FANDOM


Remember to categorize, Riction. :) Louisiannan 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't Hibbert recently shown to be in error, with the new field discovered in the Gulf of Mexico (as of approx. Sept 2006)? (68.115.131.178)

Firstly, it's Hubbert. Secondly, the "Jack 2" test by Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico in September could indeed increase the US reserves by as much as 50 percent, though the total is in the 3-15 billion barrel range while the world currently consumes more than 30 billion barrels per year. Thus, all of this celebration is about, at most, a 6-month supply (15 billion barrels) and, perhaps just as likely, 37 days (3 billion barrels). (And even with 15 billion barrels down there, Saudi Arabia CLAIMS to have 260 billion barrels...not quite making this a life-saver. Of course, this find won't be flowing at any fast rate that could meet the need of the United States, and it won't be flowing at all, until sometime in the future when the infrastructure is set up. Thirdly, how does oil found in September 2006 impact an oil crash in 1996? Even if, say, we'd just used up 1% of the world's oil, if we hadn't found anymore than that 1%, we'd still have a problem. --Riction 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oregon

Just a suggestion: the Oregon separatists might be part of or have highjacked the "Cascadian movement". The philosophy behind it could be used as a justification both for their independence itself and for expension into British Columbia, Washington, idaho and more as "consolidating the natural borders of the Bioregion". --Marcpasquin 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. Hmm...but I'll either have to move the date of independence farther into the past or wait a few months or years until I can write about the changes! But I think I'll do the former. Thanks for the advice. --Riction 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Erlich/Pop Bomb/Global Cooling

As realistic as any ALT, but aren't Hubbert's prognostications just as subject to invalidation as the predictions by neo-Malthusians like Paul Erlich in his "Population Bomb" (1970)? Erlich predicted "by 1990", food rationing in Europe, mass starvation in Asia, and even "meatless and wheatless days" in the United States. He was also an early proponent of the idea of "global cooling" and a "New Ice Age". None of which came to pass.

I might agree with your comment if you just added one more word to the end of it, "yet". Oil not being an infinite resource, it has to run out someday. Just think about it. Just do the basic math and you'll realize that there must be a point in time SOMETIME when oil cannot come out of the ground in any larger quantities. In my ATL, that time was 1996 (because of prior increased consumption). Because this is a point in the past, and the peak of oil production most definitely didn't occur in 1996 in our timeline, I have no excuse but to say that this story is what all other stories are on this website, a work of fiction. As for OTL, back in 1996, I don't think we could switch to solar-powered cars in a year or two, and things haven't changed now. If you accept that a limited resource cannot be found in greater quantities for an infinite number of years, then you too must accept the "Peak Oil" theory, even if you don't think it's happening now. As for what will be the outcome, that's up for debate. But because in my (yes, fictitious) timeline it happened in 1996, humans have had to pay a very high price, including depopulation and war. --Riction 03:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not a question of if but when we get the next ice age (or glacial period, to be specific). It could happen in 2,000 years, or it could happen in 200 years, but it will eventually, no matter what we do. --dllu 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd also add that you seem to be incorporating a lot of "Bush/neo-con" stuff in there as if his election and their influence is a "given". And, you're saying that his re-election in 2004 was a "given".

If the world-wide economy is still collapsing in 2004, unlike OTL 2004, it's likely Kerry would have won in Ohio (the only state he needed for electoral college victory), maybe a few other states and become President. Then, with no "neo-cons" in power, what's the rationale for Oregon seceding?

By the way, I think with the swing into "acceptance of the conspiracy theory of 9/11"....it seems you're into a slightly off-topic althist, which supports the LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy theories.

I didn't ever state in my Althist that the conspiracy theories are necessarily true. Even if, say, they are not true, is it then impossible that perhaps the majority of people in Oregon could believe in such conspiracy theories? As for Bush, although I never outright said that he got reelected, maybe he played the 9/11 card, like he did in this world. However, turning away from neocons won't create more oil, and so the world is still in great turmoil. --Riction 11:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Just my personal view, but Carville's "It's The Economy Stupid" MUST play a factor. If things were really bad economically, the public would have turned on Bush in a heartbeat in 2004. All it would have taken is 300,000 votes in Ohio and Kerry would have won an electoral college victory (not popular vote victory, but as with Bush, it doesn't matter).
OK, I'll consider making Kerry (or maybe even someone more radical) win in 2004. But yeah, afterwards, with the Democrats in power, things still won't be peachy keen. In fact, who knows, maybe a new party will form... --Riction 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to start a fight, just looking at your "set-up". And consider this, if the situation CONTINUES to deteriorate under a Kerry Administration, given American politics, it would likely result in a extreme right-wing (even fascist) takeover in 2006/2008.
I think back to the Franklin Roosevelt line, after being elected at the height of the Depression, and a colleague said "If you fail, you may be the last Democrat ever elected President. To which FDR said "If I fail, I may be THE last President...ever!" (noting the rise of the fascist dictators in Germany and Italy).
No, you're on to something. In fact, I was thinking of going down that road, actually. To tell you the truth, since this is my minor althist, I haven't thought so much in detail about it, but as opposed to my other one Vegetarian World, which is all rosy, I want to create one full of radicalism (both right and left) and chaos. --Riction 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More Drastic Timeline Changes

I did some research into the long term effects that the 1970's oil crisis had on the rest of the world, and found that your timeline has a few flaws in that it really doesn't deviate enough from the OTL. For example,

-There would have been no economic downturns in the west, the Dollar would have remained strong through the 70's,

-there'd be no daylight savings time,

-cars would have remained gigantic gas-guzzling monsters like they were in the 60's,

-there would have been no research into alternative fuels or much focus on nuclear power or natural gas,

-Japan would never have become a leader in electronics and car manufacturing (that probably would have gone to the US),

-The Soviet Union never would have profited from high gas prices, thus the USSR probably would have collapsed around 1980.

-This means Russia never would have invaded Afganistan, which was the spark that ignited the fire in the islamic world, giving birth to Radical Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda, in other words, no terrorists. This means the 9/11 attacks or anything like them never would have occured,

-The lack of Soviet nuclear threat to the US means the Neoconservative movement, which was a response to the Cold War and beginning with the Regan Administration never would have taken place (Jimmy Carter probably would have been reelected instead). This means no Project for the New American Century.

The world would have been a lot rosier a place, up until about 1996, when the oil peaks. Due to lack of alternative use, and environmental awareness (the environmental movement has most of their roots in the 70's oil crisis), global warming would also probably become more pronounced by '96. The peak would probably be a lot more sharp and the decline a lot more pronounced than it is now, which is somewhat illustrated by your ATL. Basically, things would have been golden and fantastic and ignorant until '96-'98, when things would hit the fan big time, and then, HUGE collapse. --saintbryan

Those are some great ideas, there. Actually, I didn't say it in so many words, but I figured that cars would have stayed big, not much research would have gone into alternatives, and possibly Communism would have petered out earlier (possibly leading to a China that started growing a few years sooner economically, no matter if its government is Communist in name or not). Your ideas about Russia, no Reagan, and no terrorism, are interesting. But remember that things can still be unpredictable.
About your "no terrorists" comment... Maybe Afghanistan helped the radical Islamist groups gain a base of operations and so led to more terrorism, but it didn't create terrorism. A few months before that was Iran's revolution. Probably in my Peak Oil 1996 world, Iran never had a revolution, but think about all of the built up tension that would have arisen. In the real world, the 1974 oil crisis was caused by the U.S. supporting Israel in the war. Imagine if the Islamic countries backed down because of U.S. pressure. And imagine if Iran were still friendly to the U.S. Having a foreign, INFIDEL, power telling their leaders what they can and cannot do could have been intolerable. Especially after Peak Oil, when oil prices across the Middle East soar for the first time ever, and the residents realize that THEIR oil is being sent to infidel countries instead of being used inside their own borders, this could lead to terrorism even greater than that seen in the real world, I feel. Remember, a 2001 terrorist attack would have been 5 years after peak oil. And peak oil itself could have lead to increased conservatism and fanaticism on both sides.
Anyway, I appreciate your research. Your comments are helpful, and I'll remember them when altering or further filling out this timeline. Thanks! --Riction 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Economic

is ready the [[category:Economic]] an i push that alt his in Economic Alternative History U can delete that change if U wan, but i feel tahat is right to your History (but in truth i dont read Ur His yet, sorry but i wanna do it)--Fero 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.