Macroeconomic impacts of peak oil: implications for growth in the 21st century

[Æsahættr]

Here's my capstone project for my environmental studies minor. Waiting for feedback from my advisers to see if it's worth submitting for publication. Let me know what you think!

Oil production has remained steady since mid-2004, despite record-high prices and vigorous investment. These developments, along with the rapid growth seen in newly-industrialized countries, cast serious doubts on the ability of oil producers to satiate demand. Consequently, many economists cite tight oil supply as a primary cause of the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent continued economic malaise. Regardless of the exact timing of peak oil, the macroeconomic impacts of an inelastic oil supply are already evident; a stagnant or declining energy supply is simply at odds with our growth-based economic paradigm. It will be very difficult for alternative energy sources and efficiency gains to compensate for ever-increasing energy demand alongside declining oil production.

http://goo.gl/ks407

[Suburbanist]

I think you are going through dangerous territory by associating high oil prices with the 2008 financial crisis. It might or might not have been a contributing factor, but it is certainly not a first-order factor, at least not on the crisis as it developed in Europe or North America.

There are a lot of people getting all worked up on this OMG we need to stop thinking on the economic growth paradigm, but there is no empirical evidence to back this bold assumption. At least evidence that would pass the muster of macroeconomic science.

[Æsahættr]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I think you are going through dangerous territory by associating high oil prices with the 2008 financial crisis. It might or might not have been a contributing factor, but it is certainly not a first-order factor, at least not on the crisis as it developed in Europe or North America.

There are a lot of people getting all worked up on this OMG we need to stop thinking on the economic growth paradigm, but there is no empirical evidence to back this bold assumption. At least evidence that would pass the muster of macroeconomic science.

Haha... did you read the paper? What? How did you make the conclusion that "there is no empirical evidence to back this bold assumption?"

Empirical studies establishing the 2007-2008 oil shock as a first-order causal factor for the financial crisis have been published in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, such as Nature, Science, and Energy.

Here are some examples:
Energy - Oil Supply Limits and the Continuing Financial Crisis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60544211003744

Bioscience - Energetic Limits to Economic Growth
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.7

Brookings Institution - Causes and Consequences of 2007-8 Oil Shock
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15002

Nature - Oil's Tipping Point has Passed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/481433a.html

The list goes on and on... Am I missing something as to what your definition of "empirical evidence" and "macroeconomic science" is?