Energy consumption

hmm...lots of austin powers, x-men, waterworld chat's going on here

better hope that the holes drilled to the core are securely capped, or the wells refilled to offset rising seas...

we will adapt... meanwhile, I'll try to corner the market for land +1000 feet

Oh bampbs,
Neutron bombs hurt natural things too. I would never advocate such a crude device. But are you seriously suggesting that humanity and the natural world can abide so many humans, now that the industrial genie is out of its lamp?

Maybe I watched too much science fiction as a kid because I want both interstellar travel and biodiversity; but we cannot hope for either with 6+ billion people attempting to experience anything close to modern western living standards on this lovely but finite planet.

All those poor people represent a critical threat to advanced capitalism. I see no alternative to the neutron bomb.

What's interesting about that graph is that the oil price spike in the 1970s seems to have led the United States to behavior changes that permanently lowered its energy use per capita.

Even more striking is that this oil price spike led to a skyrocketing energy use per capita in Qatar, perhaps because it benefited from the higher prices. You can see here that Qatar's GDP rose rapidly in the 1970s, and that the dip in its GDP aligns well with its dip in its energy usage per capita. I wonder how much of that energy use is used simply to extract more oil. Since Qatar gained political independence in 1971, it's probably hard to tease out exactly what caused any of these trends. Or at least hard for me to tease out in 3 minutes of wikipedia and wolfram alpha research.

This post ties in nicely with the other recent ones about why the U.S. holds the line on military spending, though there could be savings had. Soft power just doesn't pack much punch when it comes to the "nasty."

Of course, the Chinese are investing smarter into the two most likely forms of future warfare--war against infrastructure (cyber attack, satellite killing and EMP) and biological. At best we can hope for a bipolar arms race along those lines that results in a peaceful detente (although I doubt the developing world will enjoy such a peace any more than the 3rd world proxy states of the Cold War did).

the per capita offsidedness (word?) of energy consumption of the G7 is more important, imho, than carbon emission pricing, for where we are going as a planet wrt the price of energy - when enough of the energy-dieters get on the G7 energy pattern, then a tipping point will be reached and see-ya-later when it comes to the comfy status quo - i expect a global war by 2020 really - i wish i were wrong but i am gonna be right

Monkey,

My personal belief is the opposite of what you describe. I think a series of trends, some long term, some short term, led to a unique historical moment dating roughly from the end of WWII and continuing to some time in the medium term future in which the world departed very significantly from historical averages, oil and energy availability being one of the shorter term trends. We're witnessing the slow return of the world to its normal situation. My view is that the last couple of generations really were unique, the only uniqueness mine has a claim to is that we're the first generation in a while that doesn't get to be unique.

PS:

Oil Demand has Peaked in Developed World

IEA Oil use in rich industrialized countries will never return to 2006 and 2007 levels because of more fuel efficiency and the use of alternatives, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency said on Thursday.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=6&id=19723

A lot of Iceland's energy use goes to smelting aluminum for manufacturers in North America and Europe which points out that a lot of energy use might be credited to the wrong account. It also makes me wonder whether the opening of the Northwest passage won't help Iceland win work from China.

"...we should all prepare ourselves for a nasty time of things, in geopolitical and environmental terms, as emerging markets continue to develop economically."

I lost track, but I think this message has been on a continuous play loop for about a century. Of course, some day it might be right. But that might be after another century.

"or the world needs to make output far less energy-intensive"

This is already taking place (3rd graph):

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/02/energy-conservation-doesnt-requ...

Oh humbug. It isn't going to get any nastier than it always has been, and in all likelihood will be less nasty than the historical average.

Energy will start to cost more in its current forms, and as it does, new energy technologies will pop up as if invented by some sort of invisible hand. (Subtle, ain't I?)

As far as ocean levels rising, mebbe they will, mebbe they won't, but the rich countries will deal with it, and the poor countries will suffer more.

There is a conceit all teenagers are afflicted with, that they are somehow different. Their generation experiences things morepurely, deeper,whatever. Just because they're seeing it for the first time means it must be unique.in.all.the.world! I think energy policy people suffer from the same thing.

"Either those people need to quit aspiring to developed nation lifestyles, or the world needs to make output far less energy-intensive, or we should all prepare ourselves for a nasty time of things, in geopolitical and environmental terms, as emerging markets continue to develop economically."

Since I believe the answer to those rhetorical questions will correlate very heavily with where your country is on the graph, I believe we should start getting ready to get nasty.