Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Are You Ready for the Energy Crash?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted May 10, 2006.


The biggest obstacle to getting our petro-dependent society to change its wasteful ways is collective insanity.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

While most of us are preoccupied with the astronomical price of gasoline, a far bigger energy catastrophe is brewing that will make pricey gas seem like a walk in the park. It's "peak oil" -- the term for the period after which global oil and natural gas demand outstrips supply and the prices for these commodities become too volatile for modern society to function. (For a primer on the topic, a good place to start is Hubbert's peak oil theory.)

One writer, James Howard Kunstler, has been particularly passionate -- some might say over-the-top -- about peak oil. In his latest book, "The Long Emergency," Kunstler addresses our stark looming reality square in the face and analyzes the consequences. While many of the scenarios he describes -- the prospect of millions of Americans stranded in suburbia forced to preside over their economic decline as their once normal auto-dependent lives become unattainable luxuries -- are no doubt valid, his tone has struck me as overly apocalyptic, verging on some kind of fetish for him; that the content of what he was writing about mattered only as much as it offered Kunstler the opportunity to prophesize The End, pleasing himself as he killed the hopes of his audience.

So I was curious to hear what Kunstler would say at the Local Energy Solutions conference in New York City last month. Aside from Kunstler, I knew what to expect from the rest of the speakers at the conference -- ideas and information about how we can best cope after the energy crash.

Perhaps what was so striking about the speakers and attendants at the conference was their almost angelic goodness and optimism -- even though by all rights they are among the most knowledgeable about the scale of the challenge facing our petro-dependent society, and would have the most cause to make a run for all those abandoned cabins constructed in the Yukon after the Y2K nonapocalyptic anticlimax.

There was Julian Darley, director of the Post-Carbon Institute speaking as softly as a kindergarten teacher about the need to develop currencies based on locally produced energy and decrease our reliance on our society's "flesh-based" diet.

There was Henry Gifford, an expert on "boiler, steam, and hydronic heating systems, water pressure boosting systems, and ventilation systems," calmly discussing how the office buildings and homes we use today are pissing away our natural resources at a rate that left me reeling.

Yet while I can't dispute the need for massive improvements in the energy efficiency of our buildings and the necessity to localize food production to deal with our coming energy crisis, the biggest obstacle to change seems to be cultural inertia. Most of us are zooming along blissfully in exactly the wrong direction: building more freeways, more malls, more auto-dependent housing developments, increasingly grotesque and demeaning commercial enterprises sucking the meaning out of our lives and American society as a whole. It's the collective insanity of our society that makes it possible for us to drive, consume and build freeways as though we could go on forever.

It was on that topic that Kunstler delivered his lecture, on what he called the "psychological dimension" of what's needed to get things going on the right track, which he said is "as important as the geological dimension."

I half expected Kunstler to say that the conference was pointless, that there was no hope for a society that needed to change its energy consumption if it were to survive. But while he was merciless in his critique of American society, I left the conference believing he was as optimistic as the rest.

Kunstler's rage and disdain was righteous and unsparing. He was pissed and he was eloquent: "We've turned into this nation of overfed clowns, riding around in clown cars, eating clown food, watching clown shows," he said. We're "a nation of cringing, craven fuckups."

Kunstler singled out one element of the psychological dimension in American life: "The idea that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. It's not a good thing for adults to wish upon a star. Right now, this is a normative belief -- that you can wish for things, and you'll get them."

He said that the nation's leading religion has become the "worship of unearned riches, which is based on a very stark idea, the idea that you can get something for nothing."

If that was the religion, Kunstler said, then the city of Las Vegas is its temple. Why this matters, he argued, is that when we talk about the problems facing our oil-dependent society, the dominant frame of mind is one of pure fantasy -- that years of predominance on the international stage has left America smug in the belief that it need only wish to have its problems solved, and that it doesn't have to face challenges that might require a massive change in all aspects of American life.

Bringing this rather abstract statement directly to contemporary national politics, Kunstler cited a quote he attributed to Dick Cheney about the centrality of our shopping malls and freeway systems to society: that this way of American life is "non-negotiable." Kunstler argued that Cheney's mindset is that of all Americans -- that SUVs, fast food, hourlong home-to-work commutes driven alone with the air-conditioning blasting was the best of all possible worlds, and the natural outcome of what our forefathers had dreamed of when they drew up the Constitution.

It was this kind of collective insanity, Kunstler said, that led CBS' 60 Minutes to run a program telling millions of Americans that the Canadian province of Alberta's tar sands held two trillion barrels of extractable oil that would keep us going for perpetuity -- never mind that the infrastructure required for extraction is decades away from being ready, and that the best available technology requires almost as much energy to extract as it produces.

Kunstler also criticized the arrogance that industrial leaders in the tech sector had about dealing with petro-dependency. He described a visit he made to the Google headquarters in Northern California for a speaking engagement. Here were the execs of a major company, whose ideas and products have received the official stamp of "The Future." Young captains of the tech industry, who, because "they have been megasuccessful -- they have very grandiose ideas about what is possible." And what Kunstler saw were a bunch of kids "dressed like skateboard rats."

Kunstler bemoaned their almost religious confidence in technology to solve society's problems. He said that after he gave his speech outlining the dangers facing our oil-dependent society, the young executives didn't ask any questions but made comments and rebuttals, which Kunstler summarized essentially as, "Dude, we've got the technology."

Kunstler argued that it was this mixture of arrogance based on Google’s sudden phenomenal financial success and delusions about the rise of the internet that allowed the young executives to confuse technology with energy -- for these skateboard rats to see them as the same thing. To hammer his story home he pulled up a slide of a picture of a Boeing 747 with the caption, “Fill’er up with, uh... technology.”

Kunstler's final and biggest point was that if we wanted to convince wider society that it has to make a very different set of living arrangements to survive in a post-oil society, we need to find a "vocabulary and syntax" that speaks to its most dogged adherents. He said that rhetoric had been given a bad name, and that it needed to be retrieved from the dumpster of history.

I think Kunstler was dead right -- many of the ideas and practices about how we can make other arrangements are already in existence, but there isn't a wide demand for them. There must be a language that competes with the standing fantasies in our consumer society that makes people want to ditch their cars, stop their consumptive impulses, and make our standing commercialized social narratives as appealing as the idea of taking a bath with a corpse.

But I wonder if the winning rhetoric involves direct insults, like calling middle Americans who live in suburbia "craven fuckups" to their face. I wouldn't write it off instantly, given the popularity of serial insult artists like Dr. Phil. Kunstler also emphasized that talking about peak oil and automobile dependency just once to someone isn't going to make any converts. "You're going to have to employ repetition ... to an uncomfortable degree."

I know what I'd do if someone kept telling me I was a craven fuckup, I was a craven fuckup; I'd react angrily and cling to my way of life all the more desperately. Finding the right rhetoric that makes people want to change all on their own is a high art and one of our greatest challenges.

While Kunstler didn't once preach apocalypse, he did say that there isn't any guaranteed outcome of an energy renaissance or salvation for American society. "We either make it work, or we don't," he said, capturing the total indifference the Earth has regarding our fate. Lucky for us, the attendants at this conference were not as aloof.

This article has been changed to reflect an earlier version.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Interesting article. But what about short-term?
Posted by: nbrown on May 10, 2006 12:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that peak-oil is a serious problem that isn't going to go away. And I agree that, if ignored, it could be a catastrophic downward tumble.

That said, what can people do about gas prices in the short term? I wrote a few things anyone can do to regain some of that lost disposable income. Forgive the locality, but the basic principles will apply in lots of areas.

For anyone who hasn't lived in a country other than the USA... it just might open your eyes to spend a couple months somewhere else.

Jan Frel is exactly right: there's a collective insanity about the way people in the US use energy. It's shameful, really, but I believe people can improve if they are made conscious of their behavior.

Small changes can have noticeable impacts. And such changes can succeed on the individual level without cooperation from the entire planet.

Since we're only responsible for our own actions, I think that's the most logical step to changing the world, if that is one's wish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One big problem Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: One big problem Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: One big problem Posted by: hms2004
» Been there, done that. Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: One big problem Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: One big problem Posted by: redjenny
» RE: One big problem Posted by: jwg
» RE: followers need leaders Posted by: ScottP
Aww. Did the bad man use a bad word and call us a bad name. Aww.
Posted by: Sojourner on May 10, 2006 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd use "horse's ass" myself, since our pattern is to wait until the bridges collapse, the rivers flood, and the levies break. That is, we don't close the barn door until the horses are gone. And then we move right back in and wait for the next predictable catastrophe.

Americans won't listen to bad news until after it has happened. Take global warming, for instance. Now where we gonna run to? 'Nuf said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consumers aren't the problem
Posted by: n7ekg on May 10, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In your column, you write that "The biggest obstacle to getting our petro-dependent society to change its wasteful ways is collective insanity."

With all due respect, this is a minor issue. The real obstacle is the Bush administration and their big oil cronies, who fight tooth-and-nail every conservation attempt, every attempt at developing more fuel-efficient vehicles, and every attempt at developing alternate sources of energy.

Consumers aren't the real problem, and your disdain for consumers, however well-meaning, is woefully misplaced. If Madison Ave., in collusion with big oil and big business, hadn't brainwashed the American public for 40+ years that "bigger is better" we wouldn't be in this situation, would we? Even those who come to an awareness of the problem find it harder and much more expensive to "go green". Why are fuel-efficient cars like the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape so much more expensive then their less-efficient counterparts? Why do we have vehicles that only get 50 or 60 MPG at best? And why do we have vehicles that run on petrochemicals at all? Why do we have a 54 cent tariff on imported ethanol while at the same time encouraging generating ethanol from corn, a very inefficient process but which creates a market for corn grown here? Why do we have lithium ion and polymer batteries that are so much more expensive than their much heavier lead counterparts? Why are solar cells still so expensive, even after manufacturing costs falling 10-fold in the last 20 years?

If we were truly interested in conservation, we would make it more affordable, more convenient, and more socially acceptable. But, as it has for the last 60 years, big business and big oil has dominated both the political landscape and the lawmaking process in this country, and so we still have passenger cars on the road that are touted as "fuel efficient" while getting a mere 30 miles per gallon, we still have gasoline at artificially inflated prices, and we still discourage developing alternative sources of energy, both as a matter of national policy and as a matter of law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» High gas prices Posted by: medstudgeek
» agree/disagree Posted by: brasilaron
Lunar Energy
Posted by: solrev on May 10, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The future energy source for this planet is the moon. Create the energy using nuclear fusion and microwave it back. The cost of developing low cost polution free energy is less than the 8 billion plus that we will spend on the war in Iraq. "One small step for man one giant leap for mankind" then we quit. Fortunately China will do just that for the human beings living on this planet. Unfortunately China just doesn't have the right greedy profit motive. So will just have to nuke them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Step away from the moon... Posted by: greentime
» Aaaarggh. Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Aaaarggh. Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» Not fusion, solar Posted by: nickptar
» Oh, sorry, it was fusion! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: "Dude, we've got technology." Posted by: janakiblum
cliff of disaster
Posted by: rsaxto on May 10, 2006 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It clear that we are headed for the cliff of environmental disaster caused by corporate and governmental self-pigishness. We need to replace the stupid grunting pigs in power with people who have a decent attitude toward the necessary survival of the environment and peace and health. Instead of terrorist bombings of terrorist individuals we need intelligent struggle for the survival of a decent government with decent leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DECENT LEADERSHIP?! Posted by: BJT
Craven Clown Princes
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 10, 2006 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How would I react if someone called me a "craven fuck" to my face? That would depend on the source of the insult. Were that person to be someone who seems to know what the heck he's talkin about, Mr. Kunstler, for instance, I might take pause and look inward. This is probably the best piece I've read in my year of reading AlterNet.

"A nation of clowns, eating clown food, watching clown shows" Wow. Wish I'd said that!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't repeat it Posted by: greentime
» slightly off topic Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Semi-counterpoint
Posted by: nickptar on May 10, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak Oil Debunked - effectively saying "We have the technology, but we still need to change our lifestyle."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Semi-counterpoint Posted by: MT512
» RE: Semi-counterpoint Posted by: nickptar
Oh good, more bullying...
Posted by: greentime on May 10, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like very much for Kunstler and others who intend to yell at us until we submit to listening to them to just stop. They are behaving in some of the very ways we need to evolve away from in order to renew our world. Even if their message is true, by using those tactics, they become just one more screaming message to mute with the remote.
Dominating a conversation, or anything, seems to me to be the problem.

There are reasons people are discussing these issues purposefully and quietly. It is part of a new way we must behave as human beings in order to make the changes we seek and to include each other in the dialog. Screaming and yelling are so... old technology. ;-)

We are not just clowns or fools or worse. We may be somewhat lost, we may have been thoughtless because of our previous beliefs, but we do think new thoughts, recognize mistakes and we can and do change. It is called evolution.

Jimmy, all the while you have been yelling, many people have been busy building more efficient houses and "cars", improving efficiencies in technolgy and planning the next steps toward energy independence. Millions of us have supported their efforts, quietly, so I guess you thought we were all clowning around or something.

Why not simmer down and when you are calm, join us! There is a lot to write about.

And on a personal note: Saratoga The Magazine
You didn't listen then either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh good, more bullying... Posted by: antoniomo
Yes, we are stupid but...
Posted by: O.B.Server on May 10, 2006 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate to admit it but we are products of our environment and government. The reason we act like clowns is because "clown teaching" has been incideously inserted into our basic nature by the schools, churches (yes), media etc. Calling someone stupid (even if its true) is rarely going to produce much except anger. The best and most effective way to counteract this ambient stupidity is through education(one way or the other) which plays to a person's intellegence. The hugh problem is that the usual sources of US education are severely contaminated. I have lived outside of the US for 14 years and I'm still becoming aware of the subtle and not so subtle ways that US citizens are turned into corporate automatons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BOMB IRAN!!!
Posted by: williameon on May 10, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb Iran
As
Fast as you can!

Bomb Iran
Be a man

They’ll be Nuke-en and a Steal-en
Torture and Treason
In Iran

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb Iran!
As
Fast as you can!

Bush’s Poll #’s are a falling
Carle Rove is a calling
Better Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb Iran
as
Fast as you can

Call the NSA
Spy on them today

Exxon is calling!
There’s oil in those dunes!
Tex-ass Tea!
Black Gold!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb Iran!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a matter of definitions
Posted by: Bruuks on May 10, 2006 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the first paragraph, the following definition is given:
"It's "peak oil" -- the term for the period after which global oil and natural gas demand outstrips supply and the prices for these commodities become too volatile for modern society to function."
Strictly speaking 'peak oil' is the period during which worldwide oil 'production' is at the highest it will ever be, before beginning to decline. Supply and demand do come into play, but not necessarily at 'peak'. Demand can quite easily exceed supply long before peak. However, most certainly, supply will not be able to keep up with demand post-peak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jevonism
Posted by: JimTheAnarchist on May 10, 2006 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the people in the mainstream peak oil movement, including many of the organizers of the Peak Oil conference, are Jevonists. They have taken the ideas of a 19th-century economist named William Jevons which dealt with the increase in coal consumption when more efficient means of using it were developed and used them to justify their own refusal to decrease their own oil consumption now. I don't see how Jevons' ideas apply to peak oil. There was no reason to conserve coal in the 1850s. It wasn't running out and its environmental effects would not become apparent for decades. Modern Jevonism is just taking a lack of faith in humanity and making it a principle to base your behavior on.

Kunstler is a good example. He flaunts his own oil consumption, mentioning his frequent flying in his blog posts even when it is not necessary to make his point. To a Jevonist people who get rid of their cars are chumps, since according to them, someone else will just consume what they conserve. Therefore, peak oil types often brag about not conserving. I've seen several suggestions in Kunstler's blog (not by Kunstler but by his accolytes) to the effect that "If there's somewhere you've always wanted to go you'd better go now before the price of jet fuel goes up."

The peak oil movement is all about how to deal with the breakdown of civilization after the oil is gone and not about how to do anything to prevent the breakdown. They fly and drive all over attending conferences, watching peak oil movies, raising awareness and acquiring the skills they think they will need post-apocalypse. The organizers of the conference claim that their goal is to make more people aware of peak oil. Considering that these people have significantly increased their own oil consumption since becoming aware, I wonder if this is such a good thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jevonism Posted by: mogwai
Any ideas on how to survive?
Posted by: Jasonix on May 10, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I take public transportation to work, eat mostly unprocessed foods, turn my thermostat down to 55, and with the recent prices of gas, have taken to using my bike when possible. But our society is structured in such a way that it's hard to do more than that. I live two hours from my job, and it's impossible to get any closer because of sprawl and the price of real estate - meaning that I'm stuck sitting on a condo in a bedroom community that'll collapse when it becomes too expensive to commute to the city. I owe $145,000 on my mortgage (which in my neck of the woods is a sweet-heart deal, believe me), and I have no credit card debt, but I still worry that I'm going to be destroyed financially when it all hits the fan, because no 1,300-sq.ft. condo two hours from a city is going to be worth $145,000 when the real estate market crashes. Does anyone have any advice for surviving the imminent melt-down? Most people I know are in much, much worse shape than me, and I can't imagine what's going to happen when it all goes south.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Any ideas on how to survive? Posted by: purplehawk
Eco-Freaks or Life-Style Pioneers?
Posted by: gar on May 10, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years, people who have aspired to an ecological lifestyle in this country have been ridiculed in the press and by the public in general as tree-huggers, nature worshippers, and even "pinko commies." The reason for that last aspersion always escaped me but be that as it may...

Now we have a man who comes along and calls the general public "fuckups" and "clowns" because they don't follow an ecological lifestyle. Well, maybe it will be good for some shock value to wake some people up who need a little jog but I think overall, it will have a negative effect.

As they have been saying in politics for the last few years, perhaps what is needed is a new frame; a new way of expressing the values and the ways of living that could go a long way towards saving our planet. For instance, people who attempt to live in a self-sufficient manner with the earth are not "eco-freaks," they are "life-style pioneers."

Here are two more view changing frames. Instead of labeling food grown without the use of chemicals as "organic," change the law to where foods that are grown using chemicals are labeled "non-organic" with a list of the chemicals used in their production. Another good one would be to force the labeling of food grown more than 200 miles away with a label giving the distance it was shipped.

These are only presented as illustrations of the types of things that could be done to change the public attitude. As Rumsfield (excuse me please) might say, "We've got to win their hearts and minds." We won't do that by calling them "fucked up clowns."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good suggestions! Posted by: sln70
wishful thinking
Posted by: purplehawk on May 10, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So far, most of these comments seem to dwell on technological fixes and emotional reactions to Kunstler's loaded language. But where are the reactions to the idea that our culture is a wishful thinking culture? That somehow, somewhere, a solution will be found to keep us all enjoying the only way of life that seems good to us, but that is nevertheless, a way of life that just keeps on destroying life on the planet. Even if we could find another source of cheap, non-polluting energy, it would just keep us running the same old rat race that isn't making anyone any happier. Cheap fuel is the star we've all been wishing on, and we want it to keep shining. But it's time to grow up and stop wishing and start working to create a new way of living that is more in harmony with the way the planet really works. This doesn't have to mean poverty and misery. Permaculture offers a whole new way of looking at how to live in harmony with nature's systems instead of fighting them. Ecovillages are modeling new ways of living and working together as a social solution to social ills. We can turn to plant medicine and healthier lifestyles instead of wishing and hoping for technological medicine to cure us of diseases caused by bad food and stress and pollution. We need a new collective vision, and not this continued dependence on technology and government to somehow save us and keep our artificial lifestyles going.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wishful thinking Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: wishful thinking Posted by: nickptar
» RE: wishful thinking Posted by: LeonDion
» RE: wishful thinking Posted by: nickptar
» Similarly... Posted by: nickptar
We are all in this together
Posted by: DaveB on May 10, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil is a serious issue. I view it as one of a constellation of issues (over-population, over-consumption, resource depletion, environmnetal degradation), which taken together suggest that the way we have been living for the last 50 or 500 years will not work for the next 100 years. Call this the sustainability challenge.

Understanding the sustainability challenge, and appropriate responses to it, should be at the foundation of progressive thinking. Massive economic changes will occur. We can either watch them happen to us, or attempt to guide them in a strategic way.

Commitment to a social safety net is essential under the circumstances. Failure to make such a commitment will result in a psychology of desperation and panic, which will make an already challenging situation much, much worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some ideas on how to survive the crash
Posted by: Ricki on May 10, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst part of what is coming is that our food system is so petro dependant. Many will starve if they don't figure it out. We have been working towards self-sufficiency for a while now. We live on a small farm, but some of what we do would apply to urban dwellers as well. Grow your own veggies. Even if you have to use containers. Learn how to save seeds for the next years crop. Learn how to put up food for a year without refridgeration - dehydration, lactic fermentation, etc. If you live in an area that permits it, grow some meat. If you don't live in an area zoned for it, find a local farmer to buy meat from. Work into it gradually. Get up off your ass from the TV and other distractions and learn how to feed yourself. You'll be suprised how good it feels to disconnect from the sickening corporate food system and feed yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Managing Temper Tantrums
Posted by: maddy on May 10, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya know, I am currently living in a rural area where, to my shock, residents attempted a (failed) boycott of a local gas station in outrage over gas prices. What struck me about it was how childish the participants sounded. I couldn't shake the image of a baby's tantrum. The outrage sounded so...strangely enough...misinformed.

In fact, I wanted to shout at some of these folks--"Didn't you see this coming?" "Did you think we could continue sucking this planet dead without any consequences?" "Do you really think your convenience is a birthright?"

I think this piece is right, though, that you don't inspire people by telling them they're ignorant and spoiled.

It seems to me that the solution is indeed, a difficult one--I think you have to dig in and start having real conversations with people about what they "lose" by participating in American sprawl and a life made dead by both careerism and consumerism.

The good news, believe it or not, can be found in the rise of evangelicalism. While I loathe everything about it's belief system, I think it's addressing a widespread American malaise--it's giving people purpose in their lives, a sense of existence deeper than Starbucks and SUVs.

That is the challenge. Tap into that search for meaning. And I think the way to do that is by generating local groups who work on simple solutions. Bringing people together for small tasks will empower them... which is key.

Imagine, instead, if the folks around me started organizing local carpools, or, off the top of my head, cooperative gardening projects? If folks pledged to...I dunno...turn off their TVs and gather outdoors?

The possibility and hope is there, and I'll find it once I get over my urge to scream at the whining folks around me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree
Posted by: LMNOP on May 10, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Managing Temper Tantrums. Screw the American people (my people too, in case you're wondering) for their selfishness, wastefulness, arrogance, and ignorance. They deserve a major spanking from privence, and you can be certain that one is in the offing soon, whether it be due to shortsightedness in this area or any other one amongst a dozen or so. It would not be just if America's behavior was not severely punished.

Those that have a neuron or two will figure this out and begin becoming personally less dependent on fossil fuel. The rest, people who mock the rest of us for concern in this matter, will bleed. Too f-ing bad!

America needs to hope for mercy because it couldn't survive justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insanity and Materialism
Posted by: VoteHope on May 10, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every wonder why more stress and working harder to make ends meet is justified? How much is enough?

Questions or philosophy? I live as if it is a philosophy. I have quit the corporate mindset of collective work for huge profits to the wealthy owners: feudalism.

I am trapped by the energy crisis that oil brings to the planet and see profit as the motive to continue using fossil fuels. Contamination, global warming, and plutocratic rule are the real by-products of using oil.

One person can not change the "geological clock" that started with the automobile and the huge consumption of oil the dominant species seems to need to function, but I can get out of the rat race and stop being one person in "a nation of cringing, craven fuckups," whenever and however I can.

Decide what you need to live and quit doing what seems to be a large advantage to the rich and power owners of the company you work for and start working for your own life.

Psychologically, what makes you secure and happy is health and shelter for yourself and those you love. Nothing is more important. Not boats, second homes, wealth, or power is as important as our relationships.

Materialism is a disease for modern culture and Corporate America is the pathological leader of the world. We are not in touch with reality and insanity, fascism, and greed are our cultural crisis qualities, at the same time this crisis will eventually unite the world against Corporate Plutocrats and their fascism.

Human rights begin with you giving yourself the right to be who you are, not what you have been taught from the Corporate American education model to compete and be the best so they can profit from your talents, but the just to do what you want and be with the people you love.

Oil and energy are the asteroid hitting the earth and it feels like we could become extinct, or at least the lifestyle we have come to know, but it can also be the crisis that leads to an opportunity to become more human and less material based. Non polluting and environmentally friendly energy sources are available and would become more productive and efficient if industry was producing and refining the technology, but oil based economics is too powerful.

The oil infrastructure is the corporate model for corruption in our government and this fascism and plutocracy needs to be resolved on a governmental level if we are going to change what industry/corporations focus on and produce for people to use. No change is possible if the status quo runs the government and makes huge profits; there isn’t any incentive to change. Even with war, global warming, and looming apocalyptic predictions, change isn’t the goal for Corporate America, and neither is the best interest of the people in the U.S. or the world. Americans have their head in the sand, a very comfortable head hole, but they deny there is a need to get Corporate America out of our government to have a real democracy. We don’t have elections or a democracy in the U.S., just Corporate appointments. We could vote to change things with no big $ in power, but that would mean we learned from history and stopped denying and lying to ourselves to not make waves and make the big $ bosses happy that in turn own you too when you can’t walk away.

Start a career that you can make by applying your own talents and make enough to live. Buy small used cars and save you money for solar cells, wind turbines, voltage regulators, and batteries... Get off the grid and live free as you can. Stop working for "the man" and work for yourself. Survive and work to be with the ones you love.

Cottage industry and democracy were born together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God Technology . . .
Posted by: Baranga on May 10, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until people of the world realize that technology is not the cure-all for what ails us then we will continue burning oil like it's going out of style, or more to the point - going, going, gone.

It's just below the surface but if you were to take a sampling of opinions in "mainstream" America, the generic, misinformed response would be that "technology" is going to make it all right. "Scientists over at the National Energy Technology Labs are working on ways to convert orange peels into jet fuel as we speak." This kind of thinking diverts attention from what the author pointed out: we need to collectively overhaul our consumption patterns but as we all very well know, that won't change until pumps are bone dry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Airconditioned Nightmare"
Posted by: albiegf13 on May 10, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an observer, I find it all very amusing and comical. This society is living in a state of anxiety, caused by the uncertainty that is created when the illusions clash with reality. Its' going to be too bad for those that can't cope and it will all be for the best... Think of streets filled with pedestrians and bikes. Think of families sitting down to dinner for a home cooked meal, a cool evening breeze blowing throught the open windows. You can get used to the heat, even here in South Florida. It's not that big of a deal, really, the sooner the better. One of my mentors defines humanity as the AIDs virus of Mother Earth. I believe this comparison to be true... I wholeheartedly cooperate with the inevitable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're ready Posted by: LeonDion
Peak Oil Awareness Needed
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on May 10, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It you want to get a glimpse of the future, that is, post-oil-crash, take a gander at this website:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

and

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

It's a wealth of information that will quickly bring you up to speed on the subject of "Peak oil".

Even if we haven't reached a peak yet, we will soon be in a state where demand from rapidly growing industrial economies like China and India will far exceed the worldwide supply of oil and gas.

Be forewarned, you won't be the same after you visit this site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blooming humanity
Posted by: wildrehab on May 10, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe peak oil and all the parallel looming disasters are merely the way our civilization is ending its short reign.
Perhaps the point isn't to figure out how to prevent it, but rather to face the inevitable end of this bloom of humanity that's been happening for several thousand years. No biological bloom ever happens without it's subsequent crash. Why would our species be different?

As a result of our incredible bloom, there are more humans alive than the habitat can sustain. We won't limit our own bloom---- which may not be a matter of stupidity or self-delusion, but merely the way species behave. We'll push our expansion of numbers and power as far as we can, and then crash. From our point of view, that's a huge looming disaster. From Ma Nature's point of view, just business as usual. And it'd be a little silly to think She'll make some kind of exception for homo sapeins.

Sad from our personal viewpoint, but then we're each going to die someday anyway, so maybe it's not that big a deal exactly how it happens, en masse or individually. Like an individual with a terminal diagnosis, we have choices in how to respond:
freak out? Moan and groan? Or maybe just celebrate our amazing and interesting tenure and enjoy each moment we have remaining on this beautiful planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blooming humanity Posted by: anniedine
Materialism
Posted by: mdf1960 on May 10, 2006 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not possible to NOT be a materialist---we need to consume resources to survive and we need energy to maintain a good standard of living. The pre-industrial age was an age when 99% of the population was poor, lifespan was short and work weeks were long.

I think people need to consume wisely, however. Take a look at your lifeastyle and decide where you can cut back and not decrease your overall quality of your life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Materialism Posted by: redjenny
Read "Parable of the Sower" by Butler
Posted by: anniedine on May 10, 2006 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of us "clowns" will survive the coming catastrophe. Some by luck, some by violence, some through deceipt and manipulation, some by intelligence and planning, and some through wealth and power (those 2%-ers Bush loves so will certainly be able to buy their way to safety, if not total comfort). Many clowns will not survive and many of those will go down claiming that everything is going to be fine.

Some people you can reach, some people you can't. Some people need to be yelled at and called names, some need a soft touch, some people have enough critical thinking skills to see the truth for themselves.

Those with wealth and power in our world have ensured that the crash is coming. It may be related to finite resources (water, land, oil, etc.), it may be a nuclear holocaust, it may be a collapse of monetary systems, it may be marshall law and an end of the US Constitutional protections for citizens, it may be a flu pandemic - it will probably be a combination of many of these. The U.S.'s fragile safety nets have been cut away while we were childishly dreaming of being saved from our selfishness, greed, and laziness.

Enough smart people have warned us. Octavia Butler has laid out in beautiful storytelling what a future scenario could be. But many clowns will continue ignoring all of this and go merrily along (there were people on the Titanic who insisted to the very end that help would arrive). Regardless, the time is coming when we won't be protected from the realities of nature (including our own) by our technologies and our hubris.

In any case, it will be a fine day when there are fewer human clowns destroying mother earth. May she, at least, survive the coming crash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Psychological Dimension
Posted by: schmitta1573 on May 10, 2006 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that is the main point of Kunstler's somewhat ranting message. How do you we get people to change the way they think? The rest are just details that will never be implemented if we don’t change how we view living. If we don’t change our awareness then it will come down to change via painful necessity. The part about the clowns, beyond being slightly amusing, is sadly true for a large segment of America despite the belief that we have “evolved.” I like Einstein’s quote: “Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” Right now many in society are acting like pathological criminals. Thus, the jury is still out on the evolution of thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Already Too Late
Posted by: worksg on May 10, 2006 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's already too late to save the 'American way of life'. The rising price of imported oil has already created a crushing US trade deficit. In "Economic Impacts of Liquid Fuel Mitigation Options", just released, Robert L. Hirsch et. al. conclude that "If the peaking of world conventional oil production occurs before 2025, the U.S. may not have a choice in terms of a massive national physical mitigation program. Even with the most optimistic assumptions and assuming crash program implementation, physical mitigation will require decades and trillions of dollars of investment to make substantial contributions."

The consensus of experts is for peak oil to occur well before 2025. And we're already living on credit, so we don't have trillions of dollars to invest. And America and its leaders have no political will to begin a crash program immediately, anyway.

I moved my family to a place that can feed itself and moved my money into hard assets. I'm learning how to farm. If you know a better way, please comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Already Too Late Posted by: anniedine
You are not going to be ALIVE in five years
Posted by: Meremark on May 10, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--
You are not going to be ALIVE in five years

Death is what it means, to one out of two of us. Next time you are conversing with someone, think to yourself, 'one of us two is going to be dead within five years.'

Because all the oil on Earth runs out.

Arguing whether it runs out in 5 years, or 10, or 20 or 30, is wasting time arguing. End of oil happens IN OUR LIFETIME. Whenever and however it arrives, we each have to deal with it before we die. The sooner we each take steps of active design of our lifestyle to accommodate and to adapt for oil-less living, the more likely we succeed then. Where 'suicceeding' means living.

What oil-less living looks like is human life on Earth in 1850. Or 1800. Or pick a date you prefer before oil 'was invented,' before 1900, say. Life in 10 years is going to be like life in 1850. If you want food in the future, then grow it. Else don't have food, and die.

This starkness and absoluteness is hard to get one's mind around and deal with. Especially for minds of American (capitalist) indoctrination, which is, in oversimplifed generality, a mind which knows 'work' as that which is paid in 'money,' and knows 'money' as that which gets 'food, clothing, and shelter.' In that mind, to think of oil running out, is identical with, equals, to think of money ending. And the ideas are equal -- end of oil does mean end of money in the 'American' sense of money. Having to live, or before then just imagining having to live without money, is too far into ignorance for many of us to get our minds to.

So minds 'don't go there.' Rather, those minds merely stand pat and issue denial -- "Oil is NOT going to run out." Or, "people only say oil is expensive or unobtainable BECAUSE those people have an angle, or are making a buck, they speak with a profit motive - THEIR personal profit, and to convince us to give them more of our money; and there is NO WAY anyone is saying this for humanitarian purposes or motives, trying to help save my life." Nevermind save humankind.

Well, ladies and gentlemen: WAY. I speak as an elder who has seen and known very much in my life. Speaking as an insulting know-it-all, I say, that maybe one person, somewhere, one time, by some small word or phrase I say, 'gets it' and gets prepared and survives and saves their life, saves one little life and is here helping populate humankind after oil ends. I say, I'm telling you, oil runs out very soon -- in OUR lifetime. Each of us MUST deal with it, and each of us who does not deal with it dies. Within 5 years. In case you were thinking you'd get to retire, or in case you were thinking in terms of some other 'American dream' fiction. There is more to know. And there are many now -- especially the Prez Duncy and his Supremacist cohort -- who want you NOT to KNOW more.

They tell you that yoiu cannot understand. I tell you that you CAN understand. A child can understand. It is this: When you use it all, it is gone. Oil on Earth is one of those things that have a finite supply. Of course, everybody knows oil runs out. Sometime. Only not many people think about WHEN, since not many people know how much there is (as measured) and not many people know how fast we are using it. Because people are busy, and don't have time or take time to study it, get some the facts and learn the subject. And mass media don't cover it.

Two references. Here is one news item from last December which says Kuwait only has half the oil REALLY that was said to be there -- said by other people in bygone years. Believe them then now, or believe those here now. Or ... you probably don't have time to read this ... "Kuwait and oil reserves,"
http://peakoil.net/Kuwait.html
... and it is TOO complicated, What's a 'Gb' (giga-barrel) of oil? ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are not going to be ALIVE in five, unless you get smart first
Posted by: Meremark on May 10, 2006 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a second item of news, the text of a speech given at the NYC conference April 27 that Jan Frei refers to.

"THE PARADIGM IS THE ENEMY: The State of the Peak Oil Movement at the Cusp of Collapse," A Speech by Michael C. Ruppert for the Local Solutions to the Energy Dilemma Conference, April 27-29, New York City, at Cooper Union

From The Wilderness (.COM)

My favorite pull-quotes
--
"Perhaps the greatest flaw in the Peak Oil movement’s current operating paradigm is that, a part of the movement at least, instead of building lifeboats in the face of an immediate disaster, is delusionally focused on trying to build alternative-powered luxury liners that operate just like the paradigm we as a species need to be abandoning. Not only is this a futile effort, it may well be responsible for killing or destroying the lives of people who at least partially understand Peak Oil and who are trying to find the best courses of immediate action for themselves and their families.
-
It is a shame that much of the Peak Oil movement that understands this problem is foolishly trying to change the way money works systemically, instead of trying to change it in the only way that time and circumstance now permit—individually, locally and regionally. The first and primary requirement for that to occur is for people to disengage from the global paradigm.
-
If the activist paradigm that we live under says that we must slow down the process of reform and planning to make room for all and offend no one, no matter how much they may slow down or confuse the process, then we must disengage from that paradigm. This is no longer about protracted—and almost always ineffective—social change. This is about survival. I refuse to die, and I refuse to encourage anyone else to risk death or to slow down for or argue with people who are either incapable of understanding, too lazy to do the necessary homework, or too tightly wedded to old ideas."

--

I say Peak Oil means halfway until oil runs out, and yours and my personal survival, and our descendants' survival, and all of humankind's survival -- life or death for us all -- depends on living without oil. Imagine the North American continent, without state borders, without national borders, a patchwork of 'tribal villages' separate and self-sufficient yet in communication and 'trade' with each other, across the land ... just like Before Oil, (except with global point-to-point video cellphones, and a few other modern 'electronic' inventions, just, NO cars trucks or planes; and, besides cell phones, some other interesting juxtapositions, but, basically, 1850 lifestyle. If you grow food, you eat. If you don't, you and yours are dead. Uh, it sorta seems that land is too valuable to let 'distant government' govern it.)

Others (commenters here, for instance) shout NO NO NO NO to drown out my voice, and order you not to listen to me or not to believe me. Hey, it's your life and your death. You may choose to look into it and get some facts for yourself. And decide for yourself. Choose: Live or Die?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abandon the Capitalistic Ideal and everything is affordable
Posted by: thehousedog on May 10, 2006 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always laugh when people describe one or another energy source as being "unaffordable" or "not cost beneficial". Tell me, is DYING affordable, how about living (if you could call it that) on a polluted soon-to-be burnt out cinder once called "earth"? If we are at all serious about energy independence, we will simply produce energy that is clean and efficient no matter what the cost. Wind power, solar power, fart power - whatever it is - should be done simply because it should be - not because profit motives are involved. We're all going to be counting our money and our riches up to the moment that we're stuffed in that pine box and stuffed under a golf course somewhere. why not change the mode of behavior to something a little more forward thinking and less selfish?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US is way behind the curve - get used to it
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 10, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is a gluttonous consumer of energy - oil, gas, coal, and all the electrical generation from various sources (coal and nuclear, largely). Our hunger for cheap energy is only matched by our hunger for drugs (yes that includes alcohol, nicotine and caffeine as much as it does heroin, cocaine and marijuana - not to mention the pharmaceuticals, like oxycontin, ritalin, etc.).

Here's a story you won't find in the US press: Powerlight Corp of California has been contracted to build the world's largest solar electric generation facility in Europe. Oh, that's not news! Here is the only mainstream news report on this I could find : San Jose Mercury News - not exactly a headline, either. Maybe the fact that US media is owned by the same banks that control US oil and pharma companies is relevant to this lack of coverage?

How about another important topic: how to grow crops without massive inputs of fossil fuels. This is critically important if you want to make biofuels (including hydrogen, methane, ethanol and biodiesel) for energy purposes. Well, Brazil has figured this out and has been doing it for years with sugarcane. Looks like we won't all starve to death after all.

The fossil fuel industry does everything it can to sabotage renewable energy production. Take Stanford Universities "Global Climate and Energy Program." That sounds good, doesn't it? However, ExxonMobil funded this program ($100 million) and retains arbitrary control over which projects are funded, as well as a five-year exclusive license to any invention produced. Considering their multibillion dollar quarterly profits, $100 mil is chump change when it comes to controlling energy markets and boosting profits. And yes - the Stanford center is now focussing on "clean coal". Farcical!

Germany, on the other hand, has large research institutes that focus entirely on realistic renewable energy strategies focussed on solar and wind energy. Believe me, you won't find that in the US research budget. Wonder why?

Japanese building codes require that solar hot water heaters are included in new buildings. This would reduce your local gas & electric utility profit margin, so we don't see such strategies in the US. Government regulations on energy use? The energy sector likes the captive cattle of the American market just the way they are, thanks. The notion that we can live off-the-grid makes them oh so nervous.

Peak oil? Well, Iraq has 100 billion barrels of crude. Our oil, however, comes largely from Mexico and Canada. Yes, there isn't enough to go around, and supply isn't going to be artificially choked off anymore, yet we can look forward to more 'demand stimulation' by the fossil fuel sector.

All the technology currently exists to replace, say, 25% of our current energy usage. Wake up! The energy sector controls this country; they love high energy prices and high gas prices, and if the country goes belly-up they'll just move off to the Swiss Alps or some other location.

Get rid of your SUV and invest the money in a solar power system for your home, start a backyard garden and get to know some organic farmers, ride a bicycle and quit your lame-ass corporate commuting job, make sure your government isn't run by a bunch of crooks from the fossil fuel/pharmaceutical/weapon sales sector, and learn to live a simpler, more enjoyable and stress-free life. Now, is that so hard?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blame game
Posted by: Gregor on May 10, 2006 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People tend to be locked into their lifestyles. Most people drive the cars available at prices they can afford and they lower prices on cars they want to push. If you have children that go to different schools, or have other commitments or some other obligation or are sick, I doubt you will be taking too much public transport. For all those single, young people out there: Did your parents take you to the doctor on a bus, the MAX train or what? Maybe they forked over the $500.00 for an ambulance?

The system is locked in. It is extremely difficult to create new structures that people can work in. You have to think outside our present system. Albert Einstein said "The minds that created the problem will not be the minds that solve the problem".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: blame game Posted by: janakiblum
Oil
Posted by: davcrock on May 10, 2006 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember reading in my grade school text books that copper would run out by 2002, coal by 1997...

We're not going to magically run out of oil tommorow. The spigot isn't suddenly going to run dry without any warning. To argue otherwise is alarmist FUDD.

Oil like any other commodity responds to supply and demand. As supplies dwindle and demand increases, the price of oil goes up. As the price of oil goes up, more supplies that were previously not economically feasible will be feasible. As those supplies dwindle, the price of oil will continue to rise and demand declines. More importantly, investing in technology becomes more feasible.

So what can we do now in public policy? First, provide economic incentive to conserve oil. Drive a fuel efficient car? Great, get a tax credit. Commute really far by car everyday? Great, pay a tax. Etc etc.

Let's see more practical solutions and less alarmism. We need to have our eyes open to our problems and the risks that we face and manage them in a practical manner. Otherwise, you're just burning up energy sitting at your computer (pay a tax?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oil Posted by: MonkeyBoy
» RE: Oil Posted by: the poet
» RE: Oil Posted by: davcrock
» RE: Check this out . . Posted by: Baranga
Planning ahead . . Suggestions?
Posted by: Baranga on May 10, 2006 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just curious to know what places many of you would suggest for strategic relocation. What region and state(s) in the US, and thinking bigger, which if any foreign countries would make nice, new homes? I think this must be the first decision anyone makes before contemplating further extreme lifestyle changes like getting off the grid, stocking up on supplies and what concerns if any you might have regarding the notion that "self-defense" will actually play a part in this if things deteriorate to the extent that many think they will; are we going to be living in some New Wild West facing serious threats from marauding bands of hungry and angry people?

What other things are all of you doing or thinking? I grew up on 40 acres and drove an old Alice Chalmers for a good many years so I can raise almost anything that grows in soil. I also grew up hunting deer, elk, pheasant and ducks and had friends who trapped so I am no stranger to that either. Apart from that what is the concensus on "must have" or "must do" things?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seriously Posted by: abqbabe
» RE: Seriously Posted by: eichorn
meth is not a problem.
Posted by: dismayed on May 10, 2006 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but we are going to run out of oil in a week or two? jay is far and away my least favorite alternet writer. what is the word?? sophomoric? unfortunately, there is still alott of oil, and we are going to keep killing for it, and for a long long time. I wish we we would run out next week! in fact, of greater concern to me is the information i have read suggesting that we simply do not have enough atmosphere to burn the known quantity of carbon based fuels in without exterminating ourselves. there are huge volumes of fuel left to burn... far TOO much in fact. the vast reseves of coal in the u.s. is a looming enviromental nightmare. but whatever, jay will spark up another fattie and blather out another half baked column in no time (and no doubt with no reaseach).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: meth is not a problem. Posted by: Jan Frel
Peak Oil = Y2K for the new millenium
Posted by: mokidugway on May 11, 2006 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1999, my next door neighbors had a friend who sold everything he owned, bought a share in a windmill, and planned on moving to the Australian outback.

In 2000, guess who moved in with my next door neighbors because he had sold everything he owned, bought a share in a windmill, and planned on moving to the Australian outback?

This crazy mad max shit won't solve anything. It's just a flip side of the Rapture coin.

Conservation is possible. It had a HUGE impact on energy consumption in the 1970s. Moreover, people would be eager to do it and proud to be doing something positive for a change. They are SICK of sitting around on their asses watching some dude submerged in a big aquarium for two hours and thinking that this is what passes for a meaningful life.

But most people need some inspiration, some hope, and we all need leaders who can instill these feelings rather than just playing on fears and pushing consumerism as a form of self-medication to relax these fears.

Where is the person who can bring us hope?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Relax its too late already
Posted by: leemiller38 on May 11, 2006 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human's are flawed, greedy short-sighted creatures. We blew it a long time ago by not controlling our population growth. Basicly, as a previous poster stated, we just did what our DNA programmed us to do --screw ourselves off the planet. We are still getting help from the Catholic church and other morons opposed to sex-ed, abortion and contraception.

A crash is now inevitable, but life will go on in some unpleasant manner for a few more centuries somewhere on the planet but for far fewer people. Relax and enjoy the time we have left. Drive a smaller car, ride a bike, consume less, contribute to family planning organizations and don't have any kids you don't want to see starve someday.

Growing your own food is good if you enjoy it, but don't count on it for survival. I grow lots of my food, but PG&E pumps the water to grow it from a somewhat depleted aquifer. I'm on the grid. Our technological dependencies put us far out on a fragile limb. It is hard to live as if we are at 1850 again. How would the great masses in LA, Chicago or New York even begin to become self-sufficient in food or water without energy resources? The resources that nurtured our hunter-gatherer ancestors are largely gone, half the soils are eroded. Not a pretty picture.

It is hard for me to rationalize this outcome of our evolution, but most populations are controlled by lack of food. Malthus was correct, but who thinks of Malthus when having a roll in the hay, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're right.
Posted by: rtdrury on May 11, 2006 2:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, different narrative to Middle America. Because the lefties still haven't earned Middle America's trust. If the lefties promoted ideas that benefit Middle America, then they might earn some trust and have more influence. For example, lefties could promote the idea of small (less than 250 acres) farms producing biodiesel for local independent markets. It costs 1.24 units to make one unit of gasoline. It costs only 0.31 units to make one unit of biodiesel. Biodiesel is far cleaner than familiar dirty diesel. Diesel engines are more efficient and last way longer than gasoline engines. Considerable work is needed to make the production clean. Looks like an opportunity for the lefties. Lefties could work with Middle America to hash out a system of energy self-sufficiency for Middle America. Then Middle America may "just say no" to oil wars. Why don't lefties do it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You're right. Posted by: RobW
» RE: You're right. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: You're right. Posted by: DaBear
» RE: You're right. Posted by: DaBear
Framing
Posted by: Guy on May 11, 2006 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether Peak Oil is a myth or not (and if it is, I am still not sure which side it serves best), I think we can all agreed that we need to change this country's consumption habits. All the stuff that Kuenstler says is true, but how to get it to Middle America? We need to frame the issue to make conservation and a 180-degree lifestyle shift be cool. Right now, driving around in Hummers and going to the mall is cool to a heck of a lot of people. We need to redefine cool and the American lifestyle. This is something that will take decades so we better start now.

Guy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Framing Posted by: eichorn
For a LOT more info on this topic
Posted by: RobW on May 11, 2006 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Try here:
peakoil.com

This is a news and discussion forum. LOTS of good info here, from science, geology, and economics, to psychology, preparation and geopolitics.

Of special interest is the forum on preparation. Lots of good info here, and it isn't all "MadMax" gloom and doom stuff. Ok, there's a little bit- but that just makes it more fun...

For a good, well-documented general overview of the proble, the LATOC site linked above is useful, though a bit scary. Be warned. I couldn't sleep for days after reading it.

For those who seem to want to focus on a political angle to this topic- this isn't a "left" or "right" thing.

Look at who are saying this thing is real... investment bankers, petroleum company geologist, congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, and commodities traders. Not exactly a bunch of wild-eyed liberal environmentalists, ok?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Robert The Hager
Posted by: RobertTheHager on May 13, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Friends ... we've had the answer, to this question,
and many more, for as long as there's been autos on the road; and much longer... but it's too simple for people; for some people, anyway.
http://www.rense.com/general67/FORD.HTM
Looking forward,
Robert The Hager

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Energy Crisis: Are Their Too Many Cooks
Posted by: Riverside on May 15, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now there are so many different organizations, pro and con, lobbying for either change or the status quo with respect to our energy crisis and its relationship to the impact on global climate change that we seem to be only treading water. In my eyes, and I fear in the eyes of those we need to convince (the U. S. Congress and then we-the-people) their reasons and arguments are so scattered and often contradictory that we have a good chance of either standing still or falling backwards.

CAFE must be upgraded to reach 40mpg by 2012. The stonewalling that Secretary Minetta did at the recent hearings should have the whole public up in arms, but we the people remain either confused or indifferent to the crisis and so we do very little, whereas we should be raising the roof.

We are not going to stop driving cars, yet. We would drive cars with good gas mileage if we are spoon fed (a sorry state). With the exception of only a few with respect to the total driving public most wont change their driving habits or vehicles. Unfortunately we either wait for a dreadful crisis that imposes no other choice, or our Congress mandates the following:

1. Change CAFE now including sufficient vote support to override any White House veto.
2. Mandate an immediate drop in Interstate speed limits down to 55mph
3. Expand the tax breaks and discounts for our buying of fuel efficient vehicles (regular and hybrid).
4. Finally develop a no cost or low cost disposal system for auto dealers who take in fuel hogs in trade for good CAFE cars. No dealer wants a lot full of unsellable cars and they should not have to bear the full cost of their disposal.

Just solving the fuel efficiency problem for all vehicles will bring about a most significant relief in the effects that boost global climate change. This will extend the time we have to concentrate on other energy problems and to also extend our supply of gasoline beyond the expected peak oil date, which can be seen looming on the horizon.

So why can't all those organizations fighting to save this planet play from the same sheet music? We just might make it if they do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this article is idiocy
Posted by: TagsNOLA on May 15, 2006 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is rediculous! All we need to do is build nukes! Of course first we need to require that the eco-fascists who will try to monkey wrench new construction be required to post appeal bonds for any litigation they resort to. Nuclear is only an interim solution. Long term, we need a crash program, like the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Man-on-the-Moon project to develop fusion energy. At the current rate, it'll be 50 - 100 years before we get fusion energy break even. But as a crash program, we could have it in less than a decade. And then, provided we don't let commodity speculators or eco-fascists get away with "spoking the wheel," we could have electric power too cheap to meter.

Technology IS the fix. It's ALWAYS been the fix and it always will be. The doomsayers and neigh-sayers are fascist, nazi a**holes to the core of their being. Their beef is the human race whom they regard as, in the words of one eco-fascist interviewed some years ago on NPR, "a cancer on the Earth." If we let the eco-fascists or the commodity speculators or neo-con jerks like Dick Cheney have their way, we'll be relegated to a world like that in the film, "Soylent Green."

But if those types are shoved aside, we can have more people living on this planet at a higher standard of living than ever before in human history. And, no, "standard of living" is NOT a bad world. Nor is it a bad thing. That is, not unless you're an anti-humanist eco-fascist.

Remember this, when these jerks talk about "lowerd expectations" and "doing with less," they're NOT talking about themselves. They're talking about suckers like us who buy off on their eco-fascist crap.

TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: this article is NOT idiocy Posted by: leemiller38
» RE: this article is NOT idiocy Posted by: TagsNOLA
Air cars and super solar panels
Posted by: diogenes on May 16, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There used to be a department in California government called Appropriate Technology but the Repubs killed it because it cut into donor's profits. Nonetheless, I'm naive enough to believe that technology can save us if we stop blathering and bloviating and start doing. How about driving for a 100 miles using only $3.00 of electricity? Or even less if you generate the electricity yourself? Anybody who's ever used a air hammer or any kind of pneumatic tool knows this technology works. Web sites follow: www.theaircar.com & www.nuclearpolicy.org/print.cfm?ID=2624/ - don't let the word "nuclear" throw you off- it ain't about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beware the doomsayer who says there is no solution
Posted by: DaBear on May 16, 2006 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing worse than dying is to die not trying. It's very easy for me to hear Kunstler, et al. and I agree with Jan's assessment that you can't win by just screaming "fuckup" in someone's face even though you may be spot-on, unequivocably correct in saying so. Being one of those bad skateboard rats--which presumably really just means "young" or "anyone younger than the Boomers"--I have no illusions about technology and the slide with the 747 is just crass blustering. Yes, there are a lot of people like that, but these are the same yahoos as those who think Shrub is tolerable because he's "likeable" (these are people who aren't generally the sharpest tools in the shed anyway, and yes, they are the majority of 'Merikuh, so what are you gonna do, man?). But some folks really do have solar panels and wind turbines and all the other technology that supposedly won't save us, won't work, isn't ready yet, [plug in the excuse du jour] that the Kunstlers of the world wail and moan about. It's very hard to listen to a guy who's telling you about change being necessary while simultaneously telling you there's nothing you can do to make that change in the first place. WTF?! No wonder the mainstream won't even touch us, because we're just as fuckup'd as they are! Yes, adapting to post-oil will be tough, lethal and violent. Yes technology all by itself will not save us. But Kunstler and the other guys better start letting the fiction writers and techno-geeks, who generally happen to be younger than him and the other Boomer kill-joys, start mapping out what may be possible... sorry, Jan, rhetoric won't save us either, vision forged and tempered in the depletion of a post-carbon reality will. But every time a writer tries to paint a picture of such a future, gutteral dirtier than today but still using some form of technology--ungh, how arrogant of us, oh my, to use the "T-word"--we get a Kunstler defaming us for our age, our hair, our clothes, our jobs (or lack thereof). Swell, when will those conferences begin passing out the Kool-aid? Because hope and anti-hope won't work. Only pushing past hopelessness and despair and arriving in space of desperate visioneering, Kunstler and the other Kool-aiders be damned equally with the Google-ians, another world is still possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The potential benefits of peak oil
Posted by: Alternative Energy on May 29, 2006 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The steady rise in oil prices over the past few years has had a small but important psychological impact on our societies. There is an increasing interest in alternative energy solutions as people begin to see the effects of peak oil appear in their pocketbooks. If this is the case, further increase in the price of oil should bring about the necessary motivation and large-scale conservation efforts that are needed to avert a serious crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak energy is only a facet... the problem is good ol' OVERPOPULATION....
Posted by: FFA on Jun 1, 2006 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because of the miracle of modern productive technology - genetics (high yield plant crops and animals, including dairy); distribution (air, sea, and highway interchanges); design (computerized CAD and data crunching) and even good old fossil fuel energy (a big improvement over sail, animal, and human power), mankind has not only witnessed an explosion in production and per capita consumption, but of the overall number of humans as well. On one side of the coin this is a tremendous success: INFANT MORTALITY, that bane of thousands of generations, has been greatly reduced. On the other hand, Mother Earth can only take and provide so much. We are, indeed, as the new book has it, a world full of slums. And even the fortunate among us (what with ONE BILLION PEOPLE surviving, according to google, on less than $4 per day) are just as guilty: "Homeowners are scum" is a saying some of us in the construction industry have, we build rambling apartment complexes and even multi-million dollar (individual) condo units on the beach like so many McDonald's Happy Meals. And let me tell you a fact: You present a home buyer with two homes, one made entirely of "legal" workers paying all taxes, insurance, and (worker's) comp, and another constructed using immigrant labor, off-the-books labor, with developers thowing a little cash around to grease the permitting and inspection process, and 99 out of 100 times, the home buyers will take the ILLEGALLY made home or condo over its identical, more expensive twin.

Watching great writers talk about "Peak Energy" without mentioning OVER POPULATION is sort of like watching Al Gore run a campaign talking about the environment, then running away from enviro protestors at an Everglades press conference (no, this little parable is not fiction), or, more recently, hearing him talk about Global Warming, while not mentioning disenfranchised voters, massive deficits, oh, and an expansion of imperial-at-war America.

As any football fan knows, you can win 1,000 battles in the trenches, and still be wiped out by a few timely passes. Or, to be more academic, while "all politics is local", you have to have a competent overall strategy, otherwise local successes may yield little.

Due to modern technology, including fossil fuel energy, we have been able to IGNORE the Malthusian nightmare. Indeed, fossil fuel is one of the huge elements that turned the "dismal science" (economics) into the tech- and market boom years. Well, like a spaceship that discovers it is on a crash course with a huge meteorite, it might be time to change our priorities a tad, and recognize there is only so much space and resources to go around, no matter how unpopular that politics may be!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re Peak Oil (part deux)... some POSITIVE news...
Posted by: FFA on Jun 1, 2006 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many of the comments here have noted, a HUGE part of the "Peak Oil" problem IS POLITICAL.

We COULD issue DOUBLE THE MPG requirements on auto manufacturers OVERNIGHT... IF we wanted to.

I had a neighbor in Washington DC suburbs who rode his bike to work, 8 miles each way, including almost all year but for the worst winter days. (Speaking of nuclear power and self-contained environments, he was an original Rickenbacker disciple, working on the early nuclear subs and staying in that biz. until his retirment.)

There are plenty of us in the "outdoor-backpacking" community who consider a summer spent hiking the Appalachain Trail burning nothing but food (and small stoves to heat one meal a day) to be a rare escape. And scooters, bicycles, and mass transit could bring down the per-capita energy consumption in great percentages, except it is deadly to try to compete with existing autos and trucs on our current crowded streets and highways.

Indeed; that brings us to a HUGE point in our political paradigm: While righties like to TALK about "FREE ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM", the NUMBER ONE ATTRIBUTE of American social life is... the automobile! And guess what: AUTOS are almost useless WITHOUT STATE SUBSIDIZED ROADS AND HIGHWAYS! In perhaps the all-time historical masterpiece of propaganda, Big Business and Righty talking points have convinced us that "MASS TRANSIT is SOCIALIZED", when in fact the individual and his autos are perhaps THE_SINGLE_BIGGEST_EXAMPLE of SOCIALIZED GOVERNMENT welfare SPENDING, EVER!

Hell, Germany at the tail-end of WWII was brought to its knees by its ENERGY PRODUCTION Achilles heel... but even so, it was no picnic knocking Germany out of the war! They did MIRACLES with synthetic fuels, and that was 60 years ago, ringed by enemies, and bombed daily!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement