Peak oil was always a lie. As it gets more scarce, it gets more valuable, and innovations in extraction and processing are further incentivized to progress (see:fracking). It's just all living things on Earth that are the collateral damage (read:externalities) to that equation.

I don't think that is what 'Peak Oil' concept was about. It acknowledged, or did not dispute, that with scarcity, prices rise, and supply/demand will cause something to happen. What 'Peak Oil' was speculating about, was that the change in supply would change rapidly enough, that the rate of change would be faster than the normal supply/demand humans are used to, and hence cause massive economic and societal disturbance. Not really too different than recent chip shortages, sure, with more demand, people will build new factories, but those factories take huge capital and time, so the rate of change of the demand is more than can be adapted to without 'discomfort'.

I think the difference is that proponents of peak oil relied on motivated thinking and largely ignored known information. Their assumptions were widely criticized as inaccurate at the time and doubled down.

This is because they were looking to support a policy position to stop oil usage and trying to build a scientific case, opposed to the other way around.

Should also have added, that we are fracking at all, is an indicator that we are heading towards a shortage. Oil Sands/Fracking all take energy to produce energy, and have only recently become economical, because we are running out make these poor second rate inputs become valuable.

That's awfully dismissive. Not exactly a leap for people to argue:

Climate change was always a lie. As the planet warms, the premium for a safe and healthy planet increases, and innovations in clean energy technology continue progress.

So long as the supply of oil is finite, it's not a lie. The predictions of timing, however, were clearly wildly wrong.

Actually, we have no idea. We don't know how much oil is still in the ground in many of the major oil exporting countries. Even though it was anticipated that OPEC would increase output after Russia was banned from the global market, they didn't. Were the explanations given valid, or might it be that they are no longer able to ramp up so quickly?

And realistically why would have they. Russia did not stop too much production, just moved where it was sold. And increasing production would have driven price down making in long run less money in total for them.

First and foremost, that is not how the law of supply and demand works. If there is a sudden increase in demand, the equilibrium point rises, and they could have sold more at a higher price.

Plus, they've always done it before in a similar situation.

Which one ?

King Hubbert's prediction was true.

Campbell and Laherrère's prediction was also true.

(You can say that they failed to predict the tight oil and bituminous sands boom, focusing instead on the (thankfully still completely uneconomical) oil shale potential, but the gist of them being extremely dirty and expensive also fits.)

It doesn't sound like you understand what "peak oil" means.

It was always the opposite of a lie: a logical truism.

If you have a limited resource and an increasing rate of use, there will a point in time where that rate of use peaks, i.e. reaches a maximum and then declines. That's just (very) basic mathematical truth.

And scarcity incentivizing innovations in extraction and processing changes absolutely nothing about it, those things are just (part of) the reason why the peak will be followed by a gradual decline rather than consumption continuing to rise until the day before all reserves are depleted.

True but as we are seeing, by then it will be too late.

The cost of extraction and use of fossil fuels is much lower than the real cost of using them. A carbon tax system can fix some of that and let the market do it's thing properly with more complete information.

The issue now is carbon emissions, not sources of energy. Fossil fuels are already-sequestered carbon and releasing that into the atmosphere is bad unless we can close the loop by sequestering CO2 back into combustibles using solar or nuclear energy.

Doesn't this also lead to increased flora, which is a more rapid way of re-sequestering carbon?

No, more CO2 in the air does not lead to increased flora. In fact, the higher temperatures will more likely destabilize ecosystems and result in more deserts and habitats unsuitable for flora.

We're also cutting down flora at an unprecedented rate for meat farming and other uses.

Flora also don't grow that rapidly. Fossil fuels are compacted, sequestered carbon from thousands of years.

> No, more CO2 in the air does not lead to increased flora.

Are you sure?

“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [,2016].

[…]

The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

[…]

Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

[…]

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...

> A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands

What about the other 50-75%?

I meant it in a lifecycle sense, not just an isolated increase in CO2 without considering other factors such as global average temperatures and natural water sources.

I don't think this is accurate. Increased CO2 can lead to increased flora--though not enough to offset the negative effects of additional CO2 in the first place.

Why do commercial greenhouses have CO2 generators? I am not following your argument at all. I haven't seen evidence for your first claim (and asked you a follow-up question related to that). We're not cutting down flora for meat farming. We are changing some environments over to farming, but that farm land is largely being used to raise...more plants. In addition, I remember seeing a study (I don't have time to try and find it) that showed that we have more trees now than anytime in the last 500 years.

Your third claim (flora also don't grow that rapidly) is just an assertion that doesn't really make sense to me. And the final statement about fossil fuels is a non sequitur.

> In addition, I remember seeing a study (I don't have time to try and find it) that showed that we have more trees now than anytime in the last 500 years.

Maybe in Europe, only. But absolutely not globally. The amazon deforestation alone...

Yes, it will lead to increased flora.

> Increased temperatures can lengthen growing seasons, higher carbon dioxide concentrations can enhance plant growth, and in some areas rainfall and the availability of water resources can increase as a result of climate change.

See https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/6766014682496426...

However, as that document goes into, the benefit from the extra flora won't be enough to offset the negative impacts of increased CO2.

That ("fossil fuels were a limited resource") is only true if the fossil fuel oil producers have to pay the cost of cleanup. Take a look at how a new superfund site is being constructed: https://archive.is/AMt7I

But it's ok because it makes gasoline cheap, and hey, we can figure out how to clean^H^H^H^H^H make more money on the cleanup when people start dying.

Fracking is what changed that...

It was already clear at least 15 years ago that the answer was going to be : both.