This is not America

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Post by Totally_Baffled »

energycity wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:I think our greatest natural resources are in the sea. We need to stop non-UK fishing in UK waters and manage our fisheries properly.
We had better follow Iceland's example then and get some gun boats. When times get really tough the factory ships will be fishing here in ever larger numbers - and they won't be worrying about maintaining sustainable levels of fish stocks.
If fossil fuels (diesel in this case) are in short supply , then surely long range stints in trawlers for decreasing catches will quickly become uneconomical?

If fossil fuels are available enough for trawlers , why not then for fertilzer. In which case the UK can feed itself!

You cannot have it both ways! :wink: :wink:
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
User avatar
leroy
Posts: 355
Joined: 09 Oct 2007, 19:16

Post by leroy »

We had better follow Iceland's example then and get some gun boats. When times get really tough the factory ships will be fishing here in ever larger numbers - and they won't be worrying about maintaining sustainable levels of fish stocks.
We have gunboats aplenty, methinks. Whenever I have visited the US the main thing that strikes me is how a lack of being united pervades. I pray for our American cousins as I pray for our little Albion. At the same time, the social cohesion and the general fund of social means troubles me in the UK. I came across Peak Oil whilst working in Criminal Justice, and now in FE, pursuing Horticulture and an Access to Science, I am fearful of how we will turn out. I like to think that the goodness in people will prevail - take unity in our land. An incredible people who react and invent with strength and dignity. Let's hope so.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Totally_Baffled wrote:
energycity wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:I think our greatest natural resources are in the sea. We need to stop non-UK fishing in UK waters and manage our fisheries properly.
We had better follow Iceland's example then and get some gun boats. When times get really tough the factory ships will be fishing here in ever larger numbers - and they won't be worrying about maintaining sustainable levels of fish stocks.
If fossil fuels (diesel in this case) are in short supply , then surely long range stints in trawlers for decreasing catches will quickly become uneconomical?

If fossil fuels are available enough for trawlers , why not then for fertilzer. In which case the UK can feed itself!

You cannot have it both ways! :wink: :wink:
There was a fishing industry before there was oil. In fact the fishing industry provided the oil. Whale oil.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

http://www.energybulletin.net/3338.html
Prices and Production over a complete Hubbert Cycle: the Case of the American Whale Fisheries in 19th Century
Image
User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Post by Totally_Baffled »

Not sure I understand your point Undercover :)

In those days fishing was on a lot smaller scale(versus today), trawlers were not run on diesel and converting the current fleet back to sails/coal/steam isn't going to be an option given the time limits (and the lack of materials as well as energy)!

We certainly could not go back to whale oil! :wink:

I think one of the few upsides of PO is that fishing on such a large scale will take an enormous hit and fish stocks may actually get a chance to recover (as more and more of the oceans become out of range as diesel becomes short!)
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
User avatar
Papillon
Posts: 206
Joined: 12 Jun 2007, 03:04
Location: London

Re: This is not America

Post by Papillon »

UndercoverElephant wrote:The more I browse through the breaking news stories on "Life After the Oil Crash", the more I realise that this crisis is going to play out very differently in different parts of the world. The American peakers are right to worry. Their problems are far worse than ours.

For them, it is the death of the American dream - the end of suburbia. But in the UK, we don't even have anything like American suburbia. Sure, have the suburban sprawl of places like South London - but these places aren't actually chronically dependent on freeways and car transport. They aren't as spread out as American suburbia. And for all of Dr Beeching's attempts to destroy the rail network, we do still have a rail network.

We also don't have the cultural problems they have. By that I mean that we've already lost our empire and for all our military adventures under Blair, we are not deluded into believing the world revolves around us. Most people in the US seem to believe that if the US goes into meltdown, the rest of the world will cease to function. They think that the other western powers will support an attack on Iran because we are so dependent on US leadership and military might that when in a fix, we'll do as we are told. This is all delusion. The middle east is heading for an economic boom. Outside the western world there are many cultures who already survive on much less than we do, and so have less far to fall when the post-peak world emerges.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you spend too much time listening to Americans panicking about peak oil, you risk getting sucked into fearing things which are actually much more of a threat to them than they are to us. Sure, it's going to cause massive changes all over the world, but this is not America and I believe that the UK is far better placed than the US to cope with what it is to come. Our culture and our national infrastructure has evolved from something which existed in a time before oil and in the end this will make a big difference.
As much as I would love to agree with you, we are not even half prepared, and PO has the potential to bring down the UK economy as easily as in the USA. That's my take on it anyway.

It is true there is less sprawl over here, and better public transport, but at the same time the population density is higher, and our entire economy is based on financial markets nowadays, we produce next to nothing, and I feel we are in a very poor "starting point" to deal with what's coming.

What you mention above about South London for example, while I agree it is not chronically dependent on highways etc. (and I live there myself), I believe it is heavily dependent upon the capital generated in Central London. Take that away and you'll have mass unemployment and a big mess happening all over the place. And then, who cares about public transport anyway?

Bottom line is, to me anyway, we are poorly prepared for PO, there seem to be very little our leaders are doing about it, and our economy at it's current form, is no different to the US economy and could readily collapse. Our suburban sprawl, while being better linked to central London, is still massively dependent on it for generating capital.

Call me a pessimist, that's my observation after living down here for a while and looking at things through my "PO aware screen".
"Things are now in motion that cannot be undone" - Good Ole Gandalf! :)

"Forests to precede civilizations, deserts to follow" - Francois Rene Chateaubriand
peaky2
Posts: 188
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 00:10

Post by peaky2 »

MacG wrote:My verdict: No person or family is an island which can "buy" security. Whatever happens in the future, we must face it as a SOCIETY. No individual have a chance on his/her own.
Totally with you on that one. The overwhelming feeling that I had after attending the National Transition Network conference recently was that the feeling you get from a whole load of people together expressing and working towards a positive vision is quite amazing and inspiring. I left quite sure that a collective, neighbourhood, societal response is crucial as the foundation that gives us a chance of getting through what's coming.
Andy Hunt wrote: wrote:But even so you do have some of the best ideas for restructuring and survival: Earthships for example.
Earthships are such an infinitesimal drop in the ocean that I don't really think they're ever going to be of much use. They're all very nice in a huge tract of land out in New Mexico or similar but in an urban area? I don't think that they can be deployed where they're needed in any useful way - how do you think that they will help?
"[The Transition Movement is] producing solutions, not a shopping list for suicide" - Rob Hopkins
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Re: This is not America

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Papillon wrote:
As much as I would love to agree with you, we are not even half prepared, and PO has the potential to bring down the UK economy as easily as in the USA. That's my take on it anyway.
No existing major world economy can continue to exist without radical change. It will "bring down" all of them. The point I'm making is that it will be easier for us to move to a new model.
What you mention above about South London for example, while I agree it is not chronically dependent on highways etc. (and I live there myself), I believe it is heavily dependent upon the capital generated in Central London. Take that away and you'll have mass unemployment and a big mess happening all over the place. And then, who cares about public transport anyway?
People still need to get from A to B, even after TEOTWAWKI.

As for how this country earns money after the financial sector collapses, I don't know the answer to that one.
User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Re: This is not America

Post by Totally_Baffled »

No existing major world economy can continue to exist without radical change. It will "bring down" all of them. The point I'm making is that it will be easier for us to move to a new model.
As for how this country earns money after the financial sector collapses, I don't know the answer to that one.
You make an excellent point UE which 100% agree.

When talking about the disadvantages of the UK - the most common argument is that we are completely reliant on the financial sector and we do not make anything anymore.

Well in that case (as you have said above) that applies to just about every developed country, and as time goes by it is becoming the case in developing economies.

When you look at the percentage of UK GDP which is manafacturing we are about average for an OECD country. Indeed we are ahead of the US, France, Italy and not far off Germany! (note to chris 25 - acknowledged depending on the measure it varies between 15% - 25%, but this applies to other OECD nations too).

Hell even the manafacturing centre of the world (China) is only 45% manafacturing and India 30%!

If you look the UK's position in manfacturing (again depending on what you include) is at the very WORST in the top 10 and at best in the top 6.

So if the service sector is no longer viable post peak you could argue the UK is no worse off than many OECD nation and is certainly better off than than all but 9 countries (+ say the big oil producers! :))

My own view is that the following will happen in the UK (please excuse the lack of detail but I dont want to type an essay :))

1) Standard of living will drop which will drop the domestic consumption of goods to create a surplus for export (trade for stuff we are not self sufficient)

2) Labour will become cheaper (hence point 1), and British goods become more competitive. This new source of labour is all those newly unemployed financial people! As for poeple in big cities like london , then maybe all those big retail parks will become factories (or more like workhouses). Maybe there will be buses to the farms, stay on site all week and then back to the city for the weekend (for shite wages - but hey this is PO we are talking about!) Others will continue to work in services (see point 4) There will also be relocation overtime of a lot of people to where the work is to a certain degree.

3) Cost of transportation will make "imports" from far away less competitive (but many goods made in the far east for example will still remain cheaper to import than make at home for the short to medium term) - Anyone remember when the term "import" meant expensive? - we will be back to that again I guess! Again , restoring the "trade balance" of the UK

4) The service sector as a % of the economy will shrink, but will still be there , as people will always need haircuts, entertainment, repairs, and all that other stuff they maybe are not skilled in to do themselves, but again it will be more expensive as a % of peoples incomes so they dont do so much of it.


Etc etc.

If not it is global anarchy and mass death! :twisted:
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

In another thread it was pointed out that we're the 5th (6th?) largest manufacturing economy in the world and we in fact make rather a lot, tho' much of that is putting together finished stuff from 1/2-finished stuff from elsewhere for all I know. But the manufacturing expertise/ethos is still about, in the same way that, for example, the small-farm ethos is in Spain (because it's less than a generation away).

I think the US will be worse off than us in the short term, because it is simply easier for us to carry on our daily lives/work with higher transport costs than it is for people there. In the longer term our lack of land area may be a more important problem, but who knows?
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Post by Totally_Baffled »

What makes the US and UK's situation more unpredictable is that they/we still have a domestic oil/gas/coal/uranium(US) supply.

OK OK , I know it is in terminal decline and the amounts are small versus current consumption but they are still significant amounts.

The US will still be producing (assuming no nuke war or revolution!) 3.5 - 4.5 million barrels per day even in 20 years time. Slap on say another million from Canada and actually they still have a fair old supply. Certainly way than more than enough to run the farms the water supply, the military and domestic law enforcement. Indeed the US has the largest military in the world and it consumes 300kpd - so if they want to keep the domestic population under control, they have the oil to do it? (lets assume for a minute they dont try and start WWIII by invading most of the ME!)

The whole world didnt use 5.5 mpd per day until the 1940's! (something to do with a minor scuffle involving a few countries! :wink: )

The UK will still be producing 200 kpd in 20 years and maybe we will strike lucky in and around the Falklands for another 200kpd. Thats still quite a lot of oil for a small country. Tag on some imports say 100K , isnt this enough to work with to keep the wolves from the door?

If we all end up eating each other, I would concede the point that it wont be for lack of energy to survive, it will be down to not being able to put together a workable system/society/economy etc that 'works' with declining energy.
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
stumuz
Posts: 624
Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 18:44
Location: Anglesey, North Wales

Post by stumuz »

most people in the UK are employed in businesses with less the 5 employees. we will do very well in comparison with the US.

ahh, i'm typing this on an ifone in an airport.will give a proper reply tomorrow
I was not attempting to censor the discussion, just to move it as it had become very much off-topic - jmb site admin
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12777
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

stumuz wrote:most people in the UK are employed in businesses with less the 5 employees.
Blimey that's an eye-opener!! Where do the numbers come from?
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
stumuz
Posts: 624
Joined: 14 Sep 2006, 18:44
Location: Anglesey, North Wales

Post by stumuz »

We work on the assumption that most people are employed in a workplace which averaged 5 or less employees.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/employment/

Gives the official version, but this does not reflect the true picture.

This although from 1999 (we have gone further down the small business route since then) gives a better picture http://www.reducetheuse.co.uk/Page/Pdf/ ... Survey.pdf

It should be remembered that 80% of all UK businesses have a turnover of less than ?100,000, only 0.5% employ more than one hundred people and 94% employ less than ten. Within The European Union and using its definition, there are 16m businesses of which 99.9% are micro, small or medium sized businesses (employ less than two hundred and fifty people) and 100m people are employed in the Private Sector Workforce; 32% of those employed work in the Micro Sector.
So when the UK hits the downward energy curve we are well placed to adapt the national business model to whatever we need quite quickly. I have no doubt that when energy depletion becomes common knowledge, we will see the innate talent of these small businesses( which does everything the large businesses do, but more efficiently) spring into action.
I was not attempting to censor the discussion, just to move it as it had become very much off-topic - jmb site admin
Vortex
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 May 2006, 19:14

Post by Vortex »

The UK will still be producing 200 kpd in 20 years and maybe we will strike lucky in and around the Falklands for another 200kpd. Thats still quite a lot of oil for a small country. Tag on some imports say 100K , isnt this enough to work with to keep the wolves from the door?
We have signed away our rights to OUR oil & gas.

Europe can seize it for 'fair distribution' in times of emergency.
Post Reply