Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it is worth posting the following paragraph from the above-mentioned article in The Oil Drum. I'm unlikely to experience the worst of this but younger members of this forum - and their children - will be alive during the worst of the post-Peak Oil decline in global population levels. The survivors (one in six) will be those who are fully prepared in advance, in my view.



The Cost

... Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. ...

-- The Oil Drum: Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room - Revisited

 

wjfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Townleygreen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I've been worried about this for years.

> >

> > The Oil Drum website is very scary in places.

> >

>

>

> Indeed...

>

> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6924

>

> Long article, but well worth reading.


A great argument for cutting Child Benefit??!!

The survivors (one in six) will be those who are fully prepared in advance, in my view.


What, exactly, should I be doing to be fully prepared. I'm not being flippant either....if I buy into this "end of days" stuff what sort of things will see me through it?

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The survivors (one in six) will be those who are

> fully prepared in advance, in my view.

>

> What, exactly, should I be doing to be fully

> prepared.


Move to the countryside. Buy a house with solar panels and good insulation. Grow your own food, stock up on seeds, etc.

wjfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The survivors (one in six) will be those who

> are

> > fully prepared in advance, in my view.

> >

> > What, exactly, should I be doing to be fully

> > prepared.

>

> Move to the countryside. Buy a house with solar

> panels and good insulation. Grow your own food,

> stock up on seeds, etc.


The get murdered by the have nots for your food.

It's a plausible scenario - the problem is no one knows how it will unfold: whether it will be gradual and controlled or swift and chaotic. My guess is something like the domino effect. It'll start within the most vulnerable countries and spread across regions and continents until all but a few enclaves of law and order remain - that's where most of the survivors will be.


Each swift episode of chaos will be followed by a period of calm until a self-sustaining equilibrium is achieved.


Those who can guarantee their own survival (i.e. those in positions of power at the relevant time) will face an interesting dilemma: do they expend precious resources on saving the masses or do they let them go under quickly in order to provide their own descendants with the best survival prospects? After all, the survivors will literally inherit the earth.


Of late, I?ve been wondering whether the western banks have already discounted the effect Peak Oil will have on future property prices ? hence their reluctance to lend on real estate in general?

> I?ve been wondering whether the western

> banks have already discounted the effect Peak Oil

> will have on future property prices ? hence their

> reluctance to lend on real estate in general?


Why the correlation between oil and property, instead of other assets?


Anyway, as far as I know, no bank is yet running stress tests on apocalyptic end-of-civilization scenarios.

Western banks are pushed to think much beyond their next quarterly results, today's share price and their next bonus if you think the Boradroom's of the big western banks are building peak oil into their strategies (which are soooo short term) you live in CC land.

Mortgages are long-term investments - the maturity dates of new mortgages fall in or around the projected Peak Crunch in population levels - coincidence or what?


Whatever one thinks about banks, the quants who design and value mortgage-backed securities have to make assumptions and forward-looking projections through to the maturity dates.


If they even suspected that UK house prices might be closer to 1950s than 2010 levels in 25-30 years time - well, do I need to draw a picture?

Board members of banks will be nowhere near them by peak oil. They couldn't give a flying. Their goals are entirely short term and driven by THEIR performance and the banks share price and performance at the next quarterly results. They give not a hoot about even 5 years away, they're not that keen on mortgages becuase they think that the housing market is still inflated and may burst anytime soon nothing to do with some future armageddon. But you conspire on.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

But you conspire on.


It's still early days - once I've added the relevant Biblical prophecies and links to the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail and Crop Circles you will be convinced - I'm sure.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The survivors (one in six) will be those who are

> fully prepared in advance, in my view.

>

> What, exactly, should I be doing to be fully

> prepared.


Guns


Lots of guns.

Buns


Lots of buns.


It's not actually true to say that the UK isn't self-sufficient in food. It depends what food group you're talking about, and how easy or difficult it is to rectify the situation:


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46174000/gif/_46174429_food_security_446gr.gif


The only situation that might be slightly unnerving is fresh vegetables - but it's easy to rectify. There's plenty of available farmland. Currently the EU pays farmers not to farm. Potatoes and meat are nothing to worry about.


The fruit thing's a shame, but no reason to panic - there's quite enough of our nutritional requirements in more 'British' foods. Fruit's a bit of a luxury.


So from a food perspective the transport oil thing wouldn't necessarily be a crisis, just a change of style.


Cooking it might be a different matter.


If you'd like a detailed breakdown of UK food security you can find it here.

Arse to that. 'British' foods blow goats*.


Guns, lots of guns would secure you passage to Africa where the employment of guns, lots of guns, would sort you out a piece land with its own water source.


Granted, I've stolen this idea from somewhere but it is preferable to cabbage.


*Pies and beer excepted

You'd have to ask that of them wot rote it.


I deliberately didn't talk about the overall picture, as I'm sure it's more complex, but the debate was about peak oil, not about the end of energy. Hence the assumption is that many aspects of mechanization can still go ahead as usual - including heating greenhouses and sheds, and running conveyor belts. Distribution could still take place over electrified rail systems etc.


The ones that aren't much good without oil are things like refrigerated overseas distribution.

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How many other assets are purchased with a 30-year loan secured on future value?


In reality most mortgages are settled long before the maturity. And the risk of default (and the downside exposure) drops off sharply long before then, anyway. Also, you need to understand that yield curves and credit spreads are deduced mathematically from the market. The black-ops think-tank you are envisaging - brainstorming about the state of the world in 2040 and adjusting projections accordingly - just doesn't exist.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...