So when the balloon goes up, Japan is even more fucked than the US. Chokepoints at both the Straits of Hormuz and Molucca.
So, the US uses approximately as much oil as the next 5 countries (China, Japan, Russia, Germany, India) combined.
Respective populations
US: 304.2 million
Other 5: 2.81 billion
4: hey, we earned the right to be counted as five each.
3: For now. China's going to be kicking our ass by the end of the century, is my prediction.
US usage is approx 20.5 mil barrels a day, and each barrel is 42 gallons...divided by 304mil ppl, that's 2.8 gallons/day/person. That's....really easy to consume.
8: Hell, I drank that much this morning!
I gotta pee again.
That's....really easy to consume.
I'm reminded of the scene in Over the Top where Sylvester Stallone's opponent in the finals of the arm-wrestling tournament tries to intimidate him by eating a lit cigar, then guzzling a can of Valvoline.
?then guzzling a can of Valvoline
Man, if you think Olestra caused problems...
1: It looks like the Japanese are gonna be just fine.
||
No more masturbating to Tim Russert, apparently.
|>
Keep in mind the US is also 22% of the world economy, so our consumption is on par. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
guzzling a can of Valvoline
I am reminded of a similar but rather different scene in Three Kings.
13. As TV reporters go, he wasn't too bad. He sure made hay out of his "Florida Florida Florida" prediction.
6, 7: China is gambling that the oil will last just long enough for them to industrialize and then they can switch to the mysterious Next Energy Source. They're thinking ahead, already investing heavily in wind and solar, but not actually relying on them while there's still oil.
Keep in mind the US is also 22% of the world economy, so our consumption is on par.
Causality is probably more the other way 'round.
A government is thinking ahead? How childish. Governments are economic actors and, as such, should only respond to the short-term market incentives.
17: Shortly after the 2000 election, Russert visited my university, where he was presented with a whiteboard by the university president.
19. Meh- US was 50% of the world economy just after WWII, yet we weren't consuming 50% of the oil. Special set of circumstances, but still. All of a piece with not taking vacation, etc. Americans work more than other parts of the First World, and with greater productivity. Whether this is good or right is not part of the argument.
What a surprise. Death comes for the arch-pundit.
Russert visited my university
Did they also give him one of his 48 honorary doctorates?
You know, I can't remember. I don't think so, because it wasn't a graduaton-related festivity.
22: post wwII was a very weird time, yes, and probably pretty useless in these sorts of comparisons.
I just meant an awful lot of the economy is driven by oil consumption. It gets complicated; real productivity numbers are difficult, the rough consensus seems to be longer hours, at lower productivity/hour, totaling more productivity. If you look at stuff like agriculture, big chunks of it have insane looking productivity (e.g. corn) relative to 50-60 years ago, but this is driven by fossil fuel consumption, and secondarily by tech facilitating that. So the point being that you can't really decouple the two.
Man, the TPM graphic is weird-- it looks like Tim Russert is reporting on the death of Tim Russert. "Yesterday, you were alive-- but today you're dead. How do you reconcile those two positions?"
This is gonna be one of those alive-at-time-t, dead-at-time-t-2 things, isn't. Russert's slices are all I-related, or, they were.
(I don't know why I'm leaving out more words than usual today.)
26. Yep. Certainly US consumption of oil was influenced by the fact that we had domestic sources. Had we needed to import oil from the beginning, consumption patterns would be different.
"Yesterday, you were alive-- but today you're dead. How do you reconcile those two positions?"
You're killing me, Labs.
graduaton
The hypothetical particle that will enable me to escape grad school, once I discover it.
31: Agreed. There was an interesting `bootstrapping' effect, in that developing international fields were on line in time to cover for falling domestic production capability, just at the right time.
Reading the Vanity Fair article about the Bass family, I was struck by how the second generation oil men were the ones who found the oil in Libya.
Death comes for the arch-pundit.
Hm, so if Russert was Lamy, does that make Yglesias Padre Martinez?
The hypothetical particle that will enable me to escape grad school, once I discover it.
Or annihilate you on contact. One or the other.
The hypothetical particle that will enable me to escape grad school, once I discover it.
Or annihilate you on contact. One or the other.
Now I am become Shiva, destroyer of theses.
OOps. Hunt Brothers, not Bass. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/hunt200806
8: that's 2.8 gallons/day/person. That's....really easy to consume.
Hmm, as far as personal transportation goes, I don't think I use that much in a month. Even factoring in 1500 miles per year of air travel and the resulting use of jet fuel, the vast majority of my share would have to be allocated to transporting stuff to Minneapolis for me to buy and use. Some of which has to be moved around, but much of which really doesn't. There was a table in the most recent number of Permaculture Magazine (UK), which pointed out that, for instance, 12 thousand tonnes of toffee is imported by the UK every year, while 13 thousand tonnes is exported. Doesn't take an economist to figure out a way to save a hell of a lot of the energy we use for transportation when you've got examples like that going on. As long as the political culture in this country finds it easy to spend $200 million on a new airport terminal, but nearly impossible to spend $2 million on a new city bus service, we're pretty screwed.
42: Most people commute.
And will for some time. Last year I drove about seventy miles a day commuting, and used a little less than 2 gallons; most people would have used more, and that's just gas.
"Yesterday, you were alive-- but today you're dead. How do you reconcile those two positions?"
poor guy, um mani badmi khum
his soul must be wandering now as it is believed for 49 days to be reborn in one or another form
out of curiosity i looked up his biorythm chart and his physical cycle was at the lowest
maybe it's useful to check one's cycle from time to time and take some minimal precautions
the chart
though i thought if all three cycles align at the lowest point then like death occurs
oh, the chart is empty
if to insert the date of birth
all three cycles were negative i see now
45: That it's very easy to get to oil usage of 2.8 gallons a day if you consider that it's likely that half of that is getting to and from work. (And that's equating 'oil' in a one to one ratio with 'gas for the car', which I don't think is accurate.)
not to mention shipping on all the food you eat, etc.
2.8 is low. There are a whole bunch of children, prisoners, shut-ins, etc. that are included in that denominator.
Right, so what I'm saying is, so much of what's consumed is not accounted for by individual choices, but rather the structure by which we consume. A structure that could be easily altered to allow for, say, more local agriculture, less long-distance exchange of fungible commodities, basic conservation measures that could be implemented on a large scale, etc.