With inflation taken into account, we still haven't matched the 1970s oil crisis in terms of how bad it's gotten.



And what happened immediately after this? Increased production of more fuel-efficient cars. We're in the same position thirty years later with hybrids -- which unfortunately means we basically learned nothing the last time around. Obviously, the economic forces that drove the 1979 crisis aren't the same as what's driving this one, but I imagine the aftermath will be pretty similar.

The Rockefellers recently told Exxon to invest in alternative energy. Big money is starting to notice. Which is not to say things won't get worse before they get better.

As others have said, I think we're in for more of a painful adjustment period than an apocalypse. But humans tend to rise to the occasion when forced (and, annoyingly, not before).

QuoteWe're in the same position thirty years later with hybrids -- which unfortunately means we basically learned nothing the last time around.

Thing is too, many of the "hybrids" out there on the market right now aren't actually any more efficient than a gasoline engine could be.  It seems the market has decided that the image of energy efficiency is more important than actually being energy efficient.

I'm holding out for a big plague that wipes out billions.  As long as it doesn't affect me, personally, of course.  

ticopelp, your graph ends in 2006, and tops off at $120 real dollars a barrel.  If your graph is accurate, we have surpassed the '76 crisis, unless inflation has changed the real dollar amount since 2006.

It hasn't, we're above any former peak.

I still think there's a bubble.

Quote from: J ArcaneThing is too, many of the "hybrids" out there on the market right now aren't actually any more efficient than a gasoline engine could be.  It seems the market has decided that the image of energy efficiency is more important than actually being energy efficient.

Very much agreed, but if they can sell the image, it might make things easier to sell the real thing once that becomes a necessity (which I believe it will). Overcoming consumer resistance can be a huge obstacle, especially in the States where we ruthlessly fetishize our gas-guzzlers.

It might be a pointless distinction, but I'd rather have a hybrid driver with a fuel efficiency that isn't nearly what it should be than an SUV driver with a bumper sticker that says FUCK THE PLANET.

And hybrid mileage is not all bad.

Quote from: joewolzticopelp, your graph ends in 2006, and tops off at $120 real dollars a barrel. If your graph is accurate, we have surpassed the '76 crisis, unless inflation has changed the real dollar amount since 2006.

It's Wikipedia's graph, but point taken. I guess my main point was that we have been through times like this before, and survived as a civilization, and energy alternatives are leaps and bounds over what we had thirty years ago. Even if it is worse now, I think we have the means to fix it. The main problem right now is infrastructure, as has been said before.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaPoint taken, but what will be the result of the bursting bubble?  And is this merely speculation on oil, or also speculation on food commodities?

Easier question first: I think it's speculation (or the same thing by another name, over-investment in futures) in durable goods.

Second question: a lot of rich fools are parted with their money, greedy people who ought to know better look for government bailout, the wreckage is swept up through mergers.

The system will continue to be plagued by speculation until there's a greater consensus in favor of public investment instead of artificial pump-priming.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't have written "durable goods". What I mean is nonperishable commodities like gold, oil. etc.

I keep seeing hybrids being offered that have 30mpg or there abouts.  Oddly enough, the utterly non-hybrid 'zippy race car' that I drive gets roughly 30mpg, and I drive like a fucking nut.  If I drove more sanely, I'd easily match a hybrid.

If I drove the non-sport version of the same car, I'd surpass the hybrids even WITH the way I drive.

My car is not a hybrid.

So: Why are we spending all this money on hybrid cars again?

Status symbols and (a tip of the hat to Jimbo...) slacktivism.

Quote from: J ArcaneThing is too, many of the "hybrids" out there on the market right now aren't actually any more efficient than a gasoline engine could be.  It seems the market has decided that the image of energy efficiency is more important than actually being energy efficient.

My parents have a hybrid with a little "This is your gas mileage over the past however many miles" display.

It's a fun game.  When they visit, and I borrow the car, I drive differently.  I'm like "If I coast down that hill, then time the acceleration just right, maybe I can bump from 33.2 to 33.3!  And what if I avoid the highway completely?  It's a short trip, I can take my time and use the battery on surface roads.  Sweet!  33.4!"

Then I return it, and my dad bitches that I've gone and spoiled the car, 'cuz he doesn't want to watch it drop back down to the old average as he drives.

I gotta say though, that I think hybrid is a technology that will be more interesting when it's not such a novelty.  Putting hybrid systems into a big hulking SUV with a bajillion horse-power of acceleration (to make it feel "peppy") isn't going to result in an efficient vehicle.  C'mon.  It's not magic.  But having the system wired into smaller cars with engines tuned more for efficiency than performance could all add up to a vehicle worth looking at more closely.  Every little bit counts, y'know?

Quote from: JongWKThe biofuels is a bogus claim. The total market (worldwide) for biofuels is less than what Exxon makes in profits in a single year.

And Exxon makes more profits in a year than the incomes of the poorest hundred million people - the hungriest ones.

The world produces about 2,100 million tonnes of grain annually. We give about 750 million tonnes to livestock, which gets us 240 million tonnes of meat and 690 million tonnes of milk products (remember that milk is 95% water, so we're not looking at a net gain here).

We devote 350 million tonnes to biofuels. A third of a tonne will give a person all their calorie and protein needs for a year, though obviously they'd need fruit and vegetables and legumes as well. So that 350 million tonnes could feed 1,050 million people.

By comparison, there are 800 million people in the world going hungry. The people going hungry are largely those who used to grow all their own food, so that world food prices didn't matter to them. But they used to also sell some of the surplus to get funds to improve their land, educate their children and so on. But then the IMF and World Bank forced these countries to drop agricultural protection, and US and EU subsidies meant that US and EU food was cheaper than locally-produced stuff. The farmers got into debt and lost their land and had to move to shanty towns in the growing cities, so could no longer grow their own food.

Now because of climate change there's been droughts and floods, lowering production a bit. But when production is lowered, they don't take it evenly from food, livestock and biofuels - the people who can bid highest get it first. Obviously the sort of people who buy biofuels and meat are richer than the sort of people who buy grain for survival. Joe Sixpack in his Hummer in Milwaukee can bid higher for that grain to fill her up than can Joe Mtumbe in his packing crate house in Lagos. Jo Xiu in his Beijing apartment can bid higher for that grain to feed the beef in his dinner than Joe Mtumbe, too.

So first the West made food so cheap that Third Worlders couldn't make a profit selling it and stopped producing it, then we turned around and have made food so expensive they can't afford it in their shanty towns.  Along the way India and China joined in with the high meat-eating and biofuels-burning binge, putting extra pressure on prices.

The FAO's most recent World Food Outlook is recommending countries plant spuds.

Also, Ian should stop speaking sense, he'll ruin his comical reputation.

It's not the Apocalypse. Civilisations don't collapse overnight, they take centuries to do so, and do it in a descending sawtooth pattern - a short collapse followed by a slight recovery, then another little collapse, and so on. Pundit's comparison with Rome in 470 is telling... it had already been sacked a few times. When we look back on things they seem quick, but someone living in Rome in 470 had a rather different experience of what the Roman Empire was compared to someone living in 370, 270, and so on.

By the way, if you're looking for the lowest total cost of ownership and to be nice to the environment, I recommend avoiding hybrids and buying a reliable late 80s BMW, which will get 30+ MPG [average city/highway], cost less than US$4000 [good models can be found for US$2000 or less], and doesn't have to be dug out of the ground and turned into a car full of steel, plastic, and nickel-metal hydride [which at least is better than some sorts of batteries are]. Oh, and instead of being kind of lame in the bends, it's actually fun to drive, and includes the brilliant gas mileage computer and instant-mileage gauge. It won't make you look like an environmentalist, though.

You will notice that Asia is complaining mostly about the price of rice, and not corn or other biofuel crops. What the world needs is to invest in Third World agriculture, eliminate the most ridiculous farm subsidies in developed countries, and build a good public transportation infrastructure.

Quote from: JongWKYou will notice that Asia is complaining mostly about the price of rice, and not corn or other biofuel crops. What the world needs is to invest in Third World agriculture, eliminate the most ridiculous farm subsidies in developed countries, and build a good public transportation infrastructure.

What the world needs is a good Fonging. With Pain. Lots of Pain.

Quote from: JongWKYou will notice that Asia is complaining mostly about the price of rice, and not corn or other biofuel crops.

Yes, but the price of rice is connected to the price of wheat and maize. It's like how when the oil price hoiks up, coal and natural gas jump up, too - because you can substitute the one for the other in many applications. So too with food.

We want biofuels so maize goes up in price. So people stop planting wheat and soybeans, and plant maize. Now wheat and soybean production went down, so their price goes up. And so on. It's all connected.

Quote from: JongWKWhat the world needs is to invest in Third World agriculture, eliminate the most ridiculous farm subsidies in developed countries, and build a good public transportation infrastructure.

The Western subsidies are the main thing, but the insistence on Third World countries removing tariffs and subsidies is the other. We get to have have protectionism, they don't - that's our version of a "free market."

It reminds me of the old joke which is both racist and anti-racist. "How do you stop a nigger from drowning? Take your foot off his neck." The best thing the West can do for the Third World is to take its foot off their necks.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt hasn't, we're above any former peak.

I still think there's a bubble.

Quite possibly, the jury's out, I think it is highly arguable that even if there are elements of bubble there are also underlying structural changes linked to demographic changes in India and China and that as such the era of cheap oil is simply over.

Pundy, I recommend you go long canned goods and shotguns.