Twitter headlines
« Dennis Shut Down 96% of Gulf Oil Production; Prices Rise with More Hurricanes Coming | Main | Electrovaya in Commercial Electric Vehicle Project »
Economists and Engineers: Bridging the Communications Gap on Peak Oil
12 July 2005
James Hamilton, Professor of Economics at the Univerity of California, San Diego, publishes Econbrowser, and has just posted a piece entitled: How to talk to an economist about peak oil.
I for one would like to see better communication between economists, geologists, and petroleum engineers about the timing and consequences of the eventual decline in global annual production rates of crude petroleum. In part the failure to communicate better with each other stems from differences in the language, assumptions, and paradigms with which those of us from different specialties approach this issue.
As one small step toward bridging that gap, I’d like to lay out for noneconomists a few of the key aspects of how economists might think about peak oil.
This is a strong and useful post on the topic, and has generated rich discussion in the comment section. Highly recommended.
Professor Hamilton has done “a fair deal of research” on the effects of oil shocks. Recent publications are here.
July 12, 2005 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (2)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d83422f5c853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Economists and Engineers: Bridging the Communications Gap on Peak Oil:
» Further discussion about economists and peak oil from Econbrowser
The many interesting and thoughtful responses to my invitation for more open communication between economists and others about peak oil has led me to a clearer understanding of exactly what it is we're seeing differently. Here I attempt to state ... [Read More]
» Further discussion about economists and peak oil from Econbrowser
The many interesting and thoughtful responses to my invitation for more open communication between economists and others about peak oil has led me to a clearer understanding of exactly what it is we're seeing differently. Here I attempt to state ... [Read More]
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
The economics profession has been remarkably silent on the issue of peak oil, while having endless discussions on the minute details of interest rates or whatever. Maybe the repercussions are so large they can't get a handle on it. When copper is a tad expensive you substitute aluminium. When oil is expensive there is no similar priced replacement. This is not so much a 'shock' but a life threatening disease.
Posted by: Aussie | July 12, 2005 at 03:17 PM
That's one reason I'm so annoyed by the lack of attention given to GO-HEV's. They provide real substitution between petroleum and electricity - meaning, anything that can make electricity. It is far easier to put up a wind turbine, stick a micro-hydro plant on the stream coming down the hill or convert your furnace to a cogenerator than it is to increase the production of petroleum, but the people who ought to know the most about this appear completely ignorant.
Is thermodynamics that poorly known?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | July 12, 2005 at 06:25 PM
My colleague Heading Out over at The Oil Drum has posted a very worthy response to Professor Hamilton's piece, if anyone is interested...
Posted by: The Oil Drum (profgoose) | July 13, 2005 at 12:38 PM
The teaching of science in public schools is next to non-existence. I doubt if 10% of Americans can correctly tell the difference between energy and fuel. Concepts like specific fuel consumption or btu's per ton mile are understood by maybe 1%. American politicians don't want voters who can think logically and critically so they have chronically underfunded education at all levels.
50% of Americans are functionally illiterate. 50% don't vote. Unfortunately, as shown by W's reelction, they are not the same 50%
Posted by: tom | July 13, 2005 at 01:40 PM
If people thought these things were important, they could learn them - I did, despite numerous errors and inaccuracies in the material I had to read (how many times have you seen the term "kilowatts per hour" in print?).
At least part of the reason few people know this is because few people think it's important; a great many people are proud of their ignorance.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | July 13, 2005 at 04:27 PM
"At least part of the reason few people know this is because few people think it's important; a great many people are proud of their ignorance."
I disagree. Most people know it's important... that somebody knows it. That doesn't mean that they have to.
I know medicine is important -- and I'm glad and greatful that others study and learn how to be doctors, surgeons, etc. But, I'm willingfully ignorant of medicine, because I'm neither particularly interested nor chock full of free time.
What makes you think that knowledge of physics in general, and energy in particular, are any different?
Posted by: stomv | July 14, 2005 at 01:38 PM
"I disagree. Most people know it's important... that somebody knows it. That doesn't mean that they have to."
If they thought it was important, they would seek out expert opinion... and then defer to it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | July 14, 2005 at 09:38 PM