Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

Permanent Energy Crisis

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 13, 2006.


There are many reasons to believe that, unlike the gas and electricity crises of the 70s, 80s and 90s, the energy troubles we now face will last for decades.
021306_story
Advertisement

President Bush's State of the Union comment that the United States is "addicted to oil" can be read as pure political opportunism. With ever more Americans expressing anxiety about high oil prices, freakish weather patterns and abiding American ties to unsavory foreign oil potentates, it is hardly surprising that Bush sought to portray himself as an advocate of the development of alternative energy systems.

But there is another, more ominous way to read his comments: that top officials have come to realize that the United States and the rest of the world face a new and growing danger -- a permanent energy crisis that imperils the health and well-being of every society on earth.

To be sure, the United States has experienced severe energy crises before: the 1973-74 "oil shock" with its mile-long gas lines, the 1979-80 crisis following the fall of the Shah of Iran and the 2000-01 electricity blackouts in California, among others. But the crisis taking shape in 2006 has a new look to it. First of all, it is likely to last for decades, not just months or a handful of years; second, it will engulf the entire planet, not just a few countries; and finally, it will do more than just cripple the global economy -- its political, military and environmental effects will be equally severe.

If you had to date it, you could say that our permanent energy crisis began, appropriately enough, on New Year's Day 2006, when Russia's state-owned natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, cut off gas deliveries to Ukraine in punishment for that country's pro-Western leanings. Although Gazprom has since resumed some deliveries, it is now evident that Moscow is fully prepared to employ its abundant energy reserves as a political weapon at a time of looming natural gas shortages worldwide. It won't be the last country to do so in the years to come.

In just the few weeks since then, the world has experienced a series of similar energy-related disturbances:

  • The sabotage of natural gas pipelines to the former Soviet republic of Georgia, producing widespread public discomfort at a time of unusually frigid temperatures.
  • An eruption of oil-related ethnic violence in Nigeria, resulting in a sharp reduction in that country's petroleum output.
  • Threats by Iran to cut off exports of oil and gas in retaliation for any sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council over its suspect nuclear enrichment activities.
  • And as a result of such developments, a series of minispikes in crude oil prices as well as reports in the business press that, if this pattern of instability continues, such prices could easily rise beyond $80 per barrel to the once unimaginable $100 per barrel range.

Vectors of Crisis

Events like these will certainly spread economic pain and hardship globally, especially to those who cannot afford higher transportation and heating-fuel costs. As it happens, though, these are not isolated, unrelated events. Think of them as expressions of a deeper crisis. Like the tremors before a major earthquake, they suggest the dangerous accumulation of powerful energy forces that will roil the planet for years to come.

Although we cannot hope to foresee all the ways such forces will affect the global human community, the primary vectors of the permanent energy crisis can be identified and charted. Three such vectors, in particular, demand attention: a slowing in the growth of energy supplies at a time of accelerating worldwide demand; rising political instability provoked by geopolitical competition for those supplies; and mounting environmental woes produced by our continuing addiction to oil, natural gas and coal. Each of these would be cause enough for worry, but it is their intersection that we need to fear above all.

Energy experts have long warned that global oil and gas supplies are not likely to be sufficiently expandable to meet anticipated demand. As far back as the mid-1990s, peak-oil theorists like Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton University and Colin Campbell of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) insisted that the world was heading for a peak-oil moment and would soon face declining petroleum output. At first, most mainstream experts dismissed these claims as simplistic and erroneous, while government officials and representatives of the big oil companies derided them. Recently, however, a sea-change in elite opinion has been evident. First Matthew Simmons, the chairman of Simmons and Company International of Houston, America's leading energy-industry investment bank, and then David O'Reilly, CEO of Chevron, the country's second largest oil firm, broke ranks with their fellow oil magnates and embraced the peak-oil thesis. O'Reilly has been particularly outspoken, taking full-page ads in the New York Times and other papers to declare, "One thing is clear: The era of easy oil is over."


Digg!

Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency."

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


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:
Back to basics?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 13, 2006 2:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has always been presumptuous to believe that technology as defined by the last one hundred years would always be with us. This might even mean that in the next decade or two the world will be plunged into permanent darkness. What to do? Well, look on the bright side of it. Yes, I know. The "bright side of darkness" is an oxy moron. Just bear with me, OK?

The bright side: No more electronic media. Yes, I'm as addicted to it as you are but, let's face it: It has destroyed our culture. The masses will no longer be manipulated politicians and consumer exploitation. Good riddence.

The bright side: We'll all turn into readers of great literature.... What am I thinking??? That's a pipe dream. Skip it.

The bright side: Don't you think it would be alot more fun to cross the ocean by boat? For people afraid of flying, this energy crisis is Heaven sent.

The bright side: We'll all get to dress like 19the century dandys!

The bright side: I always had a fondness for those old, wind-up victrolas.

The bright side: The horse and buggy! I always loved the idea of just clopping around the town, tipping my hat to the ladies in my surrey with the fringe on the top. The wheels are rubber, the uphoslstry's brown, the dashboard's genuine leather. With real glass curtains you can roll right down in case there's a change in the weather....You get the idea.

So cheer up folks! It won't be all that bad! I think.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

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

» Mama, rodi menya obratno Posted by: mazur
» Unplugged Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Back to basics? Posted by: smccaw
MIKE THOMAS
Posted by: mikethomasfioh on Feb 13, 2006 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My belief is that economics and economic growth are the chief causes of inequality, poverty and the resource and evironmental crises outlined in this report.
I am trying to develope arguments in support of a new science that will gradually replace economics as the tool of sustainability and wealth distribution. I must confess that at present I am not very hopeful about the future and will only become so if the link between tackling global poverty and a sustainable use of resources is fully understood by a majority of people. The implications are of course that most people in the 'affluent' world must move towards a much simpler way of living that does not involve the use of fossil fuel energy.
Realistically we must not lose sight of the fact that at some time in the future animal (including human) life will be extinguished by the natural forces of nature. What appears to be happening is that human activity is helping to bring that day closer. Is it too far fetched to imagine that future generations might in fact need the fossil reserves we are so wastefully squandering in order to combat atmospheric forces of nature and maintain human life support systems?
The main forces that are creating the social and environmental crises we face eminate mainly from the United States and its multinational companies and its puppet agencies - the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. The EC countries are not so far behind and it will not be many years before the dominent forces driven by the greedy rich will result in the new economic power block of India and China taking over from the USA as the major sources of CO2 emissions and resource depletion.
Unless the majority of human beings embrace the values of cooperation, sharing, fellowship and truth as opposed to the competition, gambling, exploitation, greed and corruption that drive the present global system based on economic growth and globalisation, future prospects will remain grim.

Mike Thomas
International Coordinator
Future in Our Hands movement.

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

» It will not take many years Posted by: Cardascian
» RE: It will not take many years Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: MIKE THOMAS Posted by: Lincoln fan
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Feb 13, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Dream, a house in Suburbia was built as a direct effect of oil consumption.

No longer did people work near where they lived.
Today many neighborhoods of homes with white picket fences are empty all day for the 'owners' must travel for hours [and consume] gas and oil to pay the mortgage.


We the people bought into the erroneous belief that consumerism is the way to fullfillment.

Only we the people can change our habits of consumerism and decide for ourselves what dream we will pursue.


WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

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

Out in the "red" midwest
Posted by: NDnative on Feb 13, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
everything's cheaper but short on supply all too often. I guess if more people would learn from this third grader how to use and respect animals, this energy crisis wouldn't be so life-threatening. Then again, riding a mule to school, which made it to ABC National, gets ridiculed even in my local communities.

Third-Grader in North Dakota Makes Trek to One-Room School on Ruth the Mule

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

Soybeing
Posted by: soybeing on Feb 13, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about bio-diesel?

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

» RE: Soybeing Posted by: woblyv
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: redjenny
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: Pooty T
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: Pooty T
» The bottom line. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: The bottom line. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: The bottom line. Posted by: Pooty T
» RE: The bottom line. Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» I disagree. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: Soybeing Posted by: redjenny
Hey! Remeber Jimmy Carter, history's greatest monster?
Posted by: sausage on Feb 13, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He said, and I quote from his April 18, 1977 televised speech:"The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue."

He then went on to predict:"If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today."

Carter then outlined Ten Principles for a national energy policy.

He gave this stern foreboding statement before concluding:We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing."

As resent history tells us, Carter's prediction came to pass. The American people, addicted to oil and an affluent lifestyle, voted against energy austerity and elected Ronald Reagan president.

We have been paying for that mistake ever since.

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

Biodiesel and hydrogen are not a solution
Posted by: drich on Feb 13, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biodiesel is not the great panacea that some people think it is. Remember that it requires growing enormous amounts of crops to produce an amount that will replace a significant amount of current oil consumption. Add to that the environmentally destructive manner in which those crops are grown by agribusiness and you have an additional environmental disaster on your hands. And also add to that the fact this would replace the growing of crops to feed people and animals.

And hydrogen is only an energy storage and transport mechanism. The energy to produce the hydrogen has to come from somewhere.

The only way to address the end of oil is to use less energy and use it more efficiently.

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

Bravo!
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 13, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent piece, and well balanced in the true meaning of the expression (not giving Exxon equal time, but giving numerous reasonable positions time).

Personally, I think the safe bet is that we will get no government help in this at all, they'll continue to do whatever benefits Exxon and Halliburton and Enron types. Just as it turned out that they could profit from the collapse of Iraq and the California electricity crisis, they probably have formulas to profit from a global depression, peak oil, and global environmental collapse (and if they don't, they won't worry because they've already grabbed enough to ride out their retirements). Chaos is the favored environment for crooks, and so they'll continue to ensure that the world becomes increasingly chaotic so that they can grab more of their beloved trinkets.

And so even those of us who don't like the system will be forced to work with it for a long time. What do we do? My plan:
- eliminate debt (they'll throw you on the street if you have debt in the depression)
- get used to conservation. Don't bother buying a new AC unit, you won't be able to power it. Don't buy an SUV, you won't be able to fill the tank.
- I'm looking into solar panels for my roof, at least enough to keep the fridge cold and a few lights running in the coming era of unreliable service. We got a taste of it here in California a few years back, expect lots more as single party rule becomes entrenched.

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

Where we are at
Posted by: StuartH on Feb 13, 2006 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really appreciate Micheal Klare's persistence and good
research on this subject. It helps to inform at least the
quickest readers.

However, our situation is even more precarious than Mr.
Klare depicts, since he must focus on one issue at a time.

The entire media paradigm is based on an historic
phenomenon. One could argue that this goes back
further, but particularly after WWII, the national
economic issue was getting GIs to spend the money
they were making and saving.

Madison Avenue has come to be a short hand term
for a psycological approach to selling products in
which all public communications have become
intertwined to create a culture of consumption.

Now, our only real economic trick in our bag of tricks
is to keep people going to the shopping mall and
loading up. The thing no one dares mess with is the
consumer confidence index.

Get people to go back to saving money and you ruin
growth.

Any talk of oil shortages in the future and people might
just decide to save money.

So, people in the media and most people who want to
accomplish something serious in politics, want nothing
to do with this subject.

I don't see any hope for progress until the "neocons"
are replaced by Democrats in power. Hopefully, by
the end of the 2008 election cycle.

But in the meantime, the problem is educating those
people who might become political candidates at
any level, particularly Democrats.

They aren't going to get it from watching CNN and
most people who are political don't have time to
read in depth and probably will never read articles
like this.

Every one who reads Alternet is in an educated
fringe group one might characterize as "early
adopters" who get it. The problem is that large
numbers of Americans -including policy leaders-
don't.

Conservation and increased efficiency is the most
practical aspect that can immediately help. This
should be pushed as the easiest policy attack.
Other issues, such as increased funding for
research should be pushed in educating potential
future public officials - and current ones.

There are examples on the map. Conservation
economics have been adopted by city councils
going back into the 70s and 80s. These need
more public highlighting. They have proved
pockbook worth to local voters, who are a mix
of fiscal conservatives and social liberals.

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

» RE: Where we are at Posted by: LeonDion
» Stereotypical. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Interesting Posted by: crz53
A few questions
Posted by: anothername on Feb 13, 2006 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will biodiesel be genetically-modified corn and soybeans?

Do people think of all the coal that is burned to power their electric cars?

How much excess packaging is needed in rubbish burning to power a city?

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

A new world order...
Posted by: adp3d on Feb 13, 2006 9:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is what is truely needed. Based upon fairness and co-operation between countries. A strong, centralized world legislative body. The sharing of resources, not competition, the idea that those that have will help those that don't, making this a better world for all. Eliminate the need for armed encounters. Destroy all strategic weapons systems and most if not all the tactical systems. This is the way to save the planet, not power grabs and strong-armed bullying.

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

It is not too late to start Space Industrialization and save humanity!
Posted by: Conan the Younger on Feb 13, 2006 10:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Mr. Klare has presented an excellent piece on the situation as it exist now, he has not present one of the solutions to the problem; Space Industrialization. Since Bush has kicked off the Energy Wars in deadly earnest, the US has spent about $350 billion. That same $350 billion could have built most of the basic infrastructure needed to build a solar power satellite that could be producing for the US in ten years more energy than Iraq and Kuwait combined using the renewable energy source (at least for the next 100 million years) of our sun. The methods and plans for doing this are being presented at the 2006 International Space Development Conference hosted by the Planetary Society, National Space Society, and Space Studies Institute (SSI).

And Mr. Klare is being nice by not talking about what is going to happen when we go back to pre-industrial era. This planet could only support about a maximum of 750 million humans instead of the about 7 billion we have now. We may only have one shot at getting this right and we don't have much time to think about it or much time for trial and error.

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

Get the facts straight
Posted by: BlueTigress on Feb 14, 2006 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only complaint I have with this article is the assumption that the rolling blackouts in California were caused by excess demand. It's been pretty well established that those were instituted by Enron and its ilk to artifically jack up prices and their profits. Let's not buy into any more bullshit than we absolutely have to, ok?

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

One More Thing
Posted by: BlueTigress on Feb 14, 2006 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the posters' comments have been about alternate sources of energy, as if that was the only thing we use oil for. Some of th pro-hemp posters have touched on the other uses for hemp namely as food and fiber for clothing. I have a hemp shirt and it's quite comfortable. A couple mentioned petroleum-based fertilizers.

But no one has touched on all the other things that are made from petroleum. It's kind of impressive.

What about plastics? Look at the keyboard you're tapping away on and tell me what the keys are made from.

Check the labels on your clothing. Unless you're a purist, you will have polyester or nylon in your clothes. Petroleum based.

I can't cite a specific med, but many are based in petrochemicals.

Packaging for just about everything is plastic.

I recycle what I can, but I don't have a nearby facility that will take the 3, 4, 5, 6, 7s.

Some of this discussion will be moot until we can find replacements for these things. I don't like the idea of glass bottles in my shower (I can be clumsy), but it's possible in my lifetime I may have no choice. That's assuming I can still have a water heater.

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

» RE: One More Thing Posted by: Phenix
Population has been, is, and will always be the issue
Posted by: last_redoubt on Feb 17, 2006 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, it's basic Environmental Studies 101. Population, and a lack of population control, has been at the root of all suffering on this planet. Oil is the most incredible gift we humans have ever received. Unfortunately we have squandered it and have now reached population levels that only an energy source such as oil (or fossil fuels) can support. But that energy source has or soon will reach its' peak. No alternate energy source will be able to sustain our current population, much less the population growth that is predicted for our planet. I see the classic "overshoot" followed by "dieoff" as inevitable at this point. Nothing can be done to stop the "dieoff" to come except, perhaps, a global concensus on how to proceed on our lifeboat Earth. The chances for such a concensus are slim. However there is a chance, so I ask anyone who perceives truth in my words to go to "www.dieoff.com". Read and understand as much of what they have to say as you can. Than please send me an email with your thoughts, questions, and ideas on how we can avoid the global catastrophe that looms.

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

How to Fight Back Against the Oil Ministers (and other corporate scum)
Posted by: colek on Feb 19, 2006 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buy Citgo and Hess and boycott the rest. Why?

Citgo is Venezuela's state owned oil company. Hugo Chavez is not donating to the Republican Party this year (or any) and apparently neither is Hess.

Simple math shows what most folks wouldn't assume. The power of the purse in the oil industry belongs to the little guy.

Fact 1: In the real estate market and on Wall Street, the fat cats hold sway. But even fattest fat cat doesn't use any significantly higher amount of gas than joe public does driving to work. Thus Joe P is equally as important to Exxon as Mr Fat.

Fact 2: Since Citgo and Hess hold a minor share in the American petrol market, the big guys like Exxon who fund the Bushes are easy targets Here's the math.

Republican Oil owns a 90% retail market share.
Citgo and Hess own 10%.
Democrats account for 50% of retail purchases.
Assuming Dems all switch to Citgo and Hess, Repulican oil loses more than 50% of its business decreasing to 45% from 90. That means ExxonMobil could be put completely out of business by Democrats simply choosing to boycott them. And by the same token, companies that donate to Democrats instead of Reps will have 5x the money to donate in the future.

This is THE way to win.

What's even neater is the personal satisfaction payoff is instant. Next time you go the pump, just like me, as you pump Citgo or Hess gas into your car, look up at the pump and say to yourself - "there's 35 bucks Bush won't be getting." Give it to Hugo Chavez instead so he can donate more heating oil to poor people.

Then widen your scope.

Go to www.buyblue.org (a developing site) and find out where else to shop and not to shop.

For example, you might want to choose a Gateway computer next instead of a Dell. Maybe Sears is not such a great store after all. Verizon is as evil an empire as one can be.

Power of the purse folks. We got it, all we gotta do it direct it.

And of course spread the word. Put Exxon out of business just as an example that we dont have to tolerate fascists in the free market.

Once you find the joy of defunding the enemy, send me an email (colek98@yahoo.com). I'd like to take pride in how much damage I personally can do to them. Just myself, I can tell you that with just the few people I've converted to Citgo and Hess, Republican oil has already lost several thousand dollars of revenue every month and will never get that back. I think that's more effective than any sign I've ever carried or rally I've ever attended.

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