PowerSwitch

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence ... 33df2aeb6b

A new scientific study led by the China University of Petroleum in Beijing, funded by the Chinese government, concludes that China is about to experience a peak in its total oil production as early as next year.

Without finding an alternative source of “new abundant energy resources�, the study warns, the 2018 peak in China’s combined conventional and unconventional oil will undermine continuing economic growth and “challenge the sustainable development of Chinese society.�

This also has major implications for the prospect of a 2018 oil squeeze — as China scales its domestic oil peak, rising demand will impact world oil markets in a way most forecasters aren’t anticipating, contributing to a potential supply squeeze. That could happen in 2018 proper, or in the early years that follow.

Insurge Intelligence is one of the few websites which still covers oil production and wider Limits to Growth issues.

A true gem.

"Sustainable development" is an oxymoron in the long term.

woodburner wrote:"Sustainable development" is an oxymoron in the long term.

With that point of view we would still be on the Serengeti plains without fire and having the lions and leopards eating us for lunch.

The Chinese play the long game. That must be why they are getting into hydro and renewable energy in a big way and not getting into gas power generation so much. Also they are happy to suck everyone else's resources dry before they finish up their own. i could quite easily see the US exporting LNG to China in a few years. Their sustainable development will be at everyone else's expense.

vtsnowedin wrote:

woodburner wrote:"Sustainable development" is an oxymoron in the long term.

With that point of view we would still be on the Serengeti plains without fire and having the lions and leopards eating us for lunch.

Maybe that is the fundamental dichotomy, in the long term. That is to say, human civilization and long term planetary ecological sustainability are irrevocably incompatible.

Partly true, LJ. Human civilisation isn't the problem but ever growing human development and ever growing human numbers are.

A portion of the human race could live a sustainable life. Unfortunately evolution has meant that portion has shrunk over history. It is definitely a minority.

kenneal - lagger wrote:Partly true, LJ. Human civilisation isn't the problem but ever growing human development and ever growing human numbers are.

Actually, I think, in the long run, human civilisation is the problem.

Can we name a single human civilisation, over the entire course of human history, that has not eventually collapsed due to ecological degradation of one form of another?

I can't bring a single example to mind.

It all started with the invention of farming and the rest, as they say, is history. All that is happening now is what has happened to all previous civilisations. The only difference is that this time the collapse is global.

True LJ but all civilisations have improved on the previous one so perhaps the next one will learn a lesson and live within its means.

The next civilisation will have to be radically different from this one as we've wiped out the resources upon which all other civilisations have relied apart from wood for fuel. With the collapse in numbers which follows a civilisation collapse trees would be able to regroup, assuming global warming doesn't fry the entire earth, and there would be sufficient wood to fuel the small numbers of people left.

We might be able to go back to an iron age with the amount of scrap metal lying about on the surface but mining anything, apart from waste heaps, would be out of the question for several million years unless we found another energy source to match the energy intensity of the fossil fuels that our current civilisation has squandered. The depth of any minerals left and the low proportions of metals in the ores would preclude any return to mining until tectonic plate movement recharged the crust with concentrated minerals. The same goes for fossil fuels.

Any new civilisation would have to crack natures secret of producing structural grade materials at ambient temperature and pressure.

kenneal - lagger wrote:True LJ but all civilisations have improved on the previous one so perhaps the next one will learn a lesson and live within its means.....

Please define "improved" Ken

Taking technologies forward?

kenneal - lagger wrote:Taken technologies forward?

Please define "forward" Ken

Improving on the last iteration of them.

But humans never seem to learn anything from previous failures.

kenneal - lagger wrote:Improving on the last iteration of them.

I am not trying to be rude Ken, but you appear to be stuck in a circular pattern of thought here. You stated that civilizations have "improved" over time. When asked to define "improved", you have then used the term "taken forward". When asked to define this, you are stating it means "improved".

Neither of these terms have any more meaning than the other without defining what you mean by them Ken.

I'm going to spell out here where I think the problems with a lack of definition arise.

Do you mean improvement in economic terms for humans? If so, do you mean for some humans or all humans?

Alternatively, do you mean improvement in ecological term for the rest of life on this planet?

Do you think the above two definitions of "improvement" are mutually incompatible in principle? Or, do you think they are only incompatible in certain practice? But, in other practice, they are compatible? In which case, can you name a single example in human history where civilizational "improvements" have not been to the detriment of the rest of life on earth?

Again, I can't think of single example in all of human history. If, however, you are able to, then please tell me it.