Preparing for the roughest autumn in my lifetime
Posted by Isaidbranenotbrain@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 106 comments
Hello all,
As most of you I'm very aware of the tidal wave of problems that are fast approaching in the upcoming months.
And, as most of you I realize that the Hormuz crisis is not an isolated incident, but a reaction to a long predicted decline in (affordable) oil availability, together with increasing desperation from those that seek to strengthen their current status as oil suppliers (looking at you, USA).
As many before me have pointed out, peak oil (adjusted for EROI) peaked sometime around 2018. As did the four pillars of modern society: cement, steel, artificial fertilizers and plastics. Bodt the IEA and the Chinese government have made projections showing that the total output of oil from existing sources, as well as the total energy use, is about to go downhill. And this was well before the Hormuz crisis started.
When the real crunch hits us in September, it's not going to correct itself anytime soon. As I see it, this is the start of the slide. The rollercoaster is just building momentum.
Am I being overly dramatic, or am I getting it right?
Slopagandhi@reddit
The photos aren't hi res enough for me to read. What's the date on the IEA report, 2024? And what Chinese sourvd are you referring to?
Want to read these for myself.
Isaidbranenotbrain@reddit (OP)
Here’s the The IEA report is dated May 13, 2026. The Chinese numbers are from an article in Energy Dynamics, which quotes DNV numbers from 2024: https://www.enerdynamics.com/Energy-Currents_Blog/Chinas-Energy-Transition-is-Critical-to-the-Worlds-Future.aspx
Slopagandhi@reddit
Ok, so I've flipped though the IEA report and it's all short run projections to the end of the year. Very obviously Hormuz is having a huge impact on supply. And it's also true that for various reasons other producers' supply response will be somewhat limited in the short run.
But I don't see anything in here about long term trends, or anything to support that claim that peak oil happened in 2018.
The other link is a blog which cites a consulting firm's data, but the link to that firm's report is broken. There's no Chinese government figures in here, so what were you referring to with that?
Here's the IEA's World Energy Outlook from last year.
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025
P32 gives oil demand under two future scenarios (current vs stated policies)- with one of them it peaks around 2030 and in the other continues to rise to 2050.
p30 has total energy demand to 2035 increasing under both scenarios.
P234-235 discusses supply scenarios. Significant investment in new fields will be required, for sure, but there is no suggestion that demand can't be met under either scenario.
Price projections for fossil fuels are on p109. They have oil rising from $79 in 2024 to $89/$106 in 2035/50 under current policies, and prices of $80/$76 for the same years if currently stated policies are implemented.
Now, of course all that was written prior to the Iran War. And I'm also not saying the IEA is right about everything all the time. But as far as long term structural pressures go (if we ignore Hormuz for a second) it's not obvious to me that we're on the precipice of any sort of calamity as far as oil supply or price goes.
So the question is less about these underlying dynamics and more about how long the Hormuz closure lasts, how much more damage is done to Middle East oilfields, and how the world reacts to the increasing evidence that geopolitical instability is making reliance on fossil fuels too risky.
We're very obviously going to get a supply crunch in the next few months (already being felt by several billion in Asia and Africa). If the Hormuz issue is resolved quickly, this will have some lasting effect on prices but it won't be disastrous (and will hopefully be balanced by scaled up investment in renewables). Of course if there's a slide back to war or the current stand off keeps on going then things could really get chaotic for an extended period (especially if Middle East fields are blown up in significant numbers).
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
This depends 100% on where you live and how your government responds, so it’s impossible to tell.
If you live in Africa or India or any of the other countries that has had a massive population explosion over the last couple of decades your life will be hell and you will experience famine and mass casualty events.
If you are in an advanced western nation that is unwilling to defend its borders to keep out the inevitable flood of young male migrants from those collapsing countries, your life will be hell and you will experience famine and mass casualty events.
If you are in an advanced western nation that is willing to defend its borders and citizens with brutal violence a managed decline to a lower but still enjoyable general quality of life is possible (think low energy use lifestyles of the 1930s-40s) but unfortunately most of our social and economic systems will attempt to ignore the coming collapse for so long that a managed decline becomes impossible and their borders will be penetrated as a result dragging them down into the wave of death and despair that will come out of Africa and Southwestern Asia.
artisanrox@reddit
The same people crying and sqawking DAILY about BORDERS!!1!! are the same exact people gleefully and recklessly causing all this needless migration so GUESS WHAT
I'll take the migrants over a country of faux-spiritual pampered pedo protectors that think they own everyone else's existence and can't mind their own business.
markodochartaigh1@reddit
Ironically, until the current US regime started its brutal and authoritarian immigration enforcement the US was on a course to gradually lower its population of US born entitled and apathetic lower productivity population by a low population replacement rate and increase its population of foreign born higher productivity workers. It was predictable though, that the US would choose skin melanin content over worker productivity in selecting its destiny.
ArugulaAcrobatic4018@reddit
y i k e s
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
How did the USA cause India and Africa to massively outbreed the carrying capacity of their local environments?
ginge419@reddit
Malthusianism is a failed ideology, bud. The western world systematically destroyed indigenous forms of agriculture and social organization/governance all over the global south. We continue this practice with predatory financial "investment" lending/aid or extractive industrial "investments" that steal resources and blight the local landscapes while funneling profits to wealthy westerners.
Like, you can't even do a good gotcha. Do everyone a favor: log off and think about your opinions. You can do better.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
LMFAO honey those “indigenous forms of agriculture” would never have been capable of sustaining populations as large as they have now.
I don’t give a fuck what caused this mess or your moronic gotcha games, I’m talking about what will inevitably happen as current supply systems collapse.
ginge419@reddit
Indigenous forms of agriculture and production relied on resources and techniques that have worked for thousands of years. Imposing western crops and practices was intended to "civilize" those areas with "real" farming. You seem very certain for someone who apparently knows so little... I admire that about you.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Do you have brain damage or something? Look up the regional populations in those areas 500 years ago when they were still using sustainable indigenous agricultural production and compare them to today.
The issue isn’t that the indigenous forms were bad - in most ways they’re better - the issue isn’t that those indigenous methods aren’t productive enough to support the current populations without importing a significant percentage of additional food.
ginge419@reddit
Charming. Look up regional populations in the western world. Access to chemical fertilizers is why we, globally, are able to produce more food. It's not just agricultural practices. It's also the continuing extraction of resources, ecological damage, manipulation of local governments, and debt cycles that drive problems in so much of the global south. Those things all share common causes with the problems we experience in the developed world. We wouldn't be alive either without chemical fertilizer. The US wouldn't have the same public infrastructure if it had been developed primarily with extractive colonialism (vs settler colonialism). The problems aren't unique to where in the world migrants are coming from. The problems are global capital. The global south is a preview of what this system has in store for all of us as sources of capitalist growth continue to dwindle. Look to Appalachia for an example of how this will play out in the US.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Holy shit you seriously don’t get it.
Worthless whataboutism that doesn’t change anything for the regions we’re talking about.
Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about a post-oil future where countries no longer have access to chemical fertilizers and countries like the USA are no longer net exporters of food because international supply chains no longer exist.
None of this fucking matters in a post-oil future in which global supply chains no longer exist.
ginge419@reddit
LOL - calm down. 1) None of that has any relationship to the racist garbage you said in your original comment. 2) There are other sources. Oil is just the cheapest and most abundant. Take a breath and read a book. It'll be good for you.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
You’re intentionally ignorant and I’m not interested in replying to your stupidity any more. Enjoy the well-earned block. 👋
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
GreatPlainsFarmer@reddit
Now you're making the other person's argument for them!!!!
ginge419@reddit
But it's not the only way to do it. There are other systems of agriculture that don't rely so extensively on petrochemicals.
GreatPlainsFarmer@reddit
Yes. But those systems are not as productive. They don’t produce as much human-edible food per acre per year.
They generally involve long rotations of human food with non-human food. They usually produce far more cellulose over time, and require more ruminants to process that into human edible proteins.
Those farming methods work just fine for 2-3 billion humans.
Not for 8 billion.
ginge419@reddit
Sorry, I added to my previous comment. Look at how much is put into growing feedstock and tell me there isn't opportunity for reallocation that allow us to feed people. When the decisions are driven by financial gain and eternal growth, famines will be a necessary part of the cycle.
GreatPlainsFarmer@reddit
It's not nearly as black and white as simple tonnage makes it seem. For example, the majority of farmed meat animals are chickens. Modern broiler chicken farms are incredibly efficient convertors of grain into meat. And they are optimized for maize and oilseed meal.
You could use a field to grow maize and soybeans for chicken feed. Or you could use that same field to grow lentils. Which gives you more human food?
It's the maize and soybeans processed into chicken meat. Plus you can save a small portion of the corn for tortillas to wrap around the chicken meat.
Lentils yield only a few hundred pounds per acre. Maize and soybeans yield tons per acre. Even converting the maize and soy meal into chicken meat still gives you more pounds of chicken meat than pounds of lentils. Plus you get the cooking oil from the soybeans and chicken broth from the bones and cartilage.
That system falls apart without Haber Bosch nitrogen to feed the maize, but so does feeding 9 billion people.
artisanrox@reddit
I dunno, bro, the same exact crowd crying daily that there's a feritility crisis!!!1!! might want to welcome a new influx of people willing to work in their country or stop whining that nobody's having kids, huh?
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Those are to different groups, champ.
artisanrox@reddit
No. No, they are not.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Nice of you to be able to speak for so many communities that you vehemently disagree with.
Ok_Way9206@reddit
The US has been mining the Ogallala for 70 years, turning the water into grain, and sending said grain to Africa because the locals in Africa can't stop breeding. Why? Virtue signalling? Or to win hearts and minds? Or to make the locals dependent on Uncle Sam by destroying native production? A form of colonialisation? Who knows but certainly geopolitics on an enormous scale played out over many decades. Surely you must of noticed? Or were you simply looking the other way?
Federal-Ask6837@reddit
What?
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Which part is the “What?” about?
Complex systems and global fulfillment chains will not survive the end of oil. We have no backup to replace the oil-fueled container ships that enable international food shipments. Once oil becomes too rare and expensive to use nations that are net importers of food will be unable to meet the nutritional needs of their citizens and will fall into famine and war. People fleeing those nations will increase the populations of the countries they flee too and push neighbor nations that are net exporters past their own carrying capacities and spread famine and war wherever they go.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the people who are being impacted and everything to do with the fact that sustenance farming without the aid of chemical fertilizers is only capable of maintaining populations at much, much lower densities than the ones we currently see across much of the globe.
ginge419@reddit
Cool racism bro. Way to blame the impending consequences of capitalism and over extraction on migrants.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
It’s not racism, it’s a matter of the carrying capacity of their territories once we switch back to lower-productivity farming without petroleum-based fertilizer.
Any nation that currently imports significant amounts of food will be among the first to collapse as global supply chains crumble, with massive famine and war and outmigration that will cause their problems to ripple outward into any nation that attempts to help.
The global human population is way too high for a sustainable post-oil society and billions will die in a reset.
ginge419@reddit
We have more than enough productive capacity on this planet and in all its regions. It's the global capitalism that keeps these regions poor. They aren't overpopulated. They're being pillaged by the developed world and then blamed for it. Literally, do better. I believe in you.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Global productivity doesn’t matter if the products can’t be delivered yo where the need is.
Do you even understand what “Collapse” is as a concept? The supply chains that currently maintain that poverty won’t survive the end of oil.
https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/
ginge419@reddit
Yeah. Except local productive capabilities have been dismantled are are suppressed. Like you could take as much as you're spending replying to my comments just exploring the reality we share and learning about other parts of the world.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Federal-Ask6837@reddit
You are engaging with an argument in your head, and completely missing the point
ginge419@reddit
Oh? enlighten me. My point was to call out bullshit racism and an attempt to blame those in the global south for the systems of oppression used against them. Each comment I made was in direct response to uninformed and rude comments.
artisanrox@reddit
We actually ASSISTED countries with low reproductive medical access through programs like USAID for exact issues like this, and this Administration KILLED USAID.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Do you even know what sub you’re in? Global supply chain programs like USAID won’t survive collapse, you moron.
https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Hi, Prestigious_Wrap_932. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Federal-Ask6837@reddit
This is exactly the point though. These nations with population boom were only able to do so with fossil fuel fertilizers and outside aid. They cannot sustain themselves and that means an inevitable flood of starving millions. This isn't "racism".
artisanrox@reddit
Yes, some are going to have to migrate or fight their own country's problems. But the fossil fuel barons created that.
We let food rot on shelving every day in this country, we can afford to give people what they need, bro.
ginge419@reddit
Citing migrants (as the original, now deleted comment did) as a make-or-break to being able to survive is racism, however.
ginge419@reddit
To add to my previous comment. the cause of the problems in the global south driving mass migration are the same as those driving global collapse: extractive capitalism. Those problems have also existed in the US literally since it came into being. For some reason, though, nobody complains about people leaving Appalachia for better lives in other parts of the country. I wonder what the differences are...
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
The cause literally doesn’t matter at this point. The end of oil without any serious alternative means that a global collapse of complex systems is coming no matter what we do.
It doesn’t matter how quickly we switch to residential solar or if we replace capitalism with a different economic system, we have no viable replacement for oil to fuel those massive container ships that transport food and goods around the globe so any population that cannot fully sustain itself on a local level is going to collapse into famine and war.
ginge419@reddit
Then what was the point of pinning blame on migrants? That's what I originally responded to. Blame the actual causes. Don't just throw your hands up and say immigrants are going to make impossible to survive. That's an ignorant and racist thing to do.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Holy fuck, how do you still not get this? The migrants aren’t at fault for their plight, all that matters is carrying capacity in a low productivity agricultural system where international supply chains no longer exist.
Any country that is a net importer of food will collapse into famine and war.
Any country that is a net exporter of food has a chance at survival if they sustain or gradually decrease their population.
Migrants fleeing famine will increase the populations of the countries they migrate to which will push those countries past their new reduced carrying capacities and spread famine and war to countries that might otherwise have been able to manage their decline.
This isn’t a value judgement, it’s literally just population-level math and resource allocation.
winston_obrien@reddit
Some people are so caught up in their own version of moral superiority that it blinds them to reason. What you are saying is objectively true. It’s not racist to say that certain countries will not be able to feed themselves and that their people will want to migrate therefore producing stresses in other nations.
ginge419@reddit
Except that's not what dude said. His original comment was that the presence of migrants in a country would be the deciding factor on whether people would survive or not.
Fire_Shin@reddit
Because... math.
Too many people for a country to feed equals war, famine and devestation.
He's saying that a country that can feed its current population won't be able to take in many immagrants because they like to eat.
Just like the original population. Let migrants in=more mouths to feed. Let too many in and damn straight it is the deciding factor in whether the rest of the country remains stable and fed.
It's not a freaking value judgement. It's math. It's fucking ugly, but it's simple math.
ginge419@reddit
Why does it have to be about countries letting in migrants. Internal migration exists too. Why are the only problematic mouths that need feeding the ones who live in far off places? The deciding factor will be access to capital. Or access to community and the tools and skills required for resiliency.
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
Exactly. It’s not a matter of capability, guilt, or worthiness. It’s a simple matter of resources and productivity and the type of resources that have been pillaged from developing nations by more advanced ones (metals, minerals) are irrelevant when it comes to reducing society back to a sustenance farming level.
Even within the contiguous 48 United States, locations like the west coast states may survive but locations like the southwestern states will be unable to survive and will return to desert wilderness.
nogoodallevil@reddit
There is definitely such an agenda behind their reply but it is a legit concern. Do you really think good people would be pouring out of those countries as collapse refugees? In such conditions?
SnooStories4162@reddit
Well let's hope we never have to run to Mexico for some reason.
Federal-Ask6837@reddit
I fully agree with you. I don't want the future to be this way, but, save for a global revolution, the future will be this way.
ginge419@reddit
Or we could look to parts of the world that have developed resiliency and survived despite the challenges. We could learn from examples of disaster communism after severe weather events or the people of northeast Syria, who protected themselves and their communities from ISIS and the Syrian government for over a decade of civil war. We could work to strengthen our communities and build robust systems of mutual aid while we have time instead of throwing our hands up and acting like xenophobia adds any value to the conversation...
Prestigious_Wrap_932@reddit
I mean, it’s not a judgement call about any of these locations and I think trying to pin blame is a worthless and unproductive exercise at this late juncture.
The End of Oil means that all global supply chains will collapse, so then it’s just a mathematical population and productivity exercise where net food importers collapse into famine and war, net food exporters have a chance at survival if they can maintain or reduce their populations, and net exporters whose populations increase will suffer the same famine and war as the net importers just on a more drawn out timeframe.
Without oil the planet cannot sustain the current human population so we have to choose between a managed decline or the end of our species.
nogoodallevil@reddit
This is another problem I've been thinking of. The end result of such mass migration worldwide will be conflict, and war—as always. I believe that nations should be prepared to defend their borders, but still take in refugees through strict programmes. What do you think of this?
thecarbontaxmanSoCal@reddit
I think
TimberBiscuits@reddit
The US will be fine, it’s energy independent. It’s South East Asia and Africa I worry about the most. If we don’t see a miracle in sudden oil availability then US prices will also remain high enough to produce inflation above 3-4% which is a recipe for a recession in this market.
Various_Apartment244@reddit
America hasn’t built a damn refinery since the 70s! We can’t just drill and pump oil and put it into your pickup truck!
Sharp_Oral@reddit
We’re running bunker now boys.
EnvyofWindandRain@reddit
This is the problem of reductionist stats. If you count it via Barrels of oil and energy per barrel, then yes the numbers square. But it removes all the nuance of what kind of petroleum products the US uses.The US still needs to effectively swap something like 7 million barrels a day just to get the right mixes available. That is all done on the open market and as much as one would like to think that they would favor the local market first, that isn't how it happens. Shareholders demand that profits are maximized and that means selling at international pricing.
There will not be shortages but the pricing will continue to increase. This is how most resource shocks will look to western countries, stuff is still available but prices go up faster than wages and a rising tide of poverty continues. There is also the factor of, the US buys a lot of stuff from SE Asia. If they are hurting that will flow down only a few months later. Global markets end up with global impacts.
RoyalZeal@reddit
'cept you can't make diesel with the stuff America pulls out of the ground by itself, you need heavy crude for that, so no, we aren't energy independent whatsoever when every truck, train and ship we use are powered by it.
96-62@reddit
I don't think that's right. You *don't* make diesel with light sweat crude, because heavy sour crude is better, but I don't know whether you *can't*.
RoyalZeal@reddit
You need the fractions from the heavier crude to make it. Light sweet simply does not possess those components. This is taken from folks working in the oil industry. Art Berman explains it pretty succinctly.
96-62@reddit
So, there's no inverse of cracking? Could you not heat it with carbon monoxide? (Anyway, if there's no industry technology for whatever wild eyed idea I have, then it likely can't be built in time).
dinah-fire@reddit
Can you physically? Yes, buy it takes more energy to do that than you get from the resulting molecules, so it makes absolutely no sense to do so.
start3ch@reddit
Why can they make jet fuel from it but not deisel? I thought the two were pretty similar
ibondolo@reddit
Jet fuel is exactly not quite like kerosene.
Current-Health2183@reddit
The US has to import almost as much oil as it exports, since we can’t make diesel from the oil produced domestically. So the IS is better off than most, but still greatly impacted. We will have shortages.
Neumanium@reddit
We import as much oil was we export, because the companies that own the refineries choose not to improve the refineries to process the oil that comes out of the ground in America. They make this decision because if they did the improvements or upgrades, they also would have to upgrade the emissions control to comply with all the environmental regulations passed since the 1970’s. When the environmental regulations were initially passed and implemented all the refineries were granted a waiver from having to comply as long as they did not add refining capacity or build new refineries. So we export oil and import about the same amount so the oil refineries can continue to pollute because it is cheaper for them instead of complying with tighter emissions controls.
Current-Health2183@reddit
True. It doesn't change the outcome. The refineries won't be changed. And we will have shortages.
fitzswackhammer@reddit
Hence why the US didn't take a pop at Iran until they had control of Venezuelan oil which makes excellent diesel and can be refined in the US.
victor4700@reddit
Peter Griffin has entered the chat
undisclosedusername2@reddit
Prices are set globally, so even if the US has a good supply you'll be paying a high amount for it.
EastTyne1191@reddit
What happens when SE Asia or Africa is desperate and willing to pay more than the going rate in the US though?
There_Are_No_Gods@reddit
Oil is a global commodity. The price fluctuations are widespread and largely consistent around the globe. The US is somewhat protected in the supply aspect, but just as vulnerable to price increases as the rest of the world.
TimberBiscuits@reddit
Price of consumer gasoline goes up like we’ve seen.
mrpickles@reddit
The US is a NET exporter. The logistics and specifics of oil mix require the US to still import. Idk if we'll have shortages, but prices will certainly be higher
artisanrox@reddit
The fossil fuel industry barons absolutely poached solar and other renewables for decades.
A dipshit inheritor billionaire ruined one of the best electric car companies on the planet.
The country refuses to invest in capturing massive solar potential and is now forcibly trying to keep affordable Chinese electric vehicles out.
We are NOT energy independent.
BangEnergyFTW@reddit
He isn't wrong. This isn't about the straight. This about the end we knew was coming. 2018 was also the year the elite started going all in on bunkers and safe haven purchases.
idreamofkitty@reddit
You're right but i'm more worried about the fall harvest.
Why has a catastrophic raw-material shock not yet reached the grocery store?
https://collapse2050.substack.com/p/why-has-a-catastrophic-raw-material
hailene02@reddit
Both here.
Oil/diesel is needed not only for farm machinery, but to take it to be processed and to the stores. This also doesnt include that alot of aluminum which is used for canned goods is also effected raising the prices even more.
70% of US farmers (of 5700 surveyed) stayed they do not have enough for fertilizer so they have opted not to plant or do what they can with reduced yields.
Rural communities I expect will be hit harder as it wont have as much profit shipping to their towns instead of bigger cities. While there will be food avail, the amount will be less and it will cost more.
I am very scared for this fall and winter. I have a very small yard and am doing what I can to grow as much as I can and I still feel it wont be enough. I have been a prepper since covid and honestly this is scaring me so much more than then.
GreatPlainsFarmer@reddit
That is not what the survey asked. The question was "Can you afford all the fertilizer you need?"
That's not a good question to ask a farmer. Farmers can never afford everything they think they need. The question is very nearly meaningless. It certainly doesn't imply that farmers will leave acres idle this year.
Most US farmers overapply fertilizer a bit, just in case it turns out to be a really good year and the crop can benefit from a little extra. A farmer who decided to reduce his fertilizer rates by 10% would have answered that question affirmatively. But it doesn't mean that his crops are going be short of fertilizer or that they will yield below average. All it means is that his crops are a little less likely to yield well above average.
At most those survey results mean that average crop yield might be expected to decline a few percentage point, because there won't be as many bumper yields in areas that get good weather.
If the 2026 US commodity grain yields decline more than 5% from last year, I will be shocked.
MeepersToast@reddit
Thank you
TheNigh7man@reddit
Fantastic response. Your username checks out.
TrekRider911@reddit
Chevron executives are saying it publicly. Prep up folks.
mrpickles@reddit
Sources? I want to quote them
merikariu@reddit
It's also openly discussed on CNBC
00OO00@reddit
https://blocknow.com/exxon-oil-inventories-price-spike-us-treasuries/
Neil Chapman, Exxon Mobil senior vice president
TrekRider911@reddit
Neil Chapman, SVP for Exxon on Bloomberg two days ago.
PatrolMan2129@reddit
Only time will tell, although I and the Club of Rome agree with you on the general direction. Timing it will be difficult.
If the gas stays up, we'll have interesting election results, at the least.
InconspicuousWarlord@reddit
Interesting election results? Elections for the foreseeable future are already decided. Hope I’m wrong but I’m not optimistic.
EnvyofWindandRain@reddit
It is hard to tell, even with manipulation that can only go so far if the push back is too wide.
ODST-judge@reddit
Hahahaha you’re funny dude.
NihiloZero@reddit
It's happening.
roytay@reddit
What's happening!?!
shewholaughslasts@reddit
Dude i really want to click your rando link but....
Armouredmonk989@reddit
It's safe just an old Ron Paul gif.
NihiloZero@reddit
It's just a link to the Ron Paul "It's happening" gif.
After all my years on Reddit... I still can't properly post a gif to the site.
2leftarms@reddit
I’d say if the Iran oil crisis continues you’re probably going to see some wild price spikes in the fall, otherwise things will stay expensive but start to drift down after summer demand.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
It isn't necessarily an accelerating slide, as all projections can only include reserves and technologies which are viable at this point in time. But yeah, the effects of rhe Iran War are not even remotely realized yet, and they will last. It's not something that can just be undone on a whim. Rough times ahead
existing_for_fun@reddit
While I agree with this overall, I just don't see new tech coming online between now and EOY that would have a significant enough impact as to prevent, or significantly slow, what's coming.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
Me neither, I just don't want to discount it entirely. But personally I also don't think we'll invent anything groundbreaking.
Which I'm sure the relevant industries agree with as well to some extent, since the attempts at providing oil alternatives are sure as hell not driven by a desire to slow down climate change.