Singapore Peak Oil

MM Lee Kuan Yew first mentioned the phrase "Golden Period"of economic growth in 2007, but he qualified that with this sentence:

If there are no wars or oil crises, this golden period can stretch out over many years. Speech LINK

But my belief is that the next decade could be a "Golden Age" for Asia. (See p. A18 of The Straits Times, 19 Jan 2009, or GIC Link).

We don't have 15 years to wait for the development of alternative technologies. The solution right now is not to figure out how to turn cow dung into rocket fuel. The solution right now is on the demand side because we don't have the luxury of time for supply-change innovation, and the single most important way that we can make that adjustment on the demand side is to go from a global economy to a local economy because a global economy is an extraordinarily energy intensive - and in particular, oil intensive way of doing business. (Youtube: 19min 20 sec)

Government leaders and economists don't like to question our economic growth paradigm. It upsets the status quo and nobody likes that. Could you imagine the board of directors and CEOs of Singapore's most established companies (SIA, NOL, PSA, etc.) telling their employees and shareholders that their days of growth and profit are unsustainable? That they have reached "peak profits"? And that in 10-20 years they may have to fold up or downsize tremendously because of peak oil? Naturally, I don't expect them to be messengers of gloom and doom if they ever do come to the realization of our growth limits. They'd be putting their illustrious careers on the line. They are, after all, business entities and it's hard for businesses to maintain their cash flows and sell their products and services if they are always truthful. There shall, however, be a day of reckoning.

Our social institutions assume that economic growth and prosperity are guaranteed and inevitable as we work hard to improve our education system and increase our work productivity and efficiency. This growth is supposedly a good thing.

But now, the belief that continuous growth is always beneficial is being seriously challenged not just by ecologists and environmentalists, but even by Singapore's community of bloggers and alternative media (see TOC, Temasek Review, Sgpolitics, Diary of SG Mind, Gerald Giam). They do not write from an ecological or energy perspective, but they call attention to the growing income disparity, the excessive prices of HDB flats, surging costs of living, and the increasingly competitive and stressful lifestyles that Singaporeans have to face in spite of our high GDP and developed nation status. What are the root causes of these complaints? Mostly they point to energy issues and the environment.

Why are HDB flats so expensive? Because there are not enough of them. We could build more flats, but is there enough land? (Not to mention the shortage of construction materials and the negative effects of high oil prices on the construction industry.) Or conversely, it is because there are too many of us. So what's an acceptable population level? That's where the ecological concept of carrying capacity comes in. To answer that question, let's just say that our carrying capacity would be substantially smaller without ready access to fossil fuels, whose availability would be severely curtailed in our lifetime.

Why is the cost of living rising? Why are my utility bills going up? Why are my grocery bills higher each following month? Because each of these is determined to a large extent by the price of oil. So why then is oil going up? Primarily because of peak oil - depletion of mature, giant oil fields; past peak discoveries, and declining net energy returns. We are clearly bumping up against physical limits here.

What if we are wrong about growth? What if there really are limits to growth? Is there a government blueprint for managing the economy without growth? Is there a Plan B? Judging from the Singapore government's press releases and publications, I see no hint of any such awareness or understanding and that frightens me. Without a plan to manage prolonged descent or contraction, the fashion in which we transition to a post-peak oil world could be very chaotic and brutal.

A group of academics gathered last week in New York (see report below) for a Biophysical Economics conference to discuss the view that net energy will be the limiting factor to economic growth. I hope in my wildest dreams that the Singapore government and its band of cornucopian economists - most notably SM Goh Chok Tong (MAS Chairman) and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam (both mainstream-trained economists) - heed the warnings of these scientists. By disregarding the role of the natural sciences in their discipline, economists have built their edifice on shaky foundation, and the tragedy of it all is that they drag the world along with them when their tower of false knowledge crumples under the weight of biophysical reality.

We ignore ecology and the laws of thermodynamics at our own peril.

Related Post: Singapore Needs to Wake Up to the End of Economic Growth

See Also:
Temporary Recession or the End of Growth

Brother, Can You Spare Me A Planet?

The New York Times
October 23, 2009

The financial crisis and subsequent global recession have led to much soul-searching among economists, the vast majority of whom never saw it coming. But were their assumptions and models wrong only because of minor errors or because today's dominant economic thinking violates the laws of physics?

A small but growing group of academics believe the latter is true, and they are out to prove it. These thinkers say that the neoclassical mantra of constant economic growth is ignoring the world's diminishing supply of energy at humanity's peril, failing to take account of the principle of net energy return on investment. They hope that a set of theories they call "biophysical economics" will improve upon neoclassical theory, or even replace it altogether.

But even this nascent field finds itself divided, as evidenced by the vigorous and candid back-and-forth debate last week over where to go next. One camp says its models prove the world is headed toward a dramatic economic collapse as energy scarcity takes hold, while another camp believes there is still time to turn the ship around. Still, all biophysical economists see only very bleak prospects for the future of modern civilization, putting a whole new spin on the phrase "the dismal science."

Last week, about 50 scholars in economics, ecology, engineering and other fields met at the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry for their second annual conference on biophysical economics. The new field shares features with ecological economics, a much more established discipline with conferences boasting hundreds of attendees, but the relatively smaller number of practitioners of biophysical economics believe theirs is a much more fundamental and truer form of economic reasoning.

"Real economics is the study of how people transform nature to meet their needs," said Charles Hall, professor of systems ecology at SUNY-ESF and organizer of both gatherings in Syracuse. "Neoclassical economics is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics."

Like Hall, many biophysical economic thinkers are trained in ecology and evolutionary biology, fields that do well at breaking down the natural world into a few fundamental laws and rules, just like physicists do. Though not all proponents of the new energy-centric academic study have been formally trained in economics, scholars coming in from other fields, especially ecology, say their skills allow them to see the global economy in a way that mainstream economists ignore.

Central to their argument is an understanding that the survival of all living creatures is limited by the concept of energy return on investment (EROI): that any living thing or living societies can survive only so long as they are capable of getting more net energy from any activity than they expend during the performance of that activity.

For instance, if a squirrel burns energy eating nuts, those nuts had better give the squirrel more energy back then it expended, or the squirrel will inevitably die. It is a rule that lies at the core of studying animal and plant behavior, and human society should be looked at no differently, as even technologically complex societies are still governed by EROI.

"The basic issue is very fundamental: Why should economics be a social science, because it's about stuff?" Hall said.

'Peak oil' embraced

The modern biophysical economics movement may be relatively young, but the ideas at its roots are not.

In 1926, Frederick Soddy, a chemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize just a few weeks before, published "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt," one of the first books to argue that energy should lie at the heart of economics and not supply-demand curves.

Soddy also criticized traditional monetary policy theories for seemingly ignoring the fact that "real wealth" is derived from using energy to transform physical objects, and that these physical objects are inescapably subject to the laws of entropy, or inevitable decline and disintegration.

The sharpest difference between biophysical economics and the more widely held "Chicago School" approach is that biophysical economists readily accept the peak oil hypothesis: that society is fast approaching the point where global oil production will peak and then steadily decline.

The United States is held as the prime example. Though the United States is still the world's third-largest producer of oil, its oil production stopped growing more than a decade ago and has flatlined or steadily fallen ever since. Other once-robust oil-producing countries have experienced similar production curves.

But the more important indicator, biophysical economists say, is the fact that the U.S. oil industry's energy return on investment has been steadily sliding since the beginning of the century.

Through analyzing historical production data, experts say the petroleum sector's EROI in this country was about 100-to-1 in 1930, meaning one had to burn approximately 1 barrel of oil's worth of energy to get 100 barrels out of the ground. By the 1990s, it is thought, that number slid to less than 36-to-1, and further down to 19-to-1 by 2006.

"If you go from using a 20-to-1 energy return fuel down to a 3-to-1 fuel, economic collapse is guaranteed," as nothing is left for other economic activity, said Nate Hagens, editor of the popular peak oil blog "The Oil Drum."

"The main problem with neoclassical economics is that it treats energy as the same as any other commodity input into the production function," Hagens said. "They parse it into dollar terms and treat it the same as they would mittens or earmuffs or eggs ... but without energy, you can't have any of that other stuff."

Nor is conservation or energy efficiency the answer. In his presentation, Henshaw noted that the International Energy Agency's own data show that energy use is doubling every 37 years or so, while energy productivity takes about 56 years to double.

In fact, the small world of biophysical economists seems to agree that energy and resource conservation is pointless in the economic system as it is now construed, contrary to what one might expect. Such efforts are noteworthy as it buys the world a bit more time, but the destination is inevitably the same -- a gallon of gasoline not burned by an American will be burned by someone else anyway.

Other peaks?

Though not as closely studied, biophysical economists theorize that the peak oil phenomenon holds true for all non-renewable resources, especially energy commodities. Proponents of the field say they are moving closer to understanding "peak gas" and "peak coal." Consumption of many of the world's most valuable minerals could likewise see those resources nearing exhaustion, as well, they say.

And no amount of technology can fix the problem. Hagens points out that oil extraction has evolved by leaps and bounds since the early 1900s, and yet companies must expend much more energy to get less and less oil than they did back then.

"It isn't that there's no technology," Hall said. "The question is, technology is in a race with depletion, and that's a whole different concept. And we think that we can show empirically that depletion is winning, because the energy return on investment keeps dropping for gas and oil."

The most pessimistic of the biophysical economics camp sees the oil-fueled world economy grinding to a halt soon, possibly within 10 years. They are all working to get the message out, but not all of them believe their peers in other professions will listen.

"Of course I'm trying to send a message," said Joseph Tainter, chairman of Utah State University's Department of Environment and Society. "I just don't expect there's anyone out there to receive it."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/23/23greenwire-new-school-of-thought-brings-energy-to-the-dis-63367.html

Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil

Relocalization, not globalization, is the way forward for Singapore and the rest of the world. However, I doubt that relocalization efforts will take place until we enter the collapse phase of panarchy theory (see article below), but then it might be too late to prevent a societal breakdown. The 2008 oil crisis and financial panic ought to have awaken us to the fragility of a globalized world. Instead we are calling for greater economic integration and free trade - talk about insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We are sacrificing long term ecological sustainability and balance for short term paper profits. Monetary abstractions will be of little use after we extract and exhaust all the minerals and resources from the earth in this lifetime. This will not end well.

http://www.canada.com/Panarchy+Insights+Into+Civilization/1664491/story.html

As valuable as Dr. Buzz Holling's notion of panarchy theory is in helping us understand the cyclical changes in forests -- the way they move through continuous phases of regeneration, growth, increasing connectivity, and then rigidity, crisis, collapse and regeneration again -- his thinking is much more valuable in helping us identify and correct the same trends occurring in our modern civilization. It, too, is a natural system that has been moving through a growth phase for the last several centuries and is now becoming increasingly interconnected and rigid, conditions that are prelude to a crisis.

Indeed, the course of our globalized world has been following all the adaptive characteristics of Holling's notion of panarchy theory. If he is correct, we are approaching the end of a growth phase, a time when the rising "dependence" within the system, together with increasing specialization and efficiency, create a fatal loss of resilience. As we continue to exploit every possible resource and niche on the planet, our entire socio-economic system loses its adaptive options as it becomes more dependent on the smooth functioning of a rising proportion of its interlinked components. This "peaking", Holling contends, usually leads to a collapse.

As a measure of our vulnerability, simply choose a few examples of the cumulative effects that can be caused by any single disruption:

- Just one crash on a freeway stops traffic, creates huge jams and leaves thousands of commuters and transporters delayed for hours.

- Contamination at just one processing plant taints food supplies across a continent.

- A malfunction at one nuclear power plant almost eliminates the supply of critically important medical isotopes.

- One terrorist attack inflicts huge amounts of fear and a country spends billions of dollars on measures to prevent the repeat of such an event.

- Just the hint of a pandemic raises global panic, devastates tourist industries and slows international travel for months.

- A policy of unregulated mortgages in the US triggers a subprime crisis that spreads throughout the international financial system, undermining confidence in money markets and sending the global economy into a tailspin.

- Our nearly total dependence on a supply of cheap oil for transportation, innumerable consumer products and nearly half our food production transforms any hint of a shortage into convulsions of worry and nightmares of consequence.

- The excessive emission of a single gas, carbon dioxide, threatens to alter the planet's climate, displace hundreds of millions of people, induce droughts and restructure global economies.

Indeed, the very efficiency of our global economic system, an attribute we herald as a virtue, is victimizing the planet's ecology. Maximizing performance and productivity drives the continual expansion of the world's economy. "Based on current trends," writes Thomas Homer-Dixon, "global output of goods and services will quadruple from US $60 to $240 trillion (in 2005 dollars) by 2050" (WorldWatch, March/April, 2009).

Panarchy theory argues that this kind of growth eventually self destructs. A civilization, like an athlete trying to run ever faster, needs progressively more energy to maintain itself. The system collapses when the energy return falls below the energy invested. The Roman Empire failed, Homer-Dixon suggests, because it became too complex to be supported by its food-based energy system. How, then, are we to reconcile rising growth with falling energy supplies?

Panarchy theory -- and even common sense -- dictates that the growth phase of any adaptive cycle cannot continue indefinitely. Continuous growth may seem possible when we are wholly emersed in the euphoria of it. This is why the insightful perspective of such people as Buzz Holling are so important -- and so disturbing.

In Holling's assessment of our history, "This is a moment of great volatility and instability in the world system. We need urgently to do what we can to avoid deep collapse. We also need to figure out how to exploit the opportunity provided by crisis and collapse when they occur, because some kind of systemic breakdown is now almost certain" (Ibid).

Holling makes two crucially important points here. The first purpose of panarchy theory is to identify the behaviour that is leading to collapse and, therefore, to use the forewarning to avoid the unwelcome outcome that it predicts. The second is to prepare for the collapse by minimizing the impact.

Some people have already started to prepare for this eventuality, as if a subliminal consciousness were already sensing an impending danger.

Globalization is losing its allure. Countries are moving toward greater self-sufficiency. Agricultural land is being protected, resources considered and ecologies preserved. Food security is prompting local buying and home gardens -- community gardens are appearing in many urban and rural neighbourhoods. Young people are returning to old farms to restore the fields with vegetable crops. Organics are on the rise.

Cycling is popular and is being encouraged for commuting in most cities.

Cars are getting smaller and more efficient. The indications of awareness are everywhere.

These steps, of course, are just the beginning of the beginning. But the signs are evident. The marvel that many people hold for our modern civilization now comes coupled with a pervasive apprehension. Perhaps panarchy theory offers some clarifying insights about what is amiss and what we might do.

http://www.canada.com/Panarchy+Insights+Into+Civilization/1664491/story.html

Geologist Colin Campbell made a number of astute observations in this 2005 video interview (below) about oil and the financial system. We have to wake up to the fact that we are nearing or at the end of growth.

The boom time of the last 50 years was based on cheap oil which is now coming to an end. The end of growth threatens to bring down our debt-based monetary system which is founded on economic growth to pay off interest-bearing debt obligations.

We can expect decade-long, unprecedented market gyrations and volatility as central bankers resort to every trick in the economic textbooks and their magic bags to starve off a recession. They will ultimately fail because unlike credit, they can't create oil and natural resources out of thin air.

Dear bankers, welcome back to biophysical reality.

Unfortuantely, the growth mentality is still deeply entrenched in our government as can been seen from the Prime Minister's speech in Parliament (27 May '09):

At the broadest level, our approach to economic development and to growth remains valid. We have to stay open to trade and global competition.

So the question is how do we encourage energy conservation to grow more sustainably and to be less affected when energy prices go up from time to time, all in the long term?

The Workers’ Party chief and Hougang MP defended the long-held growth model, saying in Mandarin: ‘I believe it is correct to attract foreign investments to encourage competition in a free market, to open up our market and to go global and…integrate with the global economy.’

Colin Campbell Interview:

The first half of the age of oil saw the rapid expansion of industry, transport, trade, agriculture - all of those things allowed the population to expand six-fold. So you have this enormous and brief chapter in history of this rapid expansion, and included in that thing is financial capital....

..the banks lend more than they have in deposit...the banks had confidence that the resulting expansion of all of this investment in debt and loans and everything was sufficient collateral for today's debt...

So expansion tomorrow covered the debt of today.

..But unseen by anybody or unrecognized was that this expansion was not just money. It was the good old cheap energy (oil) to make the wheels turn and do everything. So we now face a situation when the bankers begin to wake up and say "well this expansion cannot go on anymore without the cheap energy to make it happen". That means that the massive amount of debt throughout the world is loosing its collateral...

...[Bankers] will wake up and say "we got bad debt on our hands"....

Every single company market quoted on the stock market have a tacit business-as-usual assumption of continuing cheap easy oil such as they have known in their business. So once you realise that this cheap abundant easy oil isn't there, that tells you that virtually every company quoted on the stock market is now overvalued. There has to be some radical readjustment and capital really has to be reduced in some way to match the declining energy supply that on which it eventually depends. So this is the kind of crisis that is staring us in the face...

An email that I sent recently....

Cities have to ensure that economic growth is not stunted by infrastructure bottlenecks and that growth does not come at the expense of clean air, clean water and a liveable environment. http://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/Speeches/speeches_2009_M_24042009.htm

Some people think that a sustainable economy should sustain the rate of growth of GDP. According to this view, the sustainable economy is equivalent to the growth economy, and the question of whether sustained growth is biophysically possible is begged. The political purpose of this stance is to use the buzzword “sustainable” for its soothing rhetorical effect without meaning anything by it. -- Herman Daly

Irish Times
By John Gibbons

Growth and the pursuit of growth is the secular religion of the western world, and its dogma is infecting every society.

BRIAN COWEN and Enda Kenny suffer from this. So does Gordon Brown and at least nine in 10 other world leaders. All are labouring under the same crippling psychosis. This is their shared conviction that, whatever the problem, the solution lies in economic growth.

So deeply ingrained has the notion of relentless, limitless growth become that to suggest that it may be the cause of, rather than the solution to, our greatest challenges borders on heresy.

Growth and the pursuit of growth is the secular religion of the western world, and its dogma is gradually infecting every society on Earth via globalisation. Every cult needs its clergy, and the high priests of growth are our economists. Purporting to understand such magic as the "hidden hand of the marketplace", economists have been feted by presidents and parliaments as the new alchemists, with their dazzling theories suffused with the promise of technological transubstantiation that will somehow lift us beyond the mortal limits of our fragile blue planet.

These sorcerers have led politicians and populations alike to believe that they alone understood and could tame the raging marketplace, while extracting from it an infinity of goods to sate our ever-expanding appetites.

Perhaps their greatest sleight of hand has been in selling the notion of infinite growth within a finite - and sharply declining - ecosystem. Take Robert Solow, a Nobel Prize-winning US economist. "The world can, in effect, get along without natural resources," was his breathtakingly myopic analysis.

Ask an economist to value a forest, and he'll tell you how much timber sells by the tonne. The Amazon releases 20 billion tonnes of water into the atmosphere every day, free of charge. Forests control floods, purify water, protect biodiversity and keep the planet habitable, but what does this matter to a hedge fund manager? Another trick, called temporal discounting, allows economists to sell our children's future down the heavily polluted river in favour of short-term profit.

Yet this analytical vacuity is the norm, not the exception, among the economic elite. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, dressed up political ideology and passed it off as rational economics, while cheerfully choreographing the world's greatest financial crisis since the 1930s. None of this has dented the collective self-confidence of the ruling cabal of economists, nor cooled the media's love affair with them.

Tune in to RTÉ or Today FM any day of the week to hear the very economists who sold us the poison during the boom years; now they are peddling their repackaged "cures" in the form of the latest economic elixirs of growth. Heavy drinkers will be familiar with this logic: it's called the hair of the dog.

In nature, growth is a phase, leading to the equilibrium of maturity. An adult that continues growing can only do so by becoming obese. Within the body, cells that multiply exponentially in an otherwise stable organism are more commonly known as a cancerous growth or tumour. The World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Index has tracked the ecological health of the world since 1970. Its 2008 report found that total planetary resources have been permanently depleted by 30 per cent in well under four decades.

"The possibility of financial recession pales in comparison to the looming ecological crunch," said the fund. The report found that three in four people live in countries that have exceeded their own ecological limits. Ireland is well up the debtor list. We consume resources requiring three times the amount of land actually available globally per person. We are ecologically as well as economically in hock. You really wouldn't want to be around when this debt is called in.

For now, we continue propping up our house of cards by rapidly running down the ecological capital of other countries to maintain our astonishing bubble of affluence. In famine times, this was called eating the seed corn. When our political elite, guided by their hierarchy of economics believe they can cure the recession by "jump-starting" the consumption-driven economy and so plunge us deeper into ecological debt, you see just how the cancer cult of growth economics has metastasised throughout the body politic.

Capitalism, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, an economist now back in vogue having been deemed passé by the seeming triumph of right-wing political ideology, "is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the good of everybody".

Many people who live in man-made environments like cities may wonder what ecology has got to do with them. Put simply, our environment is to human survival and wellbeing what water is to a fish. If growth is toxic, what about the alternatives? In 1972, a group called the Club of Rome published its prescient book, The Limits to Growth .

Reaching what they call equilibrium would require hard choices. We would have to trade some freedoms, such as the right to have unlimited population growth and resource consumption, "for other freedoms, such as relief from pollution and crowding and the threat of collapse of the world system".

In the 36 years since its publication, Earth now bends under the burden of an additional 3.3 billion people. As we fret about declining property prices, philosopher Henry David Thoreau's observation was never truer: "What good is a house, if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"

This video was created by Jay Hanson - creator of www.dieoff.org and www.warsocialism.com. He explains how and why economic growth is limited by declining energy returns (EROEI).

Under a one-for-one scenario, even if the price of oil reaches $5,000 a barrel, it won't make energy-sense to look for oil in the lower 48 because that would consume as much energy as it would recover.

Even if one paid a ton of gold per barrel, one still could not get net energy out of a well that consumes as much as it produces!

The geoscientist who proposed the peak oil theory in 1956, Marion King Hubbert, and correctly predicted oil production to peak in the U.S. in 1970, was also sharp enough to grasp the significance of his theory on economics, money, and industrialization. It is puzzling why our economic policymakers do not see the big picture: that the last 100 years of exponential growth in population and industrial output is, what Hubbert would call, an "aberration". Hubbert was trained as a geologist, yet he probably had a better idea of what sustainable monetary policies and economics ought to be. He was a great visionary.

Our politicians formulate their policies around the growth model which must fail at some point due to limiting factors such as land, energy or water. In medicine, uncontrolled growth of abnormal tissue cells in the body and the invasion by these cells into nearby tissue is known as cancer; on the contrary, in conventional economics, growth without boundaries which upsets our ecological balance is known as a panacea for all our social and economic ills. How ironic.

Hubbert quotes:

http://www.mkinghubbert.com/tribute/quotes

Hubbert on the burgeoning world population: "[Its] an aberration. For most of human history, the population doubled once every 32,000 years. Now it's down to 35 years. That is dangerous. No biologic population can double more than a few times without getting seriously out of bounds. I think the world is seriously overpopulated right now. There can be no solutions to the world's problems that do not include the stabilization of the world's population."

---

http://www.oilcrisis.com/hubbert/monetary.htm

Hubbert on our monetary system: "The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated monetary culture which has evolved from folkways of prehistoric origin.

"Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common, namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings, and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability.

"With such relationships in mind, a review will be made of the evolution of the world's matter-energy system culminating in the present industrial society. Questions will then be considered regarding the future:

• What are the constraints and possibilities imposed by the matter-energy system? human society sustained at near optimum conditions?

• Will it be possible to so reform the monetary system that it can serve as a control system to achieve these results?

• If not, can an accounting and control system of a non-monetary nature be devised that would be appropriate for the management of an advanced industrial system?

"It appears that the stage is now set for a critical examination of this problem, and that out of such inquries, if a catastrophic solution can be avoided, there can hardly fail to emerge what the historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, has called a major scientific and intellectual revolution."

---

http://www.mkinghubbert.com/tribute/quotes

Hubbert on our culture: "The steep ride up the and down the energy curve is the most abnormal thing that has ever happened in human history. Most of human history is a no-growth situation. Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don't know how to cope with it."

Even in the face of denial of epic proportions, Hubbert remained optimistic: "Since the problems confronting us are not intrinsically insoluble, it behooves us, while there still is yet time, to begin a serious examination of the nature of our cultural constraints and of the cultural adjustments necessary to permit us to deal with effectively with the problems rapidly arising. Provided thus can be done before unmanageable crises arise, there is promise that we could be on the threshold of achieving one of the greatest intellectual cultural advances in human history." [This quote is more than 20 years old, do we still have time?]

---

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/monetary.htm

"'I was in New York in the 30s. I had a box seat at the depression,' Hubbert says. 'I can assure you it was a very educational experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We're doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We are not in the position we were in 1929-30 with regard to the future. Then the physical system was ready to roll. This time it's not. We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It's unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can't possibly happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered.'

"That is obviously a scenario of catastrophe, a possibility Hubbert concedes. But it is not one he forecasts. The man known to many as a pessimist is, in this case, quite hopeful. In fact, he could be the ultimate utopian. We have, he says, the necessary technology. All we have to do is completely overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money.

"'We are not starting from zero,' he emphasizes. 'We have an enormous amount of existing technical knowledge. It's just a matter of putting it all together. We still have great flexibility but our maneuverability will diminish with time.'

"A non-catastrophic solution is impossible, Hubbert feels, unless society is made stable. This means abandoning two axioms of our culture...the work ethic and the idea that growth is the normal state of life...."

"Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better. The most important thing is to get a clear picture of the situation we're in, and the outlook for the future--exhaustion of oil and gas, that kind of thing...and an appraisal of where we are and what the time scale is. And the time scale is not centuries, it's decades."

Paul Krugman, an American economist and columnist for the NYT, appears to "get it" when it comes to our "Limits to Growth". Do Singapore leaders "get it"? I have much respect for our leaders, but their neoclassical economic growth model is no longer relevant in times like this. What worked well for Singapore in the last 40 years to earn us a "developed nation" status will not help us to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining when it comes to food and energy. We need a paradigm shift in our worldview, even if it means sacrificing economic growth.

Here is Krugman's op-ed which was published in The Straits Times (23 April'08, p.21)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last. Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.

In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.”

Last week, oil hit $117.

It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years back. Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we haven’t heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?

How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three competing views.

The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking for high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.

The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill more wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right back down again.

The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good — that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food production and generally running out of planet to exploit.

I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.

There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who believe that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view, however, is this: Where are the inventories?

Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding. Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are only normal.

The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing now and the resource crisis of the 1970s.

What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line — I remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.

In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and resources got cheap again.

But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.

For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when growth in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted — and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources.

Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries, in particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset declining production from established sources.

And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a long-term manifestation of climate change.

Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does it mean?

Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God! We just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad Max” anarchy.

But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously close to the edge — or over it.

Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.