I thought I made this clear in my previous response. If not, I apologize. The viability of continued fossil fuel extraction is largely driven once again by economic considerations. As the monetary cost of the extraction of a barrel of oil begins to exceed the value of the delivered barrel of oil, extraction will slow and eventually stop. And again, economic considerations in the final analysis are cultural considerations giving us a much wider perspective on the number of possible choices available to us. The hard limit is the one imposed usually by a limitation on the rate of sustainable renewal of any given resource whether this be imposed by nature or by our technological capability at any given time. The more important limitations are the ones we have culturally imposed upon ourselves in my opinion.
There are a lot of hidden assumptions in the term you use, the global industrialized world(GIW). These assumptions are what I think we need to reconsider as we approach this crisis period around 2030. Are you familiar with the work of Micheal Ruppert? Your work seems to me a reprisal of his work from over a decade ago, Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. His was also a dark vision of a humanity unable to confront the cultural changes necessary to meet the challenges of transitioning towards sustainability. I am still very interested in reading your next series of posts and any possible paths towards sustainability they may have to offer. I think I am already fairly clear on the nature of the challenges we face in the coming decades. Viable resolutions are much harder to come by. I have already attempted to outline by vision for our path forward in some of my other responses to your article and in my responses to the comments of others to your article.