How much of our freedom is related to 'cheap energy'? Last I checked, the average American uses over 60 barrel of oil equivalents of the 3 primary fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) per year. Depending on ones assumptions (and occupation), this is in the neighborhood of hundred(s) of years of manual human toil supplanted by cheap ancient sunlight. (At $20 per hour, a human laborer makes over $40,000 per year so even an energy subsidy of 100X p/a equates to $4 million in dollar terms.) Do our social freedoms emanate from the nature of our socio-political system, or the reverse - is our socio-political system a byproduct of the resources we acquired and used after finding this land? What is freedom, anyways? And what will freedom look like in the future? On this the birthday of the United States of America, let's discuss energy and freedom around the Campfire.

This is a guest post by Lester R. Brown, founder and President of the Earth Policy Institute. His principal research areas include food, population, water, climate change, and renewable energy; see his list of publications by clicking here.

Today we are an oil-based civilization, one that is totally dependent on a resource whose production will soon be falling. Since 1981, the quantity of oil extracted has exceeded new discoveries by an ever-widening margin. In 2008, the world pumped 31 billion barrels of oil but discovered fewer than 9 billion barrels of new oil. World reserves of conventional oil are in a free fall, dropping every year.

 

Discoveries of conventional oil total roughly 2 trillion barrels, of which 1 trillion have been extracted so far, with another trillion barrels to go. By themselves, however, these numbers miss a central point. As security analyst Michael Klare notes, the first trillion barrels was easy oil, “oil that’s found on shore or near to shore; oil close to the surface and concentrated in large reservoirs; oil produced in friendly, safe, and welcoming places.” The other half, Klare notes, is tough oil, “oil that’s buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places.”

This prospect of peaking oil production has direct consequences for world food security, as modern agriculture depends heavily on the use of fossil fuels. Most tractors use gasoline or diesel fuel. Irrigation pumps use diesel fuel, natural gas, or coal-fired electricity. Fertilizer production is also energy-intensive. Natural gas is used to synthesize the basic ammonia building block in nitrogen fertilizers. The mining, manufacture, and international transport of phosphates and potash all depend on oil.

Book review: Taking Jeff Rubin to task

The problem is Rubin never quite gets around to discussing how $150/barrel oil will affect us except to say that we will all have to consume less and in reduced variety. And there are a lot of people who won't stand for that. What happens then? It's the thorny question that can't help but creep into the reader's mind when faced with the starkness of Rubin's analysis.

Without this level of analysis, the book never rises much past the level of highly competent pop culture screed, probably destined to compete ably against similar doomsday books. And there's nothing wrong with that, but given the gravity of the consequences both mentioned and unmentioned, Your World needs to be so much more.

[Editor's Note: Some have noted that this article was first published by a controversial organization; TOD protocol for guest essays is to include the original source of the piece. It was not my/our intent to direct people to the site or to endorse its content, just like we don't endorse any other site's content or any particular world view. Let's focus the discussion on the essay itself; and debate it on its own merits please.]

This is a guest posting of Richard Duncan's latest "Olduvai" update, which is an essay that explores energy use and population and as with previous updates arrives at some rather grim conclusions.

On a side note, the paper Richard Duncan wrote with Walter Youngquist in 1999 (when oil prices were in $10-$15 range and stock markets were at all time highs) predicting a 2007 world oil peak was not only prescient and ahead of its time using oil forecasting heuristics, but was part of the core readings from 2003 that caused me to leave the Wall St path to study resource depletion full time.

(I encourage those who have not done so to read it: Encircling the Peak of World Oil Production).

Figure 5. Toward Re-Equalizing the World Standards of Living

Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

That April 2001 report, "Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the US Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

In retrospect, it appears that the report helped focus administration thinking on why it made geopolitical sense to oust Hussein, whose country sat on the world's second largest oil reserves.

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East," the report said.

I spend a lot of time playing "What if?" It is an important aspect of my line of work, but we all do this to some extent. I do it when I am driving - "What if that car at the next intersection pulls out in front of me?" - when I am working "What if that high pressure line ruptures?" - and at home - "What if I wake up and find the house is on fire?" I also spend a lot of time pondering the question "What if there are energy shortages in the near future?"

When we do this, we are generally trying to understand the potential consequences of various responses to a given situation. This sort of exercise is a form of risk assessment, and it is a very important tool for making decisions about events that could impact the future. Sometimes the consequences are minor. If I choose not to take an umbrella to work and it rains, there is probably a small consequence. If I choose to pass a car on a blind hill, the consequence may be severe, and may extend to other people.

In this essay I will explore the implications of the question: "What if I am wrong on peak oil or global warming?"

Hurricanes May Increase in Gulf as El Nino Shifts in Pacific

(Bloomberg) -- A shift of warming patterns in the Pacific Ocean may mean more seasons of increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic and more storms entering the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico, according to a study in the journal Science.

The warming of Pacific waters -- a phenomenon called El Nino -- has been moving toward the central Pacific, meaning more storms will form in the Gulf and Caribbean, researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology said in the study. Traditionally, when the eastern Pacific warms up, hurricane activity in the Atlantic falls.

On a steamy Friday night my 10 year old son and I headed over to the rodeo grounds. It is only about a mile from our home and within the city limits, though on the eastern edge where the town merges into the valley landscape of pastures and tree-lined creeks and ditches.

As we approached, it was obvious that a large crowd had gathered. A long line extended from the ticket booth and the stands looked nearly full. Friends had tipped me off about what was going on only 10 minutes earlier, while thousands of others had obviously been looking forward to this event.

It was a truck and tractor pull.

On a hot summer night truck pull fans fill the stadium at the rodeo grounds in Willits, CA. Behind the dust is a weighted sled, called Terminator, that eventually forces the truck to stall. Truck pull images by Ree Slocum.

Nate Hagens gives his presentation at the "Peak Summit" in Alcatraz. 114 slides in 45 minutes for what may be a true world record in information concentration.

WTO admits some trade limits may be necessary to stop climate change

GENEVA (AP) — The World Trade Organization acknowledged Friday that some limits on free trade may be necessary to stop runaway climate change — provided the restrictions aren't a cover for protectionism.

"WTO case law has confirmed that WTO rules do not trump environmental requirements," the global commerce body said.

Import taxes on goods coming from countries that fail to meet environmental standards might be among the measures exceptionally permitted under global free trade laws, WTO said.