I would not worry too much about the overpopulation if i were you, The only thing that can be absoloutley certain when talking about planet Earth is that our planet always seems to have a way of addressing any problem that threatens to destabilise it.

This used to be easy for people to understand but nowadays we seem to have got far to clever to grasp simple facts, there is a huge and growing level of arrogance in the world today and a vast feeling of superiority from all sides of the fence so much so that the believe than man can not only change the world but also save it. From the idiots who spend their lives trying to save whales to the idiots who think we can stop global warming by walking to work.

The Earth will address any problem caused by overpopulation and dwindling national resources by erasing mankind from the planet. The Earth has been here for billions od years before us and will be here billions of years after we have gone. I would get used to that idea.

Gary, Brisbane, QLD

"Oil ruled the 20th century; the shortage of oil will rule the 21st"
- William Rees-Mogg July 16th 2007.

This quote should become a classic. Keep it up your sleeve.

Allan, Sydney, Australia

I agree that world population is the key issue and has to be reduced. The world will adjust but there will be a change in the world order, governments will fall, the only way oil consumption will drop is with a severe global recession and that is probably what will happen. Maybe a severe recession will cause fertility to drop as people will be reluctant to bring children into such a dim world, more or less what happened in soviet russia. It seem that democratic governments are unable to deal with such problems because the solutions are unpalatable for their electorate, therefore i think democracy itself is in danger

John Bennett, Fermoy, Ireland

Patrick Docherty moves this argument on- but not to its logical conclusion. But he is definitely right that its the problem (perhaps better to use the word "cause")that needs addresing The population is certainly a cause and unfortunately energy consumption is also a cause of our current problem- not a symptom. But what fundamentally needs adressing is humanity's exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.
Even if population was reduced but each individual was exceeding their environment's carrying capacity- there would still be a problem- albeit a less critical one
PHIL FOGGITT, HONITON, DEVON

PHIL FOGGITT, Honiton, Devon, UK

"Canada's tar sands contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are currently uneconomic to exploit." The trouble is that it will soon take more energy to get it out than you get out of it. So it is not economic in energy terms. It has an Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) of less than one. It doesn't matter what the oil in the ground is worth if it takes more energy to get it out than it holds.

The Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and its Graduate School of the Environment have recently presented to MPs an Alternative Energy Strategy for a Zero Carbon Britain within twenty years. This is a very well researched document and only uses current proven technology. Read it at www.zerocarbonbritain.com.

Ken Neal, Newbury, Berkshire

We keep talking about symptoms as if they are problems. Pointing out the energy crunch as a problem is distracting everyone from dealing with the real problem. The real problem is overpopulation. This is well known, but no one deals with it because it is politically difficult, it is much easier to talk about an energy problem or water problem. We should restrict ourselves to using the term "problem" to overpopulation - the overpopulation problem - and force ourselves to use the term "symptom" for the symptoms - the symptom of an energy shortage, the symptom of a water shortage, the symptom of a food shortage. The extra words to describe the symptom force the correct question - what is the problem? We need writers such as William Rees-Mogg and Al Gore to stop distracting our limited attention span from the problem of overpopulation with talk about oil and global warming and instead distinguish between the problem and the symptoms. After all you cannot solve a symptom only a problem.

Patrick Docherty, Sedgebrook,

Some posts talk about limiting offspring to 2, however if you look back 100 years many families living on farms had 10-12 kids. They did this to help out with running the farm. SO if we end up living in a post-oil world, won't most of us resort back to larger families for farming?

Shawn, Raleigh, USA / North Carolina

It is obvious that the world's population is too large to sustain present energy use, which in turn has disasterous results for the ability of mankind to feed itself, energy being needed for food production.
How long before major world leaders wake up and start thinking about measures to limit, and reduce, population growth? China was vilified in many quarters for it's one-child policy. China is now seeing clear benefits. The rest of the world must take action, challenging the "every sperm is sacred" mentality, because we cannot afford not to as the energy and food crunch approaches.

Brian Marshall, Lifford, Ireland

They keep harping about how the USA needs to protect our oil interests, but no one thinks, who needs the oil, the US industial machine. Well, that good, where is the US industrial machine, it's in China & India. Who do you think is going to get the oil? And on top of that, who's going to pay the bill to secure it, HMMMMM, let me see, the US taxpayer? NAWWWWWW! Think about it!

Edward Pabst, Marietta, Ohio

Only a couple of respondents have mentioned what is a key factor in this discussion:
We may well be able to find substitutes for oil and gas for purposes such as electricity generation (nuclear being the safest and least environmentally damaging), and to develop other means of propelling our vehicles (hydrogen being the most obvious to focus on).
However, there are no substitutes for oil, or other fossil fuels, which will yield the wealth of chemicals that they do. Our economy is now utterly dependent on the plastics, fertilisers, paints, fabrics etc. etc. which are derived from oil. It is imperative that supplies are conserved for this purpose, and not just burned away.
As for Global Warming, I have always been highly sceptical of the claims that combustion of fossil fuels is having such a catastrophic effect. Carbon dioxide emissions from this source are miniscule compared with those from respiration, and other, smellier, human and animal emissions.

Anthony Gavin Robinson, Doncaster, UK

And another point: Peak Oil and Climate Change, extremely difficult as they are, are not the real problem. The root cause of both and of so many other shortages facing mankind (water, minerals, food) is OVERPOPULATION.
This planet can probably support on a sustainable basis some 2 billion people, but there are 6 billion already about to grow to 9 billion! Of course we are running out of everything.
Just like some bacteria in a test tube, blindly multiplying until it consumes all resources and/or poisons itself by its own excrement.
Sadly, mankind as a whole is no more smart.
We are heading for exactly the same end: overshoot, which we have already entered, followed by die-off.
But of course the subject of fertility control is far too sensitive to base any kind of policy on.
Sensible species would no doubt enforce a world wide 'one child per women' policy, which would reduce our numbers to manageable levels in a matter of decades. But are we (sensible)?

Paul , Jacobstow, Cornwall, UK

Peak Oil is upon us as we speak. World wide production is just about stagnant whilst consumption wants to grow. That is why there is pressure on the oil price. But this is only the start.
By the time of the London Olympics there will be very little to celebrate. The world will in the grip of a depression on the scale of the 1930s, but without any prospect of an end. Geology does not change just because millions of people are without a job, lost their home, pensions collapsed and most cannot even afford the little food still being grown on the fields not taken up by bio-diesel crops.
This crisis will affect every single individual on the planet and if you, dear reader, do not know how it will affect you and your family or if you think its just a scare, then you really must read up on Peak Oil - Google it, look at Powerswitch.org.uk or many of the other site and learn. Those that do not change their lifestyle very soon will be the ones left behind starving.
You have been warned!

Paul Sousek, Jacobstow, Cornwall, UK

What we need to buy time is a vertiginous rise in oil prices. Oil price is elastic in the short-term, at least.

Rising prices will invaribly cull demand. Oil companies and their investors require high returns in order to re-invest in these new technologies of discovery and extraction.

Yes, history will show that the oil companies had their cake and ate it - so what!

High oil prices are required to maintain and expand (creaking) above ground capacity infrastrcture.

However, all of this says nothing of the irrational actions of the herd. Nothing will prevent mayhem when those prices do rise, when companies see margins eroded, lay-offs, liquidations unemployment, inflation falling tax revenues etc. etc.

The problem is a little bit more complicated than one would initally believe.

Liam, Noumea,

So should we be buying shares in BP, Shell, etc. or should we be buying gold? In other words, will the oil shock be a gentle one which we can adjust to gradually or are we all going to hit some major turbulence and social unrest? Opinions welcome!

Steve, Sutton,

Knowing all this today - someone please explain to me as if I was 10 years old -

How on earth do the EU (and the world as a whole) still produce personal cars using 1liter fuel per 10 km driving ?
, Instead of turning to a grandscale buss and MRT- planning programme ? - I dont get it.Where do I go wrong ?

paal myrtvedt, bergen, norway

Funny, but until a week ago I had basically ignored the peak oil crisis. However last Sunday I saw the documentary "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash" The film opening my eyes. It portrayed a very strong case as to the scale of the problem, how oil has been the blood supply of the global economy, how close we now are to the crisis, just a few years, and the enormous challenge to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic consequences. Many here hope that alternative fuels will save us, such as nuclear, but I would say don't raise your hopes too high. Unfortunately, worldwide uranium supplies are also low, meaning that nuclear power would be at best a short-term aid for a couple of decades. The problem would still remain. Alternative fuels need a lot more development to have any hope of replacing oil. The biggest threat comes with food supply, as the consequences could be truly terrible for our large world population of over 6 billion. An interesting time, that could be very difficult.

Thomas FitzGerald, Cambridge, United Kingdom

New Scientist in the late 1980's predicted that oil would start to run out in the period from 2010 - 2050.

Oil and natural gas were always finite resources and it looks as though we are now reaching the time when supply can no longer meet demand. We have known this time was coming for decades, the only surprise is that we have done absolutely nothing about it.

Is this another example of the problems caused by un-restrained free market theory. The free market does not really deal with long term problems, where bonuses and share prices are based on short term performance.

Keith Calder, Ashford Middlesex, England

I regularly read, but rarely comment upon articles in TimesOnline, lest I be accused of being an American interloper. However, the almost universal agreement that we are "running out of" energy resources astounds me.

If memory serves, one of the basic rules of physics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely changed from one form to another.

When oil is burned, it is changed to other forms of matter; work is done and heat energy is produced. But if you place the oil on one side of the ledger sheet and the results of combustion on the other, they necessarily must equal. The trick is to recycle as much as can be.

Present technology, including "hybrid" automobiles, recycles some "energy," by using braking to generate electricity. Surely future scientists wil discover ways to recycle more, perhaps the heat of combustion or the friction of the tires to the road. I am confident that the sky is not falling and that Yankee ingenuity will prevail.

Jerry Sussman, Alexandria, Virginia

So, as oil prices rise, so will the price of food, clothing and other essential items. I can't imagine what it will be like to live in a densely populated city like London or Birmingham when essentials become so expensive (and scarce) that people begin to move out of the city looking for homes in rural areas just to be near the farms (food supplies). We need a forward thinking government to tackle this problem, not stone-age NuLabour.

Charles Ward, Colwyn Bay, State - UK

The crunch has always been between five and ten years in the future, so far as I can recall. Certainly since the late 70's when I first became old enough to be aware of it.

Most commentators I've seen seem agreed that the current price levels are the result of firstly a shortage of refining capacity (caused by the fact that prices have been too low for years) and secondly the increasing cost of extracting what reserves remain.

That oil will price itself out of the energy market is an inevitable fact of economics. That the switch to other sources will happen in a rapid, chaotic and shambolic way is an inevitable consequence of human nature.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

.
the EIA is doing its job hinting at trouble , when trouble is already at the gate !
ever heard of peak energy ??
.

go to Wiki and type " the olduvai theory " scary stuff

jeannick Guerin , Randwick , Australia

For past two decades, we have been waiting,reading and speaking.... like some pre-doomed happening. The "end of the oil age" , thereby causing serious energy crises . Equally so, the oil prices have risen and shot up by each barrel, like a NASDAQ blip chart. It seems, behind the truth lies some machinations and well orchestrated moves made by OPEC and all major oil producing companies. Isn't it right and ripe time, to earn more moohlas and fill up their kitties and coffers .
Recent researches done in the Amazonian basin and Venezuela shows that,. though oil resources are depleting fast....but the green house effect and carbon cycle formation, to disintegrate hydro carbons, under the earth's layer is going at a rapid pace. Even the emission of green house gases and global warming factor, may add as a catalyst to aid carbon molecule formation. Let us not view the situation as grim and cataclysmic, like 'end of the world'. Nature builts up its own recycle, if we don't tinker with it.

Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!
That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all about. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford , UK

Here's hoping that by the time oils reserves are exhausted some genious of a saviour will have invented the bicycle, wind-up clock and handheld drill.

Tim, London, England

Finally a mainstream media outlet has decided to shed light on this issue. Individuals with forethought are already positioning themselves to benefit from a collapse of society as we know it. Some more pessimistic analysis can be found on the web projecting a 4 billion person die-off. Oil energy currently being the equivalent of 12 personal slaves for every human. Here's hoping you and your offspring are the lucky 1 of 3 who survives in an oil barren world.

William Auger, Edmonton, Canada

No more Oil,

Now thats progress!

Ibbo, Leeds, UK

As technology stands, we'll expend more energy getting oil from the tar sands than we'll extract, making it a nonsense to even touch them

whitey, Sydney,

Oil prices havent gone up ...the Dollar has gone down...
John Menorca

John Jupiow, Mahon,

"There will be no Whitewash" NIxon
"I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton
"Climate change is not proven, Oil is not reaching a peak" Bush

Elwin parsley, london , UK

To actually DO Something and make a good living in the process, go to: www.EnerconBiz.com

Paul Saxton, Sioux Falls, South Dakota USA

Thank you for bringing back the '70's. I keep telling people that, if they want to know what the future will be like, look to the '70's and multiply by 100!

But it is important to be able to have hope: not the delusional hope that some "silver bullet," like biofuels, nuclear energy, or fusion, will save us, but the realization that humans once lived without oil.

If the next 10-20 years are going to look like the '70's, we need to look to the 1800's to see what the next 50 years will be like. <a href="http://www.holmgren.com.au">David Holmgren</a> notes that complexity in systems is a result of energy. As energy declines, live will get simpler. Countries will disintegrate. Globalism will decline.

Look to Permaculture for a simpler, sustainable, satisfying way into the future. Not all 6.7 billion of us will make it, but those who practice Permaculture will have the best chance.

Jan Steinman, Salt Spring Island, BC

The fact that the IEA has come out and basically stood up in support of all of us, peak oil wackos, should make headlines on every channel and paper around the World. RAther then that, you really have to be looking and/or dig to read it. Problem is, that most who read the news about this haven't been given the education or the chance to fully understand what it means and will mean for them and their immediate neighborhood and loved ones.

There are so many things that can be done but only so much time to do it. When oil hits $300 per barrel( which it will, don't think it will not or cannot) and natural gas is at $30 per unit, perhaps then the World will start to conserve, get efficient and take action to change our relationship with the planet from one of taking advantage to one of cooperation again.

Paul Saxton, Sioux Falls, South Dakota USA

I'm sorry to say that I disagree with many of the posters here who are overlooking vital facts regarding the current oil situation. First and foremost, it is the result of governmental policy that vast amounts of oil is not being exploited for political reasons. Second, recent discoveries offshore Brazil has clearly indicated that oil is in constant and current formation. Oil deposits there are quite "new" in geologic terms. Apparently oil is not a finite natural resource but a "renewable" one, albeit very slow in its creation. So it is unlikely we will ever completely run out of oil. That being said, I am of the opinion that fuel cell technology will in the near future replace the use of petroleum as a fuel, which is its most wasteful application.

D. Smithson, Philadelpia, PA (USA)

There are definately going to have to be some drastic changes throughout the world. Firstly, we have to put a limit on how many children a family can have. It seems unreasonable, but 2 children per family would be acceptable. Our world is already overpopulated and this is creating a huge demand on the environment. Secondly, Industries and technology have done wonders, but they are also hurting the environment. Everyone has to have the latest new technology, which has to be manufactured, which in turn uses an extaordinary amount of oil, water and other non-renewable resources. The solution is to tax new items very high. Lastly, maybe we should go back to the days where only one parent per household works. This would limit the amount of income families have. Hence, this may limit the amount of new items they buy.

Duff, Regina ,

The main danger will be declining food production. Modern intensive, industrialized agriculture requires massive energy inputs in the form of oil products - for running the machines (& producing them), for pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, irrigation and transport.

With a rising population, and climate change producing more floods and droughts, finding enough to eat will become the number one problem.

The UK is particularly vulnerable: we are over-populated and cannot grow enough of the food we need.

Dave, Wrexham,

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!

That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all abooput. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford, UK

Some folks think that the brit minister, Malthus, is belatedly correct.

M Clarke, Milton , Florida

See the 1957 speech by Admiral Hyman Rickover, US Navy, on fossil fuel usage, a history of energy in society, and oil reserves and depletion (demand likely to outdo supply between 2000 and 2050, he said back then).
Offers, in an avuncular style, that we should consider husbanding our resources for society's best use and for future generations, and also if we could all do with a few less "gadgets" around the house. Incredibly forward looking and wonderfully written. One of the best speeches on any topic I've ever read.

robmec, Detroit, Mich,

Yep! Looks like zero-oil might arrive just in time to save us from global warming, too. But "provide defence support to other Middle Eastern oil powers"? Isn't that still just a euphemism for "seize Iran's oil too?"

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, South Africa

Right now, the number one issue in the energy realm is education--getting mainstream consumers to understand that we have a very serious, looming problem is a prerequisite to getting them to take action that will benefit everyone.

I've been wrestling with this outreach issue for a couple of years on my own site (The Cost of Energy), which is why I'm so pleased to see articles this one from a major newspaper. Please keep up the good work!

Lou Grinzo, Rochester, NY, USA

Not coincidently, the large increases in oil
prices that the author cites occurred after
the invasion of Iraq, which in addition to
causing a decrease in that country's oil output, also gave a boost to speculators
who are contriving to bid the price up on
any and all rumors of unrest in the region.
If Cheney does convince Bush to attack Iran, then oil may go to $200 a barrel.
If that happens, it will be quite interesting to read how the neo cons try
and spin that into a good thing.

rkerg, oakland, USA/CA

It is about time there were some open debate about this subject as I like many others was oblivious to this matter until I recently read David Strahan's book: The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man. Time for us to push "global warming" onto the back-burner and focus on the here and now. It leaves one believing that the UK Government was either listening to the Oil Companies or has stuck it's head in a bucket of sand over this matter. If one reviews the past ten years of Government “in-activity” in authorising the construction of replacement Nuclear power generation capacity. Makes one wonder if instead of trying to micro manage every aspect of Government and social life they had focused upon the strategic issues one expects National Government to we might be in a better position now.

Alan Stirling, Gosport, Hants

Oil companies, together with their political lackies, have had decades to come to grips with the problem that we are now facing. The writing was on the wall when the 1970s squeeze happened and they have done next to nothing to come up with viable alternative energy sources. These people will do nothing until the last drop of oil on the planet is sucked out of the ground and the last cent is extracted from us suckers!

I can see a lot of donkeys and bicycles appearing in a showroom near you, in the very near future.

E J Murray, Kerry, Ireland

Thank you Rees Mogg. I always thought you were, like I am now, something of an old fogey, but this article really nails the problem. But it has taken its time to appear, the peak oil issue has been around for many years, and it is only now, just as the problem is coming at us like a tsunami, that the mainstream media and commentators are beginning to wake from their torpor. For well over ten years, Dr. Colin Campbell has been saying, because of his concerns about peak oil, , "Deal with reality, or reality will deal with you". Reality is almost ready to wash over us, and it is frightening how little we are prepared. And how much of the general public will read or understand this article? This problem, and its twin, global warming, threaten society's very survival. It will require from society an effort of the same magnitude and urgency with which we fought WW2 to deal with them, but we are leaving things desperately late. If there is a Churchill out there, we need you.

Dr. John Monro, Wellington, New Zealand

There is one serious omission from the article. It makes no mention of all the other uses of oil - plastics, chemicals, fertilisers, pharmaceuticals. All these products will be much more expensive and uncertain.

Look around yuor house or office. Which could you live without?

Paul , northwich, england

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!

That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all abooput. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford , UK

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!

That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all abooput. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford , UK

Pay all women in the world $30 a month UNTIL the birth of the third child. In a scarce world all will accept a lifelong bounty and stop at two and populations will stabilize.
If the Islamic world population increases another seven fold in the next 50 years as it has done in the past 50 , and rises from 1.2b to 8b then all of us are doomed.
European populations are collapsing and in Britain whites will fall from 60m today to 6m this century if women have 1.3 children as they have done over the past thirty years.

arun, london,

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!

That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all abooput. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford, UK

Dont forget. North Sea UK hit peak oil in 1999 and North Sea Norway hit peak oil in 2001. The UK oil production is falling at around 9% a year and is down about 50% from its 1999 peak. From being a net exporter when prices were $10-20. We are now a growing importer and prices are heading north of $70...
Malcolm Wickes summed it up accidently last year while promoting more North Sea drilling when he said "we have nearly as much left as we've taken out".

mark yates, bracknell, berks

The market for base metals (such as copper, lead and nickel) is stressed, as demand threatens to outstrip supply in many of these items. This makes the possibility of building new infrastructure problematic. Since the US generally is not investing heavily in alternative energy infrastructure, there is no preparation for an oil crunch. When it really hits, the cost of materials will impact the amount of infrastructure that can be built. The best thing that local governments can do in the US is to find ways to reduce usage. A new culture would have to arise that sees a decline in economic activity (as traditionally viewed) as beneficial. Given that this goes against everything one is taught about being a successful American, the most likely scenario will be that the US will just fall into a steep decline. Our country wants to believe in miracles. We seemed to have lost our common sense.

Bill Goedecke, San Francisco, USA/CA

You wrote "The world is coming to the end of the age of oil, which produced its own technology, its balance of power, " Spot on!

That's what all the "energy" re Global Warming and Climate Change is really all abooput. We are being conditioned to accept a non-oil age and to use other forms of energy.

John Charlesworth, Sleaford , UK

Climate change while true is nothing compared to the far more iminent problems of peak oil. The government pushing climate change is a nice way of them saying "save energy for the sake of the environment and the polar bears (ps. save it cause we're running out - but we prefer not to mention this bit - but if you save energy for green reasons maybe we can avoid the worst parts of peak oil)"

mark yates, bracknell, berks

Does this mean I'll have to buy a smaller car ?

Steve, London,

George in Manila, we currently burn about 85 million barrels a day - that’s about 31 billion barrels a year - not 80 billion barrels a year.

However I am not going to repeat your simple calculation as it is meaningless. Peak Oil is not about running out of oil, it is about reaching the point of maximum production. That is when about half the recoverable oil has been produced. Many analysts believe this will be in the next few years, if it hasn't happened already.

Once the zenith has been reached, then global oil production will inexorably decline despite oil sands or enhanced oil recovery techniques. Peak Oil will be the defining event of our age and will change our lives dramatically, long before Global Warming does.

David, London,

It's difficult to make plastics, synthetics, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and fertiliser out of sunlight or nuclear power. The 'alternative energy sources' may just allow us to keep the lights on a bit longer, while people wake up to the fact that we will no longer be able to grow the food needed for 6 billion people and transport it to the cities where it's actually required. If I was you I'd be selling that overpriced London property fairly sharpish.

Pete Jones, Urumqi, China

So many predictions of Armageddon! What would be disastrous is if we didn't know we were approaching a decline in oil output - as happened in the 70's. With this forewarning things will still be bumpy but we can innovate around it. Previously uneconomical oil reserves are already becoming viable, and if the value of fresh water rises then existing desalination technology looks more attractive - and others will be created. The worst possible reaction is the "we're all doomed" mentality - put down your placards and get back to work.

Periods of great innovation occur when a society is under pressure. We are not witnessing the end of the world, but perhaps the start of a new era. How exhilarating!

Anthony Charlton, Swindon,

So, as oil prices rise, so will the price of food, clothing and other essential items. I can't imagine what it will be like to live in a densely populated city like London or Birmingham when essentials become so expensive (and scarce) that people begin to move out of the city looking for homes in rural areas just to be near the farms (food supplies). We need a forward thinking government to tackle this problem, not stone-age NuLabour.

Charles Ward, Colwyn Bay, State - UK

<i>Historians may well conclude that the US decision to invade Iraq was primarily motivated by the desire to gain physical control of Iraq’s oil and to provide defence support to other Middle Eastern oil powers. </i>

This is the most sensible motive for the Irag war that I've heard, and, a fortiori , for staying.

It would have been nice if our patented universal democracy elixir had worked so that we didn't have to actually run the place ourselves in a military occupation, but it didn't.

cs, detrot,

The retired vice-president of the National Iranian Oil Company, Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, sees a 30% drop in conventional crude oil production withing 13 years (i.e. by 2020).

Michael Lardelli, Adelaide, Australia

Oil shortages will cause economic havoc. This article doesn't really get into that. If we hit a production peak soon, there is a massive global recession/depression just around the corner.

It is amazing that markets haven't started panicking yet. They will soon.

Nathan, Surrey,

In terms of pollution there is still coal available for at least 100 years and it's far much harmful in terms of CO2 emissions than oil. Global Warming trend is still hot, buy it today !

Fred, London, England

About fifty years ago the oceans were described as a limitless resource of food and nuclear energy a limitless supply of power for the future.
Before that, in 1934, Catherine Bauer wrote in 'Modern Housing'; 'The nineteenth century was a mining age. 'Exploit and get out' was its slogan ..... But mining by its very definition, is not a process which can be continued forever. Presently the end of the vein is in sight; the last frontier reached....'
Well, the exploitation continued. The next age will have to be one of preserving and creating not merely using. There is no choice nor will the planet support its growing population. When we talk of demand that is what we mean - industry and commerce are people.
When industry and commerce talk of proiritising or optimising, what has that meant? What have governments meant? What do we mean and what are our objectives?
These are the obdurate questions and they existed when the age of oil began, when its end was already in sight.

Wigglesworth, Gachnang,

Maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny chance in this catastrophe to recover a saner, more human and more humane relationship with nature, each other and even ourselves. After all the oil century, the 20th, wasnt exactly sweetness and light.

julian, oxford, uk

stone age
bronze age
iron age
oil age

sewer age, time to clean up our act

willihudso, retfoed, england

I've done some research on this pertaining to a book and while the degrees of pessimism vary widely there's not a lot, even taking into account nuclear power, on the optimistic side.
I see us surviving but it will tear the fabric of society apart because the cost of transportation of goods is almost entirely borne by oil which means the decentralization of production that is the hallmark of open trade will become much more expensive.
Rome may have been built by the sword but it was maintained by roadways.
Those who oppose globalization may find their wishes granted in ways they had not forseen. In the UK you can think about greenhouses and microbreweries I suppose . But it is possible to solve if the number of regional conflicts can be minimized.

glenn schaefer, holbrook , USA

countries like the uk and australia will have to build more nuclear power stations and construct oil from coal plants like those developed by sasol (south africa).
the large coal reserves should buy some time to develop alternative energy although a lot of investment will be needed to re-open uk mines.
Steam trains could be re-introduced using double boilers and clean coal technology.

steve frank, Perth, Western Australia

This is only part of the issue. Before the industrial revolution when life was sustainable the world's population was about 600 million. Industrialisation (made possible because of the presence of fossil fuels), has provided the means for mechanised agriculture, fertilisers etc. to feed an ever growing human population (now about 6000 million). If mechanised farming had not happened then population growth would not have happened.

When the oil runs out, farming will, by and large, have to return to pre-industrial methods. Similarly, food distribution over long distances will no longer be possible. Civilisation will return to pre-industrialisation tempo. If we had politicians that could face these facts human civilisation would have a fighting chance. But we don't have politicians with backbone. Even now, large numbers of people live barely having enough to survive. But that will look like Buckingham Palace tea party compared to what is in store for the human race.

RichardCr, Baden, Switzerland

"Past forecasts of oil depletion have often proved wrong, and the present forecasts are uncertain."

True, but this argument is at least as applicable to those who foresee a late peak or - bizarrely - no peak; Hubbert's predictions were universally derided and industry forecasts around the world almost always exceed reality.

Daniel, London,

It's long been apparent that it is the denuding of resources and not pollution that is THE big issue.
It's also obvious that the law of supply and demand will radically change consumption patterns.
The current obsession with 'global warming' and tackling CO2 emissions is therefore idiotic.

Nothing that we do politically will stem the rapid depletion of carbon fuel resources, so the prospective impact of CO2 omissions will be the same regardless of scenario.
The problem if we don't develop nuclear fusion is how we manage obligatory human population reductions.
Even if we do develop nuclear fusion, several other ceilings on carrying capacity will be hit so we will still be faced with having no option but to manage global population reduction.
Result: very big wars.

Population is and always has been the ultimate problem, which underlies the issue of resources.

steve moxon, sheffield,

Google "MYT Engine" for one option. Why are inventions like this not being touted if crisis is on the horizon? There are many alternatives to oil power and have been for years but they just don't seem to be exploited as they should.

We have known for decades that oil supplies will deplete and pollution from fossil fuels is choking our atmosphere. But still the drive for profit and power pushes any other issues to the background. Look at the Times article on the impact of corn supplies by ethanol. We will sway from one crisis to the next based on 'oil' of one form or another.

We have seen in our lifetime wars started over access to oil and blamed on religious extremists. We are being led by greedy individuals lining their pockets at our expense. They always have but this is now on a global scale. Is this what we really want our children to inherit?

Ian, London, UK

Simple arithmetic shows that the Crunch is not far away.

Current consumption; 80 MMbbl per day = 29.2 Bnbbl per year. We used the first trillion bbls in 100 years; we'll use the estimated remaining trilllion bbls in around 30.

There is more oil to be developed but the industry cannot bring enough projects on stream quickly enough to replace depleted supply and keep up with growth in demand. The industry is already at full stretch.

So we had better get used to steadily increasing oil prices ($100 soon) until the world re-balances its efforts towards renewables and nuclear as these options become increasingly attractive. We need to get a lot smarter and end our love affair with the internal combustion engine. It'll be a wrench, but oil is just too precious to burn.

Andrew, Seoul, Korea,

We have been hearing this nonsense for over forty years.

Supply cannot exceed demand: as demand rises so does the price of oil. A higher oil price reduces demand as conservation takes effect, stimulates investments in alternative fuels and new oil extraction techniques, and makes more expensive sources of oil viable.

Canada's tar sands contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are currently uneconomic to exploit. As the oil price rises they will become economically viable. Oil distillates can also be sythesised from coal; this is hideously expensive but, again, as oil prices rise this technology will get more investment and become viable.

Today's oil prices are still significantly lower, in real terms, than the price in the seventies. At the same time the world economy is much less dependant upon oil than in the seventies.

Every few years we get warnings such as these, yet the amount of economically accessible oil reserves keep on increasing.

Simon Allen, Melbourne, Australia

What a pity such a serious warning has attracted no comment from the readership. Your remarks about the real reason for invasion of Iraq have been obvious to most logical thinkers for some time now. And, of course, the real problem is what do we replace the oil with? Maybe you should ask your readers to count the number of food delivery trucks on the road and then work out how much growing are it would take to replace the oil with "renewables". Anyone who can use a calculator should be shouting for immediate action to get a replacement technology in place now.

KR, Stockport,

There's no shortage of oil, although OPEC holds the world to ransom if it doesn't submit to it's demands, which are mainly suppressing any criticism of Islam, or Islamic terrorism, as well as the true extent of the Muslim conflicts with other religions around the world, such as the Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, Indonesia, Sudan, and Pakistan.

It's time we used an alternative fuel source. We don't need oil, and there are plenty of viable alternatives, if the petrochemical companies would just allow the developers to go full stream ahead, without putting the proverbial spanner in the works.

Once we're not dependent on oil any more, I suspect we'll see a dramatic fall in the level of global terrorism.

N. Simon, London, England

I can't agree more. How wrong gloomy predictions were in the past doesn't mean they will prove similarly wrong for the near future, as never before have so much humanity is industrializing and urbanising all at once. India has little choice but to follow China's manufacturing model if she wants to generate sufficient jobs for her teeming masses. And it is not only energy, but water, as many NICs have to rely on the textile industry, which is extremely water-thirty at a time when most of the world's rivers are running dry becasuse of burgeoning water demand and Climate Change. Added to the equation is the likely rising economic and geopolitical importance of the oil-rich Middle East and other energy producer countries in the Central Asia, Africa and Latin America. On the sunnier side, though, the whole global energy and resource landscape is already driving a new investment momentum towards cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable energies, cars, communities and lifestyles.

Andrew K P Leung, SBS, FRSA, London, United Kingdom

stone age
bronze age
iron age
oil age

sewer age, time to clean up our act

willihudso, retfoed, england

Economically speaking, oil is our energy capital built up by nature over the course of millenia, and mankind has already squandered about half of it.

For some totally inexplicable reason he has ignored the energy income in the form of sunlight, which provides many thousands of times his need for energy for as long as is wanted.

The Germans and Portuguese seem to understand this only too clearly, and are developing concentrated solar power furnaces to generate High Voltage DC (HVDC).

Hopefully all the sunny coutries with deserts - Mexico, Sahara, Saudi Arabia, China, Saudi Arabia, India etc. will be selling the rest of the world more HVDC than we know what to do with.

There's nothing technologically clever with any of this, and we can forget all this rubbish about Photovoltaic Cells, Nuclear Power, wind power etc. as it can never scale to solve the problem and costs an arm and a leg.

Steve, Wiltshire,

You are surely right - but this cautionary article leads into the whole energy debate which most politicians shy away from as being too difficult or unpopular. Just one example: natural gas is an ideal fuel for domestic use but some 80% of North Sea gas is burned in power stations. There is a case for emergency stand-by capacity to be gas-turbine powered but base load should (as genuine experts agree) be nuclear-generated.
Ugly (and noisy) wind turbines and biofuels are periferal at best.
We should be aiming for at least 80% of electricity to be generated at nuclear plants by 2020 at the latest. Is anything being done to achieve this ?

David Thomas, Burnham, UK

Not sure how climate change can be perceived as a distraction. Interesting that, cheap flghts out, climate chaos in...but it's the cost of the fuel at the pumps which is seen as the real energy issue!
The sooner the world cleanses itself of the fossil fuel addiction the better, and if that is precipitated by shortages...let it be. We have to find new ways of making our engines run, and our machines function, if it is the survival of the modern world which is desired. Scraping away at the bruised earth for diminishing returns of the black stuff looks like the last desperate throw of the dice in civilization's endgame.

John Pownall, Bridport, Dorset

Actually, there is a very strong chance that the "oil crunch" particularly in relation to liquid fuel supplies could hit us sooner. Much of the latest data on production and depletion rates suggest less than a year.

It therefore beggars belief that whilst the Govt concerns itself with global warming, climate change et al it is dithering over real energy issues. Once can't help but believe that in fact it's an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that it should - like many of our competitors have - been pushing the development of alternative energy sources for at least the past ten years. Instead though it chose to listen to big oil who assured Govt that all was well. They were economical with the truth then and still are. Govt irresponsibility together with a lack of private investment could leave the UK very exposed.

Certainly, the City needs to wake up to the fact that without adequate supplies of energy their business is in danger as well.

Dick, Aberdeenshire,

If you really want an introduction to Peak Oil try http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Matt, Santa Rosa , Califronia

When the demand exceeds the supply , and the supply is going down the out come is real ! There is a limit to our growth, like it or not ! Six billion to 10 billion people that should it ! Its over !!!

See you in the next world ?

Ross Beattie, Oklahoma City, Cleveland/Oklahoma

A good analysis of what is coming, but we should not count on Candian Tar Sands or American enhanced oil techniques for much more oil. The Tar Sands reserves are truly huge, but daily production will always be small due to lack of water, natural gas, infrastructure and workers. Enhanced oil recovery techniques are not new, do not expect any miracles from this technology, it is usually over-hyped.

The IEA are to all intents and purposes forecasting Peak Oil for about 5 years from now. About time too. It is time to start preparing.

Douglas Low, Aberdeen, Scotland

here is what I know, as a Earth Scientist and , trained as petroleum geologist, ...I know that ... we have about 1 trillion barrels left, we have used about a trillion barrels, and if my elementary math is right we have about 10 -12 years not to peak oil but out of oil....O U T !!!

The very best consensus is we have about 2 trillion barrels of oil on earth, a little more or a little less... but that is the very best guess...

we burn thru about 80 billion a year, now ... that is increasing about 2 billion a year ... with China and India ... coming on strong as big consumers... we have 80 billion that is a little less than 1/10 ... of 1 trillion... so if we can extract at lest 80 % ... of what is left... and that is IF

and can find 20 % more we have 10 years to out of oil... not half...

so if that is true we are certainly at peak now... ... next year 2008 we will move price is in dis-equilibrium... where the demand will for ever exceeded the supply... that is even more serious ..

George , Manila, Phil

About time someone from a respectable media outlet had the courage to do a story that begins the tell the truth.

jeremiah, springfield, USA / MO

The world runs on a hydrocarbon based economy
and it seems that no one is really doing anything to change that. There are perilous times ahead of economic upheavel and political instability as people fight over diminishing supplies

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

Oil and gas are much more than just electricity. Both are key to our food production and distribution system. Oil is key to the transport system, which runs (more than 90% on liquid fuels). There is NO QUICK FIX that will allow us to replace what we currently get from oil.

The next decades will be very difficult: high unemployement and inflation; social strife; there's a lot more scope for a global war. The divisions between rich and poor will grow further.

Although there's nothing we can do as ordinary individuals to influence the bigger picture, on an individual level we can do much to prepare for the coming energy descent.

1 get out of debt
2 do your own research - find out why fossil fuels matter, that they don't 'run out', they peak, then decline
3 accept the reality rather than looking around for inplausible fixes
4 reduce your energy use (transport, electricity, gas, FOOD)
5 learn new skills - grow food if you can, look at your skill set

Adam, London, UK

I agree I agree I 've been teaching this point for a few years now last time in Saudi. There one of my students whose father worked in the oil biz had told her there were no worries but I told her people have not been factoring India and China's vast populations growth (India morethan china)
The demography is such that these aspirant populations - who do want to have a higher livng standard and better material wealth are going to make demands far outstrippong the rest of the more developed world.

Janet, Kuwait,

First, we have to arrest and reverse the explosion in our numbers: if we don't, nature or human nature - global warming or global war - will do it for us, even more nastily.

Then, we must achieve fusion power: nothing else matches the scale of the approaching problem. The most promising approach is helium3/deuterium - only the closest He3 is the moon's regolith (surface layers) - which in turn necessitates an economic bulk Moon/Earth transport system. Incredibly but truly, this may be achieveable, using already-existing elements related to the Space Elevator concept.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

It's still amazing though that, even though this is a story in national newspaper, the issue of peak oil is never the top story of any leading news broadcaster. The BBC's leading article of today, for example, is that our bins are going to be collected every fortnight. Peak oil is still being treated almost like a wacky conspiracy theory, so if the crunch is coming soon (or here already) and it's still not a top story with our news media, what hope do we have?

Chris, London, UK

Very honest and straight analisys. Our President Chávez, who recently visited Russia, Bielorussia and Iran, must probably did talk about the situation described above, in the article, with the leaders of those friendly countries. Venezuela that has being, historically, a "reliable supplier", particularly, to the United States of America, is ready to reach agreements with world oil companies but in the frame and respect of our venezuelan´s laws and respect for our voted political system. We really know our responsabilties with the rest of the countries, particularly, with our neighbours.

Miguel Angel del Pozo, Caracas, Venezuela

This will make faster the popularizing uses of oil substitutes. More the shortages better inventions for oil substitutes.

Eventually, the losers will be current oil producers. This process has happened earlier and will happen faster in future!
Regards,

Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India

good, maybe now we can take the billions spent in defence

and put it into education, research, science and exploration

where we have a greater chance of "discoverin" oil

John, Liverpool,

What a great article. Well, I'm glad my old diesel VW Golf does 60mpg when driven carefully, and I've got a bicycle for shorter journeys. Hopefully oil will last just long enough for the government to bring on-line the hundreds of nuclear reactors we will need to recharge the tens of millions of electric cars, vans, trucks and buses in which we will no-doubt all be driving around the UK in 20 years time. If we haven't started building these power stations, I suppose we could buy ourselves a few extra years by invading some middle-eastern country and attempting to steal all their oil - or has that been tried?

Michael, Brighton, England

Funny that there is no mention of climate change or
dependency on a politically unstable region. The transition will be painful, but if it does reduce greenhouse gases (NOT a govt. invention, Dick of Aberdeenshire) and make the EU and US more energy autonomous, that can't be all bad. In so many regions, oil has been a curse, preventing the development of human resouces.

Pablo, Edinburgh, Scotland

Personally , I have to say that I don't think oil can run out fast enough for my liking . There are alternatives , I just wish we'd spend time investing in them , instead of wars in Iraq to grab the last precious remnants of this over priced pollutant !

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

A sobering and thought provoking article. Maybe Blair was right for once the nuclear option is best for Britain. In the short term the west will be at the mercy of Russia, Saudia Arabia and Venezuela etc., but in the longer term their demise is on the cards. An article in the L.A. Times the other day showed the impoderables with regard to Canadian tar oil, especiually damage to the environment with carbon missions.

Denver Watt, Osakaj, Japan