because there are too many of us. In poorer countries those many mouths mean poverty. In richer countries we are wrecking the earth’s atmosphere with pollution. It’s all nonsense.”^{^[7]}

We conclude that Mr. Kemp and Mr. Forbes are all nonsense. Don’t waste your money on Forbes Magazine.

Dr. Bartlett then looks to Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)[8] with Bill Moyers.[9]

“Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

“Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor; if two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom….”

“Asimov: In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual matters.

Dr. Asimov’s delightful and humorous parable, nevertheless falls short of the reality, even though we have heard reports, from serious social students, about thirty or more people being crammed into single bedrooms in Cleveland, with no bathroom, only a place at the end of the hall. Sharing bathrooms, is, for the most part an inconvenience, not a hardship. A better illustration would be thirty people sharing two plates, and those without food. Indeed, if two bathrooms represent the whole world, thirty people may be a problem. However, thirty people with two plates and no food is an even bigger problem. Dr. Asimov’s parable fails to address the grim reality that the problem in more than an inconvenience, it is an issue of life and death. Even if the population was reduced to two, and plates need not be shared, there is no food left to put on them, and both will die of starvation. It is access to food, clothing, and shelter; perhaps, even the air we breathe, that must be conserved. The termination of fossil fuels many spell the end of food, clothing, and shelter for many people.

Because we subscribe to the conviction that less government is better government we have trouble taking Dr. Bartlett’s political illustrations about Boulder and the United States very seriously. The inevitable and ultimate collapse of all democracies is thoroughly examined elsewhere.[10] Democracy cannot be made into a successful form of government on any large scale: like a whale on the beach, it is doomed to perish under its own weight.

“The simple arithmetic makes it absolutely clear that long-term preservation of the environment in the U. S. is impossible in the face of continued U. S. population growth!”¹

Nevertheless, we are compelled to agree that:

“Smart growth destroys the environment. Dumb growth destroys the environment. Now, smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste. So, it’s a little like buying a ticket on the Titanic; if you’re smart, you go first class; if you’re dumb you go [steerage], any way you go: the result’s the same.”

The problem with the Titanic is not that there were too many people on board. The problem with the Titanic is that a complexity of problems existed for which there were inadequate and insufficient solutions. It was the lack of solutions that resulted in so many tragic and unnecessary deaths. In the ensuing panic, good men turned cruel, locking victims below deck, and guaranteeing slaughter. It is the consumption and destruction of the environment with which we are primarily concerned.

We do not agree with the idea that global warming is a major problem. With the demise of fossil fuels clearly in sight, once they are gone, the earth will probably begin to cool again. If, in a hundred years or so, global warming continues to be a problem; it will not be because of fossil fuel combustion; it will be because of factors that are most likely beyond our control.

What we fear is that we will fail to manage the resources we do have in time to present disaster. When we are faced with a complexity of problems for which there are only inadequate and insufficient solutions, panic will be the inevitable result. Formerly, good men will turn cruel, and the guaranteed slaughter will commence.

Dr. Bartlett concludes this part:

“Now, except for those petroleum graphs, the things I’ve told you are not predictions of the future, I’m only reporting facts, and the results of some very simple arithmetic. But I do so with confidence that these facts, this arithmetic and more importantly, our level of understanding of them, will play a major role in shaping our future. Now, don’t take what I’ve said blindly or uncritically, because of the rhetoric, or for any other reason. Please, you check the facts. Please check my arithmetic. If you find errors, please let me know. If you don't find errors, then I hope you’ll take this very, very seriously.

“You are important people. You can think. If there’s anything that is in short supply in the world today, it’s people who are willing to think.”

Our Conclusion

Dr. Bartlett has challenged us to examine his facts, his arithmetic and look for errors. He has challenged us to think. There is nothing wrong with his arithmetic. His data, by his own admission, need constant and incessant updating, as will ours. Nevertheless, we believe, by failing to push for a solution including all of the necessary conditions, not just one of these necessary conditions, that Dr. Bartlett has left the door open for a significant false bias. A solution including all of the necessary conditions is also sufficient. A solution including only some of the necessary conditions is insufficient. We will continue to press for the solution which is both necessary and sufficient. We believe that such a solution is expressed by The Law of Carrying Capacity.

[1] Dr. Bartlett

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon

[3] Science, June 27, 1980, Volume 208, page 1431

[4] Simon, Julian Lincoln, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton University Press, 1981: page 49)

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel

[6] Kemp, Jack (HUD Secretary), High Country News, January 27, 1992, page 4 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp

[7] Forbes, Malcolm S., Jr., “Fact and Comment,” Forbes Magazine, June 8, 1992, page 25 See http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/mediawatch-june-1992?, page=9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

[9] Moyers, Bill, A World of Ideas (Doubleday, New York City, 1969: page 276)

[10] Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy (Trilateral Commission: 227 pages)

Friday, February 21, 2014

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6

For the love of the human race.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Our Thesis

We agree with Dr. Bartlett that any solution requires the education and participation of every single one of the earth’s seven billion plus residents. The problem is of such complexity and magnitude that no one person can possibly see lasting solutions. Moreover, the problem impinges on human freedom, so it is unreasonable to expect that lasting solutions can be achieved by human coercion of humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6

Dr. Bartlett discusses new discoveries further. He shows decisively, that these discoveries deserve critical evaluation. At the very least, the size of the discovery must be divided by the rate of consumption to arrive at the time it will last. Most of these evaluations result in times of a few days. Truly enormous volumes of oil, when compared to current consumption, turn out to be amazingly minuscule. The problem is not that the discovery was not significantly gigantic. The problem is that our consumption is horrendous and growing. Dr. Bartlett claims that the necessary, but not sufficient cause is overpopulation. We maintain that the necessary, but not sufficient cause is overconsumption. We also believe that the conditions which are both necessary and sufficient causes, are the product of population and consumption.

Dr. Bartlett discusses ethanol fuels. At the present time 10% ethanol and gasoline mixes have been a commercially available product for several years: but, not everybody uses them. Many engines burn straight gasoline, avgas, jet-fuel, bunker C, and other oil based fuels which contain no ethanol. Oil is also used in the production of asphalt pavement and some plastics, possibly even rubber. When these other uses are factored in, we conclude that Dr. Bartlett’s 1% figure is about right. We also concur with Dr. Bartlett’s observation that ethanol production is most likely endothermic, or so slightly exothermic as to not be worth the trouble of producing it. I’m tired of paying $1,000 to replace my engine gaskets that were destroyed by ethanol. One gallon of ethanol will not move a car as many miles as one gallon of gasoline: so the pump price is deceptive; it looks like a savings, when it is actually an increased cost. Presently, the government is considering the license of E15, a 15% ethanol and gasoline mix: this can only make matters worse.

Dr. Bartlett emphasizes, “We cannot let other people do our thinking for us.” We need to take this exhortation seriously. Resolution of this problem requires the commitment of all of the earth’s seven billion plus population. We remember in the joke about ham and egg breakfast that the pig is committed, while the chicken is only involved.

Dr. Bartlett’s examination of worldwide per-capita consumption of oil is around half a gallon per day and decreasing as it follows the Peak Oil curve. In contrast to the worldwide average, American consumption is around two gallons per day. Much of the world perceives this as unfair: we could tell them that they are better off walking, better off not becoming dependent on fossil fuels, but they probably wouldn’t hear us. The false-glitter of American toys is often very attractive: it shouldn’t be, but it is. There is some justification for our disproportionately high consumption of oil: we have built an economy where our lives depend on oil. When oil is gone, vast numbers of our population will probably die. The problem is not the oil, its use, or its depletion; it is our refusal to manage a life-sustaining resource.

Dr. Bartlett shows from one of Dr. Hubbert’s charts that in the 10,000 years or more of human existence, both historical and future, that the age of fossil fuels is little more than a pimple in the millennia of man. In one hundred years or so, this discussion will no longer be important. However, in adapting to the depletion of fossil fuels, human beings will suffer incredible tragedy. This may not be Armageddon, but for a while it will certainly seem like it.

Dr. Bartlett is right. We have embraced an idol. Growth has replaced God in our vocabulary. We worship growth, and we will certainly pay the price for doing that.

“We have evolved into what amounts to an exponential-growth culture. I would say, it’s more than a culture: it’s our national religion, because we worship growth. Pick up any newspaper; you’ll see headlines such as this: ‘State forecasts robust growth.’ ”

On a recent TV segment of less than an hour the word, growth, was repeated at least four times in similar contexts.

“So, what do we do? In the words of Winston Churchill, ‘Sometimes we have to do what is required.’ ” This applies whether we like it or not. Medicine may taste bitter; but, it is still medicine and we must take it. Today’s pop mantra is, “Don’t listen to negative people.” When the truth is negative, we ignore it at our own peril. The goddess of growth must be cast down and trampled underfoot.

Dr. Bartlett outlines some of the essential points for successful national and worldwide programs.

1. “we ought to have a big increase in the funding for research in the development and dispersion of renewable energy.”

2. “We must educate all of our people to an understanding of the arithmetic and consequences of growth, especially in terms of the earth’s finite resources.”

3. “We must educate people to recognize the fact that growth of populations and growth of rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.”

Dr. Bartlett quotes his own, “The First Law of Sustainability: Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.” He will develop twenty more laws of sustainability, with many corollaries.[1] We shall have to visit these later.

Dr. Bartlett writes “It is intellectually dishonest to talk about sustainability without stressing the obvious fact that stopping population growth is a necessary condition for sustainability!” “Population restraint is a necessary condition but it is not the sufficient condition.”

The other necessary, but not sufficient condition is restraint of consumption. The two constraints are interrelated. The necessary and sufficient condition is the product of the two interrelated conditions on a per capita basis.

The Law of Carrying Capacity

We introduce here our own law, The Law of Carrying Capacity (CC):

0 ≤ CC ≡ P * Cpc ≤ 1

Where: P is the population at any time and place, and Cpc is the per capita consumption due to that same population. One (1) is 100% of Carrying Capacity which cannot be exceeded. Once conditions of 100% sustainability equilibrium are reached for any fixed location, further growth in CC cannot take place. If P increases by a factor of u, Cpc must decrease by a factor of 1/u. If Cpc increases by a factor of v, P must decrease by a factor of 1/v.

If individuals attempt to violate these equilibrium conditions, nature will restore them by force: people will die or they will experience uncontrollable shortages of resources.

If greedy individuals decide that it is necessary to consume more than their fair share, they are in effect committing murder. Fair share is not a worldwide constant. People living in the tropics have different needs than people in the polar regions. Arid climates create different needs than humid climates.

Therefore, CC must be maintained in balance both globally and regionally: but CC must be tuned, region by region. Moreover, sharing mechanisms must be in place to maintain CC under changing conditions. For this reason it would be wise to incorporate a safety factor to accommodate unusual conditions.

We hope to develop this idea more completely in the future and compare it with Dr. Bartlett’s Twenty-one Laws of Sustainability.

Our Conclusion

A few objections to Dr. Bartlett’s and Dr. Hubbert’s studies were soundly refuted. The principal corrective factor rests in not letting others do our thinking for us. All new evidence and reports need to be carefully examined. There are many gainsayers in high places. The idolatrous religion of growth must and will be destroyed: but when and at what cost? Will we be able to overcome the idol of growth in time to avoid the terrible costs that now overtake us? Most of the resolution begins with honest education: if we know the truth, perhaps we will have time to combat the problem. To accomplish this, we need to develop a culture of sustainability. Most of the present sustainability discussion is just talk, hot air; some of the more important discussions are buried and clouded with irrelevant emotional issues, opinions, and human desires. We need a science of sustainability based on nonnegotiable fact. To develop such a science we need to discover sustainability laws. The core of such laws already exists in the science of thermodynamics, and related fields, but it needs application. We have begun by proposing The Law of Carrying Capacity.

[1] http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-11-06/dr-albert-bartletts-laws-sustainability

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 5

Energy Policy

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 5

For the love of the human race.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Our Thesis

We have investigated Dr. Bartlett’s mathematics with rigor and found that his use of mathematics is both correct and precise. It is the task of the mathematician and the scientist to observe reality and explain exactly how and why it works. This field is known as mapping; Dr. Bartlett’s mapping speaks with deadly accuracy: he has been faithful in this task.

However, new and shifting data may require new mappings. When situations are altered, new maps must be used. There is nothing wrong with the old maps, they may simply be inapplicable to the new situation. Failing to understand this is like trying to find a place in Denver from a map of Cleveland.

Nevertheless, opponents of truth persist in discrediting and marginalizing legitimate practices of mathematics and science, by conveniently ignoring the need for appropriate mapping. This abuse is then made into the political or popular lever for claiming that the mathematics and science are incorrect, the mathematicians and scientists are to blame: they put forth a false theory, cried wolf, and lied to the populace. However, it is not usually the mathematician or scientist who lied, but rather the individuals who found it powerful or profitable to spin the truth to their individual advantage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 5

“Energy industries agree that to achieve some form of energy self-sufficiency the U. S. must mine all the coal that it can.”[1] Clearly, the editors at Time Magazine are full of hot air.

David Brower (1912-2000)[2] called this the policy of “strength through exhaustion.”

I liken this to driving at sixty miles per hour; learning that there is an immovable concrete barrier thirty miles ahead; then deciding to increase speed by 7% a mile.

T = 1/ln(b) * ln[ln(b)* R / y0 + 1]

This reduces the remaining time until collision from 30 minutes to 16 minutes, increases the impact velocity to 182 miles per hour, and triples the momentum. It also guarantees that no one will be maimed in the accident. The 182 mile per hour impact velocity pretty much guarantees that all living occupants will be vaporized or reduced to dust. Any remains for burial will have to be located with a sponge or a vacuum cleaner. Instant cremation and dispersion of ashes in one swift motion.

Strength through exhaustion, simply won’t work. The sensible person slows down and puts on the brakes.

“1994 was the first year in our nation’s history in which we had to import more oil than we were able to get out of our own ground.”[3]

Now Dr. Bartlett introduces the concept of peak growth. Until this point our mapping has only considered exponential growth. Government, business, industrial leaders, and many individuals assume the exponential growth will continue indefinitely. These prognosticators are evidently oblivious to the cartoon where the exponential curve blows a hole in the ceiling. If these movers and shakers could possibly be successful at selling their insane schemes of indefinite growth, they would proceed with their plans until every last ounce of any given commodity was consumed. Then the graph would come to a screeching halt. The car would hit the barricade. Everyone on board would be killed and that would be that.

Such an infinitely sloped decrease or increase in mathematics is called a discontinuity. It is easily drawn on a graph. Fortunately, discontinuity is nearly impossible to achieve in nature. Almost all things have some mass, even electrons, and they cannot be made to change direction abruptly. In the case of our car crash model, we could observe this using high-speed, time-lapse photography, and we could watch the car and human bodies being reshaped as energy was dissipated.

In any case there can be no question that a peak was, or someday will be reached. It is impossible to make exponential curves continue indefinitely: all of them approach infinity at terrifying speed. Finite man, simply has no capacity for infinity, which is exactly what the word means. Infinity is usually, perhaps always, the result of trying of trying to divide by zero it cannot be done. So there must be a peak. There must also be a path back downward to zero, either catastrophic or more sloped.

The shape of the downward curve is determined largely by human decision, as is the case with the upward curve. The mathematician and the scientist simply create a map to explain what is happening. As human decisions change, new maps must be created. This does not mean that either the math or the science was wrong. It simply means that some decision makers changed their minds. It is the height of foolishness to abandon or discredit the math because of a decision change.

A peak will occur. Multiple peaks may occur. The time and size of these peaks are determined by human decision and the availability of the remaining resource, and not by the mathematician or scientist. The mathematician and scientist are simply trying to provide a reasonable means of prediction based on contemporary decision policy, and predicted reserves.

Even if the peak is reached abruptly, the crash will take some time as local storage is used up. The resource producer will be the first to realize that he is out of business. The end user will have his last tank to budget as he tries to plan his survival. So a downward slope is inevitable. It may be skewed, it may have bumps, it may be bimodal, it may be slow, but it probably won’t be abrupt. Why?

We have a good idea where the remaining reserves are located, and what their size is. Most of these reserves are not yet in production. Starting production costs money and takes time. Decision makers are the ones who determine when and where it is a good financial decision to open a new mine, buy new equipment, invest in a new process, or build a new refinery. Several reserves are shale oil. Shale oil is not processed the same way as crude bubbling up out of the ground. Deep mines are operated differently than strip mines.

Technological obstacles also exist. This is why we can only get 50% of the coal out of the ground. Even if we know how, costs may be prohibitive. The value of coal will have to increase dramatically to motivate going after it. Not many years ago the depth of wells was limited by pressure to roughly 3,000 psi. Hydraulic equipment was designed for those pressures. When deeper drilling was desired, new technology was developed, pushing pressures beyond 3,000 toward 6,000 and even 10,000 psi. Oil is a very dangerous substance at 3,000 psi: the presence of any air guarantees a fire. At 6,000 or 10,000 psi explosions can be guaranteed, and the limits of material strength are being reached. Common steel can only withstand around 36,000 psi: so things wear out more rapidly, it takes more force to pump at such pressures. The costs go up, and progress goes down. It takes time and money to solve such technological problems.

Popular obstacles also exist. The neighbors will probably object to an operation destroying the view from their picture window, cutting down their favorite forest, muddying their water supply, or locating a nuclear reactor in their back yard. Public outrage can slow, modify, or even stop a project.

All of these factors militate that the downward slope will become progressively slower as it becomes harder and harder to locate and develop new reserves. The obvious mathematical map is some kind of a negative growth curve for much of its path. An even better, more realistic map is that of a Gaussian curve, a bell curve, which accounts for the necessary negative growth rate changes on the bottom path.

So it is impossible to deny the reality of peak theory. Granted, this is a bit like trying to map a bumpy emergency crash landing, but it would still be nice to have something to aim at: like a nice soft pasture, or a convenient highway with no traffic.

The problem with the Peak Oil theory. Dr. Bartlett notes that possibly 3.2 G-bbl of crude oil exist in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: about a 15 month supply at current consumption. The peak in the extraction rate of U. S. crude oil was predicted to occur between 1966 and 1971. This prediction was made by Dr. Hubbert in 1956 when oil consumption was still growing steadily at 7.04% per year. The U. S. Department of Energy fixed the actual U. S. peak at about 3.5 G-bbl per year in 1970. The Alaska reserves were discovered around 1982. The curve development was dramatically shifted by the Alaskan discovery and OPEC increases in world oil prices, which prompted the U. S. energy crisis.

Dr. Bartlett continues. “The estimated U. S. supply [of crude oil] from undiscovered resources and demonstrated reserves is 36 years at present rates of production or 19 years in the absence of imports.”[4] We have demonstrated from 2012 data that the U. S. has only an estimated 10 year supply without considering imports. The world is, at best, only good for 85 years. Please note that this is tacking faithfully down the back slope of the Peak Oil curve. This will certainly continue to be a major problem for us, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. By refusing to deal with this emergency crisis we are mortgaging the future to the detriment of world society.

“…These reserves and the estimated undiscovered oil represent only a 16 years supply, with imports…providing 50% of U. S. needs…the domestic supply stretches to 32 years.”[5]

In 1998, U. S. Energy Secretary Federico Pena “issued his comprehensive … strategy … halting the slide in … production by 2005.” We conclude that Secretary Pena was forced to lie.

“Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food.” When the oil supply stops, food production will change dramatically. Not only will we return to cultural conditions similar to those in 1850, we will do so with a startling deficit. Along the way, in our rush to be wealthy, we have radically changed our environment. We have reduced our oxygen levels. We have created resistant bacteria, noxious insects, and noxious plants. When the restraints of chemical herbicides and insecticides are removed, nature will strike back with vengeance. Blights and diseases may reemerge as major plagues. The land which we have abused, and depleted of nutrients, will not be able to sustain the food supply, without chemical fertilizers. The bees, and other species that we have abused, will not be available to pollinate or attend plant life. The waters that we have polluted, will not be fit to drink or irrigate.

The obvious solution is to reduce consumption drastically. No one will (like this solution, but it is necessary to preserve life. An additional $3.00 per gallon tax on gasoline will make people far more energy conscious. Increasing that tax by another $3.00 per gallon per year until a maximum between $15 and $21 per gallon is reached should help bring consumption under control. We should at least equalize our gasoline costs with those of Europe. A hefty tax on cubic inches or milliliters of engine size should help consumers make better automobile, truck, ship, and industrial engine buying decisions. Rationing fuel should be a final resort. Other measures will also help: for example, the recall of all military to within U. S. borders. We no longer have sufficient wealth to be the world’s enforcer of all things moral. It’s time to face the fact that we are dying very rapidly.

In 1972 Dr. Hubbert predicted that the peak of world production would occur around 1995. The U. S. Department of Energy observed the temporary world peak at about 23 G-bbl per year in 1979 with a second peak in 1990, the delay being caused by OPEC. We are not yet over the actual peak.

Dr. Bartlett proceeds, “The consensus among petroleum geologists is that the total world supply of oil is around 2,000 G-bbl.” This is an educated conjecture with an inherent uncertainty. If we allow for errors of 50% and 100%, the total world supply of oil would be 3,000 G-bbl and 4,000 G-bbl, respectively. Armed with these figures Dr. Bartlett is able to produce three different potential curve fits: with peak oil occurring in 2004, 2019, and 2030, depending on which total world supply of oil is chosen. It is highly improbable that world peak oil would fall outside of this 26 year range. Factors that influence the actual peak are: the actual total world supply of oil, oil prices, the timing of future discoveries, production technology, plant capacity, consumer demand. We, the consumers of oil, can change the occurrence of peak oil by changing our use habits. A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption would move the graph considerably.

Our Conclusion

Dr. Bartlett’s defense of Peak Oil theory is correct. The attempts to discredit this theory will finally prove to be vain. The final shape of the curve may not be known: the size and time of the peak, bimodal behavior, and a degree of skewness or kurtosis are all possible within the practical application of this math. That being said, the peak or peaks have or will take place, and the downhill progression is inevitable. The final shape of such bell shaped curves is ultimately determined by decision makers, not by scientists; but, once the downhill slide is begun it cannot be halted by decisions. Instead of a crash, this is more like that sickening feeling you get when you run out of gas in the middle of nowhere. You are hopelessly out of control as your engine sputters, and you coast to a stop.

Our leaders are not taking the sensible steps to put on the brakes and manage this crisis. We should be operating on reduced growth conservation plans, negative percentages. Our federal budget should be considering a -5% budget, instead of a +5% budget. Our president should be pushing for cuts, rather than performing draconian theatrics to get the increases he wants. Officers like Pena lied or were forced to lie to the American public. The falsification of records continues, unabated.

Where are the real leaders who will stand up and face this crisis honestly and head on?

[1] Time Magazine, May 19, 1975, page 55

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brower

[3] Dr. Bartlett

[4] Science, January 27, 1984, page 382

[5] 1989 oil reporting