As part of trying to learn French, I spend some time each day browsing French newspapers and magazines on-line. This evening, I came across an article in Le Monde which points up a predicted result of the oil peak: a breakdown in modern agriculture. When Americans hear of rising oil prices, usually we think in terms of driving our cars, related to the price of gasoline. But the truth is, our entire economy -- indeed the WORLD'S whole economy -- runs on oil, and when oil becomes scarcer and dearer, everything is ultimately affected.

The article is in French, but I'll translate the first part of it:

Le tracteur, espèce en voie d'extinction - Economie - Le Monde.fr

If, as the price of oil continues to rise, farmers must stop using tractors and other motorized farm machinery and return to the muscle-power of domesticated animals, what will be the consequences?

Most obviously, net harvest will be lower. Camels, horses, oxen, and so on don't burn gasoline, it's true, but they do eat, and acreage devoted to feeding them cannot at the same time be devoted to feeding humans. They are also less efficient than farm machinery. Sure, a horse or mule (or a camel) can do more or less the same job as a tractor, but there's no way it's going to replace a combine. And what about artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and the vehicles to apply them? What about transporting the food to market after it's harvested? What about irrigation, which depends on pumps that run on petroleum products?

What happens when heating oil becomes expensive enough that people return to burning wood? You can heat a house quite well with a wood stove, but in order to do that on any serious scale, you need to grow forests, which means you can't use that acreage to plant crops. Of course, that's assuming the forests are still even available; generally we've cut down the woods that were once used for fuel, because, having all that oil, we could.

Food is the most worrisome of the economic side-effects of the end of cheap oil, because it's an absolute necessity of life, and the earth's population has grown to the point where it's dependent on a highly oil-dependent mode of agriculture. But there are other consequences, too. What manufacturing endeavor does not use oil? Oil to heat and light the factories, oil to run the machines that make the goods, oil to transport the finished products to market. As oil becomes too expensive to use for these purposes, what do we return to? Torches and candles for lighting, wood furnaces for heat, and muscle power for work?

If, as I believe, the current soaring price of oil is not a temporary problem, but a permanent condition, or permanent until dropping demand (there will be no increase in supply) drops the price, we face the greatest global environmental crisis in the history of civilization. I call it an "environmental" crisis because all environmental crises involve the limits of resources, in the form of depleted sources or overloaded sinks, or both. In this case, both, because the same fossil fuel reserves that are now being depleted, and will be available in smaller and smaller quantities each year, are also clogging the biosphere's carbon sinks and producing global warming, and, by their very past efficiency in producing food, pushing human population (which like all populations grows -- or shrinks, though we've forgotten that -- with the food supply) past sustainability.

How will we meet this crisis? Don't even bother trying to blame it on the fact that we have a few minor oil fields that aren't being tapped because they're in environmentally-sensitive areas; those fields would not allow a sufficient increase in ANNUAL production (which is the important variable, not total volume) to offset the declines in production from other fields that would occur over the time they're being developed. We cannot drill our way out of this problem. The technical solution is obvious: increased energy efficiency coupled with the development of renewable energy sources. But how do we implement that solution in the midst of a global food crisis?

Times like these are ones in which rethinking occurs, if one is still among the mentally living.

The only surprise to me is that so many of these idiots think ONLY about automobile fuel when they think of high oil prices.

Not that I have some exclusive knowledge of this, but for years I (and many others) have been warning people that since almost EVERYTHING we use and/or take for granted is made from oil, at least to some degree, as oil prices rise, everything else will rise too. And if oil should stop flowing entirely, civilization as we know it would quickly collapse. And that's no "chicken little" scenario either.
We may not be able to drive our SUVs, but it won't matter since there won't be much to drive TO.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Bienvue au monde francophone!

(I Think that's right - I'm a bit rusty. Any of our resident frogs are more than welcome to correct me if appropriate.)

Scribbler is quite correct that there's a lot more to the iceberg than most people think, but TSG's example is of limited application. 35 hectares is a rather small farm. And 15 miles is a rather large distance to drive a tractor to fill up the gas tank. This would be like me driving a riding mower the 2 or so miles to the nearest gas station to fill up before mowing our small lawn. For smaller, more remote patches of real estate, it does become more efficient to downgrade, like our using a push mower. Alternatively, one can have larger farms and/or set up your own makeshift gas station like my grandfather had on his farm (or my gas can in the garage). The downgrading will probably not be seen in the US or other industrialized nations except in niche situations like organic farming or farm hobbyists.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Merci beaucoup.

The farm in question was primitive, yes. The problem has only begun, and is impacting the smaller, poorer farmers first. But, although we don't see huge agribusiness concerns scrapping their machinery for teams of mules, we do see increases in their costs of production, which will inevitably increase food prices. As food prices go up, a few people living marginally will go hungry, while others, who can still afford groceries, will use a larger chunk of their paychecks to buy them, and as a result will have less to spend on other things, and this will hurt the economy. Meanwhile, other sectors of the economy are also seeing increased production costs.

Everyone except believers in abiotic oil knows oil is a nonrenewable resource, but a lot of people seem to visualize that fact incorrectly. They think of the end of oil as something sudden -- everything goes along just fine, then one day we pump the last well dry, there's no more oil at all, and we're screwed totally. It doesn't work that way, though, because all the oil in the ground isn't available at the same time, and what matters is not how much there is total but how much can be pumped per day, and how much it costs to do that. With an extracted resource, the rate of extraction can be increased (subject to technological limitations) until half of it is gone, and then it declines over time. We have, I believe, now reached that halfway point with oil. There's still lots of oil left -- we're nowhere near running out of the stuff -- so we don't see a big poof! and it's all gone. Instead, year by year, less and less of it is pumped from the ground, while demand continues to rise, and so the prices rises higher and higher. Use of oil falls off in marginal applications first because it's too expensive to use, and we fall back on cheaper and more reliable, but less convenient and versatile, forms of energy.

We cannot sustain a global population this size without oil, or something to take its place in all its applications. Wait, scratch that -- all it's energy applications I mean. Since there's still lots of oil, a switch to other forms of energy will leave an abundance of it oil for the plastics and chemical industries. We'll still use it for that for a long time. Also, probably, for military applications. I can't visualize fueling a jet fighter with anything else. But our cars, buses, and trains will need to run on hydrogen fuel cells, our electricity will need to come from a combination of solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear (all but the last being sustainable), and because none of those can provide energy as abundantly and easily as oil could in its heydey, we will need to drastically improve energy efficiency so that we use more of what we produce as opposed to throwing it away.

An interesting personal tidbit: I just learned today from my brother that I'm in the oil business myself after a fashion. Our paternal grandmother had some land in Texas which was sold when she died, but the mineral rights were retained, and now an oil company wants to drill there. So I guess I'll be realizing some windfall profits from the way peak oil is driving up the price of crude. Might as well cash in while I can.

Hey, can you lend me a couple hundred thousand dollars until payday?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

This happens for messing with the Oil for Food program.... it controlled everything... now that it's gone, we ain't having either!

No seriously...

Many people think about driving on vacation in summers when they hear about the gasoline prizes... but they also think about buying heating oil for the winter... and that ain't no nice picture...

Some people streched their heating oil reserves as thin as possible for the last years... hoping for low prices this summer... BIG miscalculation...

There goes some thousend bucks that could have been spend on positive investment (new heater or new car...)

__________________

Agriculture will revert to using domesticated animals for production the same time the general population does for everyday transportation. Input costs in agriculture have risen dramatically in the last couple of years but so have commodity prices. The rising energy prices haven't hurt modern agriculture yet. In fact, most producers in America have had record profits the last two years. As input costs have are catching up to the sharp rise in commodity prices, profits will likely be returning to their normal levels shortly. I don't see any of this resulting in the death of modern agriculture though. It's already been mentioned, but it will be the price of food that will affect most people if energy prices continue to climb. I'm just not sure why energy prices would affect agriculture more or less than other industries.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

And yet the Amish farms remain very profitable, while modern farmers see their land foreclosed.
Because sustainable organic farming methods are the most profitable in the long run.
You certainly bring a lot more to market with modern methods, but that money you get for the extra crop has to pay for fuel, machinery, hybrid seed, chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
And after using modern methods for a number of years, your topsoil is pretty much blown away or washed away, because it doesn't contain that rich organic humus that holds the soil in place.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Amish profitability aside, I'm not sure where you get the idea that modern farmers are having their land foreclosed. Recent years have been some of the most profitable in history. If using fuel, machinery, etc., weren't profitable, people wouldn't be doing it. In addition, with higher input costs have we've seen a shift toward more conservation tillage and a reduction in the amount of chemicals applied. Modern seed technology has also contributed greatly to those changes as well.

Finally, what would food prices look like right now everyone in agriculture used Amish methods? The amount of food on the market would be drastically reduced to say the least. The Amish are interesting and people might like to romanticize that lifestyle, but how many people out there want to go back to the days when farmers made up more than half the labor force?

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Greetings and Felicitations,

I am aware of the hidden costs of production. I mentioned this in my post about Dow chemicals raising their prices by almost 50% in June and July. The effects of that haven't even began to trickle down into consumer prices yet.

I wonder if anyone here has realized that the food companies are pulling a sneaky by reducing the amount of food in containers whlle keeping the boxes the same size. A really hidden cost increase.

US manufacturers beat inflation by selling less for same price.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

I agree the rising cost of oil will certainly inflict potentially debilitating costs to many industries, and almost all consumers. I also agree with Scribbler in that this crisis has been looming for years, and was predicted by many. So perhaps our current predicament is a much needed reality-check. Lets face it, our nation has become a reckless petroleum addict who can no longer afford our drug of choice. Hopefully, we are about to check into rehab.

On the bright side, I think America has the resources and resolve necessary to make it through rehab, and come out revitalized. We still boast the most human capital, and most advanced technological capacity worldwide. I strongly believe we can work to develop effective and efficient alternative energy sources. What was our nations response to shortages of copper and tin in the early 1970's? A technological breakthrough: plastics that replaced copper in tin in many applications.

We do need some help from our government to get the ball rolling. The percentage of college students choosing careers in engineering and science has plummeted in the past few decades. It is almost cliché to say this now, but we need another post-sputnik response in our society. Our future demands a renewed emphasis on research and development in engineering and science. So lets see some government funding for sustainable energy development, tax breaks to energy companies for their contributions, and just an overall message from our government that the time is now for America to work together again against this pervasive threat to our society.

English farmers working the Irish land enjoyed high profits during the potato famine when the Irish were starving. Profits often rise when prices do. That does not mean the situation is healthy or sustainable. The purpose of agriculture in terms of its service to society is not to secure a profit for farmers, but to feed people. As the price of food is driven up, feeding people will become more difficult, and agriculture will be failing in its purpose -- record profits or no record profits.

well heres another cause, one wonders how many of these types of issues slide by without being noticed...if anyone can think of a good reason why the LNG facility should not go forward other than to keep the price of it artificially high and satisfying the Lib/ prog. approach to the ecology etc. I am all ears.


Mr. Frank's Wild River
July 9, 2008; Page A14
Behold the Taunton River in Fall River, Massachusetts, pictured nearby. Congressman Barney Frank thinks your family would love to visit this scenic wilderness. Among its attractions are the fuel-storage tanks along the eastern shore. The container ships and piers are always a hit with the children looking for a place to romp.

This could be America's next "wild and scenic river," if Mr. Frank gets his way. Last month the powerful Congressman pushed a bill through the House Natural Resources Committee that would give the Taunton River that designation under federal law. The bill could come up for a vote on the House floor soon. If you're beginning to sense that there may be more going on here than love of nature, keep reading.



The 40-year-old Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed to protect certain rivers from development. To qualify, says the law, a river should "possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values." If they are designated under the act, the rivers and their "immediate environment" are then protected from development or industrial uses. We've got nothing against container docks, but the Taunton River would not seem to qualify as wild, much less scenic, under any of the law's descriptive qualities.

Mr. Frank's real agenda can be spied on the right-hand shore in this picture. This is the proposed site of a terminal for importing liquefied natural gas (LNG). The terminal would be located right about where those five white storage tanks are at the top of the picture – hardly untrammeled wilderness. The Congressman, whose district includes part of Fall River and the Taunton River, has long opposed the LNG port.

Mr. Frank claims that the wild and scenic designation has nothing to do with the terminal. But six months before the terminal was first proposed in 2002, Mr. Frank had advocated dredging this not so pristine landscape to preserve its viability as an industrial port. Suddenly, he's discovered its wild, natural beauty. Mr. Frank has also blocked the demolition of the Brightman Street Bridge just downriver from the site, with the aim of blocking ship access to any LNG terminal.

With energy prices as high as they are, you'd think Mr. Frank and his Capitol Hill mates would have some sympathy for constituents who are squeezed at the pump, and on their heating and electrical bills. New England relies heavily on natural gas for both of the latter. Most of the LNG terminals for importing foreign natural gas are down in the Gulf of Mexico. So foreign or domestic natural gas for New England has to be piped all the way from the Gulf, adding to already high fuel costs.

Yet Mr. Frank is resisting this chance to bring more supply on line. Democrats seem to think they can avoid the blame for those rising costs, and it's true that supply is only one component of the current price equation; the devaluation of the dollar also plays a role. But when everything from drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration in the Rockies to the development of Alaska and the importation of LNG to New England are all ruled out of bounds, a policy agenda becomes clear.

That policy is hostility to greater supplies of carbon energy that would help keep prices lower. Mr. Frank's gambit reveals that policy in all its wild and scenic political grandeur.

Mr. Frank's Wild River - WSJ.com

Attached Images

tanton river.jpg (27.7 KB, 18 views)

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor