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.

Consumption Has Finally Caught Up With Us

By Michael T. Klare, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted December 7, 2006.


We're closer than we think to an age when gasoline becomes a luxury and restaurant meals become unattainable.
Advertisement

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, foreign policy analysts have struggled to find a term to characterize the epoch we now inhabit. Although the "Post-Cold War Era" has been the reigning expression, this label now sounds dated and no longer does justice to the particular characteristics of the current period. Others have spoken of the "Post-9/11 Era," as if the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were defining moments for the entire world. But this image no longer possesses the power it once wielded -- even in the United States.

I propose instead another term that better captures the defining characteristics of the current period: the Post-Abundance Era.

If there is one thing that most inhabitants of the late 20th century shared in common, it was a perception of rising global abundance in virtually all fields: energy, food, housing, consumer goods, fashion, mass culture, and so on. Yes, there were pockets of poverty in many areas, but most people in most places around the world were seeing a rise in their personal income and an increase in the number of things in their possession, along with the supply of energy with which to move or power their many personal goods.

At least some strata of the global population will continue to experience an increase in personal wealth in the 21st century, but the sense of abundance that characterized the late 20th century is likely to evaporate for the great majority of us. One day affordable luxuries like overseas vacations and meals out will become unattainable, and even basic necessities like energy, electricity, water, and food are likely to become less plentiful and more expensive. This global austerity will produce great hardship for the poor and will force even lower-middle class families to choose between long car trips, restaurant meals, air-conditioning in summer, and high thermostats in winter.

Less Supply, More Demand

Lying behind this historic shift in global fortunes is a fundamental reversal in the balance between resource supply and demand. For most of the 20th century, global stockpiles of vital materials like oil, natural gas, coal, and basic minerals expanded as giant multinational corporations (MNCs) poured billions of dollars into exploring every corner of the Earth in the drive to locate and exploit valuable deposits of extractible materials. This permitted consumers around the world to increase their consumption of virtually everything, safe in the knowledge that even more of these commodities would be available next year and the year after that, and so on infinitely into the future.

But this condition no longer prevails. Many of the world's most promising sources of supply have been located and exploited, and all of the additional billions spent by MNCs on exploration and discovery are producing increasingly meager results. Ever since the 1960s, the most fruitful decade in the worldwide discovery of new oilfields, there has been a steady decline in the identification of new deposits, according to a recent study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Even more worrisome, the rate of oil field discovery fell below the rate of global petroleum consumption in the 1980s, and since then has fallen to approximately half the rate of consumption. This means we are increasingly relying on deposits found in previous decades to slake our insatiable thirst for petroleum -- a pattern that cannot continue for much longer before we will begin to experience an irreversible and traumatic decline in the global supply of oil.

The same is true of other vital resources, including natural gas, uranium, copper, and many minerals. There may be adequate stocks of these materials on global markets today, but the MNCs are not finding enough new deposits of these commodities to replace what we're consuming. So future shortages are inevitable.

Water is somewhat different, in that we receive a fresh supply of it each year through evaporation from the oceans and precipitation on land -- but even this precious resource will become scarcer in the years ahead due to population growth, urbanization, industrialization, the over-exploitation of underground aquifers, and global warming (through persistent drought and the accelerated evaporation of rivers and lakes).

This contraction in the global supply of vital resources will affect our lives in myriad ways. On a personal level, it will force us to consume less -- for example, by buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and smaller, more energy-efficient homes. We will have to make other accommodations as well: fewer long-distance trips to the seaside or distant amusement parks; fewer long-distance airplane rides; lowered thermostats in winter; and so on. These cutbacks will be minor inconveniences for some, but significant hardships for others -- especially the poor, the elderly, and others on a fixed income. Farmers will have a particularly hard time, as the cost of virtually everything associated with modern, mechanized agriculture -- diesel fuel, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, food supplements -- will become far more expensive.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: scarcity, resource, consumption

Michael T. 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:
ahead
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 7, 2006 1:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must think far ahead or we might soon all be dead. The Bushies totally failed the far ahead task and we will soon know if the new Congress is sharp enough to think far ahead. If not we will have a bunch more people that need to be thrown out of office. Vote no on lunkheads and impeach criminals.

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

» RE: ahead Posted by: willymack
» RE: ahead Posted by: rsaxto
Arrogance and denial will prevail, as always.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 7, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a zillion goons out there who think it's their right as an American to drive gas-guzzling Hummers. And they'll call you a latte-sucking hippie for telling them anything that has to do with reality.

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

» RE: how to tell them Posted by: ScottP
» RE: how to tell them Posted by: candara
While I certainly agree with the basic premise of this article......
Posted by: Prophit on Dec 7, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..... I think he has made an error in his premises regarding available natural resources. First of all, the reason the abundance is disappearing from the middle class is because it is being redistributed upward to the 1% top of the income strata and that my friends is a fact.

it has nothing to do with the natural resources, rather the fiscal policies of this administration and the gouging and manipulations and violations of Anti-trust laws which are currently ignored as if they didn't exist.

Second of all, regarding the location and exploitation of natural resources, there is way more than people realize. For instance, did you know that under the state of Colorado and eastern Utah is THE LARGEST OIL RESERVE in the world? It is so large that it exceeds the entire reserves of all the countries in the middle east and Venezuela. Its untapped and being saved for sometime in the future and we don't know why.

I live in Colorado and I am in the heart of these issues here. There is no resistance by the residents of this state to exploiting these natural resources, in fact, they are encouraged to do so and yet will not. They are being held or reserved for some reason. I think its to keep the "shortage" idea out there for profitability and to justify the poverty, slave conditions that are being planned for this nation similar to Mexico.

Just my humble opinion. I could go into this in depth, but I don't want to bore you. LOL I think this author has a reason for trying to promote the idea of lack that we as the huddled masses will accept.

I do agree that we consume to much and are wasteful and we should scale back dramatically, but that is to ensure generations ahead of a decent and good standard of living for themselves and their families and to preserve the earth and natural environments as much as possible. But its certainly not because we are running out of anything. Like I said, I could go into it big time, but this isn't the forum to do it in. Suffice it to say I disagree with this particular author.

There is certainly a profit incentive to exploit that particular point of view. Don't forget their are agents provacateurs in the left think tanks as their are in the "right" think tanks. They are usually promoting someones agenda. I would like to see which foundations are supporting this particular think tank.

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

There's a reason for it all
Posted by: Chevaliere on Dec 7, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Professor Klare, I would like to call your attention to a book that gives some rather startling answers to why we are in this situation. It's called Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.

"Political Ponerology was forged in the crucible of the very subject it studies. Scientists living under an oppressive regime decide to study it clinically, to study the founders and supporters of an evil regime to determine what common factor is at play in the rise and propagation of man's inhumanity to man.

"Shocking in its clinically spare descriptions of the true nature of evil, poignant in the more literary passages where the author reveals the suffering experienced by the researchers who were contaminated or destroyed by the disease they were studying, this is a book that should be required reading by every citizen of every country that claims a moral or humanistic foundation. For it is a certainty that morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of Evil. Knowledge of its nature, how it creates its networks and spreads, how insidious is its guileful approach, is the only antidote."

There is a section in this book that talks about how periods of abundance lead to the conditions whereby totalitarian regimes are able to take over if other conditions are present. I think that those other conditions ARE present.

Anyway, I very highly recommend this book. It's the only thing I've read in a very long time that has helped me make sense of what is going on.

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

What a silly person
Posted by: John Annis on Dec 7, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Yes, there were pockets of poverty in many areas,...".

Those 'pockets of poverty' add up to around half the world's population. Or maybe you were talking just about Detroit.

Only an American could make a comment like that with a straight face.

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

» RE: What a silly person Posted by: DaBear
The Whole SUV Story
Posted by: Spyder on Dec 7, 2006 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to discuss the big picture from the viewpoint of a lifetime car nut. SUV's have been in the U.S. since the early Sixties. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a small percentage of Americans owning gas-guzzling, 4WD SUV's for whatever special purposes they have, whether they are industrial or recreational. The problem began when the "What, Me Worry?" Alfred E. Neuman took over from the highly intelligent Jimmy Carter. Rather than continuing the forward thinking and conservation of Carter, Alfred E. encouraged Ford and GM to maximize short-term profits at the cost of any further reaching goals.

Ford introduced the Explorer, an SUV that specifically targeted a feminine, as well as everyday commuter, type of buyer. Ford has always had a better idea, and then GM copies it. Now look where we are. It's as if Carter's plans never even existed! Consumption-wise, there is very little difference between a modern Escalade and a 1975 Sedan deVille. The problem has been greatly exacerbated by the anything-for-a-buck, sell-out-to-the-developers-at-all-cost demographics of modern suburbia. The great majority of us are driving far more daily miles than we used to, and a higher percentage of those miles are in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Do the math: our gas consumption is far worse now that it was when President Carter tried his best to steer us in the right direction for our own good.

As I said in the beginning, we do not have to cease towing boats to the lake, taking the Girl Scouts camping, or hauling machine tools to the job site. What we must cease, for our own future, are the millions of miles driven daily by solo drivers in unnecessary gas hogs! Put those communters in Honda Civics and Chevy Malibus. Haul those soccer kids in Chrysler minivans. Does anyone realize what an astounding daily fuel savings on a nationwide basis would result from this simple change to American attitudes?

Author of Timeline of America: Sound Bytes from the Consumer Culture

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

» RE: Carter?! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: The Whole SUV Story Posted by: splendid
state of denial
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 7, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that we are already experiencing shortages and poverty. There isn't much doubt that the middle class is getting smaller by the day. Humans are marvelous at denial - what we are beginning to see are the long delayed effects of overpopulation, poor use of resources, rampant consumerism, etc. What is truly pathetic is that instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, people continue to insist that the universe is abundant if you just "manifest" correctly(boomers), God will take care of everything(religious right), and many other examples of delusional thinking. The result of being willfully blind to the immense suffering already present in the world does eventually result in our own individual suffering. Too bad it has to reach such miserable scale before we are motivated to do something.

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

Alternative energy sources
Posted by: MSharp on Dec 7, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Science and Technology can give us advanced
entertainment and communications hardware
like plasma tvs and cellular phones, then practical
advances like energy, housing, and food production
are not only possible but are waiting to be implemented.
Is it suppression by the tradition energy sources
that causes those practical advances to be wanting in
innovation or are the people so weaned on gas, oil, and
coal that other sources can't compete?

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

» They are in the box Posted by: CardiacRN
» RE: They are in the box Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: They are in the box Posted by: CardiacRN
As I see it, we have two basic choices
Posted by: AdamG on Dec 7, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are running out of the materials needed to sustain our McWorld. We have a decreasing supply of the materials needed and an increasingl number of people striving to live this lifestyle. There won't be enough of a McWorld for all of us. The way McWorld phsychologogically works, there can be no other world then the McWorld because most any other paradigm that competes with it, detracts from the power the Mcworld holds over people and so endangers McWorld. The McWorld is a selforganising process and so will persuade people living in the McWorld to act in it's self-interest.

So, choice number one is to continue how things are. As the resources needed to sustain the McWorld dwindle, there will be less and less of us employed maintaing it. Those that are not employed in sustaining it, will compete for the jobs held by those employed sustaining the McWorld. This is called the "race to the floor". Basically, there will be one job for every ten people with the one employed person living on slavation wages and the other nine really living in poverty. There will be a very few upperclass, who while not directly controlling the McWorld itself, will coordinate it's maintenance. Basically, they'll be told what to do by the McWorld, and they will pass the buck along and tell us what to do.

Or, we can walk away. We can tell the McWorld, which resides in all our hearts and minds to some extent or another, and tell it to shove it up it's ass. We build not a world and lifestyle but, as many as there are stars in the sky. We form communities and villages that are based on the common need and not someone else's greed. We invest our time and love not only in each other and ourselves but, the world around us. We observe, acknowledge, and reciprocate the sacrifice that is made for us on an ongoing basis. In a sense, we will have to "atone for our sins" and work to pay off the debt we have incurred with the natural process by our constant withdrawls against the capital of the Earth. We will not have a life of competition and abtraction but one of cooperation and meaning.

If anyone else has other possible options, I'm all ears.

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

» There is only one party Posted by: AdamG
Living in denial
Posted by: Arvy on Dec 7, 2006 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I design children's books here in the UK but most are for the American market. On a recent sales trip to the US we presented 2 titles to publishers, one was about "Going Green" and outlined various things one can do to become more environmentally conscious.

The reasons given for the rejection of this title were that the science "wasn't in" on global warming. Our chief editor described the US publishers (that she met) as 'living in denial'. There's no great agenda to sell this idea, by the way, we sold plenty of other titles and are always quite successful in the states, but we were all aghast at this one.

(They also rejected a science book about evolution, and one about planet earth because - obviously - god made man and the earth within six days! Why trust science, eh?)

The point is that if we're not prepared to teach our children the facts of our history, of our modern, consumerist lifestyle, of how the earth works, then there's basically no progress being made. The McDonaldisation of society will continue uninterrupted.

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

» RE: Welcome to the only country... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: Wrong publisher Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Wrong publisher Posted by: Arvy
I Strongly Agree, Jimmy Carter Was Very Far Sighted, but then along came Reagan and the Rethugs
Posted by: bob t on Dec 7, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jimmy Carter was not afraid of the oil companies. He is the most moral prez America has ever had and along with Clinton one of the smartest prez's America has ever had. Also Prez Carter is an engineer and thinks the way an engineer does, that is using the scientific method, not the political method as the repubs do, who deny science. As an engineer and using the scientific method/ approach to looking at and solving problems he came out with some wonderful energy laws and initiatives that Reagan and his supporters, Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church and the greed driven repub party cancelled when Reagan took office. The Pope totally endorsed Reagan and had a religious agenda for America which included only some few narrow minded religious issues which did NOT include energy conservation strategies. Now some thirty years later many energy experts are saying that Carters energy initiatives were right and had they been continued America would be in far, far, far better shape regarding energy issues. And of course the entire repub party is nothing more than the party of selfishness,greed and corruption and is dedicated to the well being of the oil companies, not America or the American people, only themselves. Ecology embraces the concept that we all live in a state of synergy, meaning that what happens to any one part of the synergistic system sooner or later affects all other parts of the system. But then the selfish repubs, the corportocracy, the Neocons or the Theocons/Theocrats don't believe or think that way so they drag us all down by thier narrow minded self centered selfishness, quite possibly dooming our planet and at least substantially diminishing our way of life and thus our ability to help others. Does anyone feel the need to get rid of the rethuglican party, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the past and current popes for the many dangers they have they have brought down upon America. These people have done nothing but spread hate and intolerance throughout our beloved America and the world. This bunch of criminals...
PRAY FOR PEACE

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

» RE: So soon they forget Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Carter Are you crazy? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Solutions?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Dec 7, 2006 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet keeps pushing this meme, as they should, but I don't see much on solutions. There are lots of people working on alternatives to the way we live; Amory Lovins and Wesley Jackson spring to mind, but that's just a starting point. It's a rich field.

Warnings like Klare's are all very well, but we can't promote solutions if we don't hear about them.

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

» RE: Solutions? Posted by: rwa
» RE: Solutions? Posted by: pedex
» RE: Solutions? Posted by: toddboyle
» RE: Solutions? Posted by: pedex
» RE: Solutions? Posted by: toddboyle
Reaping what we have sown
Posted by: SKPython on Dec 7, 2006 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When historians look back on the 20th century, they will identify the 2 biggest causes of all of the strife of the 21st. And they are, simply put, that it was a colossal mistake to initiate the 'green revolution' in the third world, and that it was a mistake to make available the entire pharmacoepia of Western medicine to civilizations that did not go through the same process that first world in order to achieve those breakthroughs. These twin events led to the huge explosion of population that is now seeking the same standard of living the the first world has long enjoyed. And the truth is we might have better found a second and a third planet to exploit before causing this population explosion, because the process we set in motion after World War 2 is now scouring the surface of our planet. In 50 years we will have 9 billion people, all wanting to live as Americans did in 1984. Only the rules of nature will correct the mistake we made. And the suffering we had hoped to relieve will be magnified 100 fold, while the Earth's natural bounty and diversity are destroyed for thousands of years to come. But we in the west were well-intentioned...

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

» RE: Reaping what we have sown Posted by: bcgirl125
Reality
Posted by: ssmit355 on Dec 7, 2006 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first problem is--Reality. Most government, corporate, business, social, economic, and even individual decisions--here in America--are not based on reality.

We have too much thinking, reacting, and denial to keep up with; we (you is what I really mean) avoid reality. Taste the air, see the smog, feel the depressed anxiety of people walking in cities, sitting on the bus, locking their SUVs. It's all too obvious...(here's the reality part...what's he mean? what's he refering to?)

First, start with what is real, then make plans accordingly. Keynes economic system never worked: the problem is that there is no consumer society! Keynes split people in half: consumer and producers. But only producers should consume; only producers have done the work, toiled in the fields (literally, not figuratively) to earn consumption. Can you build shelter (primitive kinds) or gather food? Stop working in your office; right now it owns no survival value.

Whoa. That's right. Think about it. The base of any economic system, its roots are about eating and survival. Can we survive?! It's easy rational, logical thinking. Yes, we can. But not if we insist, at the cost and doom of our health and welfare, that we must consume, consume, consume to drive (Drive, drive, Drive) our economy. That's dumb. Really, it's stupid. Wake up.

We cannot solve this market dilema with market solutions (check Rob Newman). The base of our economy is lies. And the lie is told and retold ad nauseum. So I sit in my smoggy city watching Subarus with stickers that say "Extinction is forever" driving by. Who is that? Who does that? That's stupid. [I hope I don't need to cite sources for you science fans.]

Stop driving. Now. Stop overindulgence. Now.

We have not left the Industrial Age; the author and others rename it to comfort our religious minds, our minds that insist that reality cannot be happening here. It's a popular game, how many Ages have you lived in? Post-Industrial, Information Age, Beyond-Retirement, Age of Baby Boomers, Maybe tomorrow is the end of the Idiot's Age. [Source: Reality--It's in Front of Your Nose.]

Since when is an Age defined by whimsy? Come on folks, we live inside of an industry--oil, gas, automobiles, this computer, all of it, our food, our oil-based clothing, all of it is build on industry. Without industry we plunge back into the real world from which we came. Enjoy it.

When the Industrial Age ends, our culture will be destroyed. Will you? I hope that the transition can be soft, not cataclysmic.

Stop driving. [Ibid.]

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

» reality is conservation Posted by: Krain61
» I´m an incrementalist too Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
We are moving backwards instead of preserving we are destroying
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 7, 2006 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll start with saying our farmers should stop using the chemicals right now..
Will get use to it now eaiser than later..Since it's bad for us{killing us}
bad for our home{earth and the water we use} and many farmers are
dying from cancer which they get from using it.They pollute our streams and
rivers not to mention our ground water. Abundance of food that isn't healthy!
And we need to get back to growing our own gardens in the summers to help
from buying which means less chemicals are used..We are indeed lazy and come
to expect it to always be at the stores..I drive truck and see the massive amounts
of things being used all over the country..Nothing last for ever and we need to
except it and start working on fixing it..We need to start putting up power towers
and not just in small amount here and there..Instead of considering anymore money
for war or nasa we should be putting it to the good of our country..We are to into
our things.Think about it! People buy bottled water..That's insane.We as American's
are total idiots..We started buying China products when I was a kids..Instead of
making it here where it would be used we ship materials over sea's to send it back..
We avoid securing our borders even though we know that no succesful nation lasted
if they didn't control them..I personaly don't eat out because they never seem to make
it right so I gave up waisting my money..But since I drive truck my options are limited.
We need to learn to cook at home and enjoy time with family which may I add is becoming
a thing of the past..Most treat Marriage as they do a wrapper of a burger..They just throw
it away and get another one..My thinking is China or Russia will be the next Super Power
and they'll thank us for giving them the cash to do it..As I said we are IDIOT'S..
And then places like Speedway say if you reuse your foam cup you still pay full price..
There saying that just to get your extra money..I don't and won't shop places that have
no regard at all for our earth..We need alternet solutions to oil no matter how much is out
there if for no other reason because of our earth. Back in the 70's a man had a thing that
worked with your carburator and would give you upwards of 60 plus miles a gallon and
here we are today getting half or just about that..By the way this man came up dead..
There was a patent on it but big oil bought it and well as paul harvey would say you
know the rest of the story.

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

This is true for America, but the global story is vastly different
Posted by: GVon on Dec 7, 2006 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's true that America is in an increasing economic decline. The divide between rich and poor is bigger then ever, and the average American is working harder and having much less to show for it.

But what's mistaken about this article is implying that this American problem is a global problem. Countries in Asia, and Europe, and even some in South America are economically stronger then ever and are progressing rapidly. Their is the rapidly growing middle class in India. Vietnam now boasts the fastest growing economy in the world. And the Euro exchange rate is getting increasingly pitiful for the US.

While the US may be entering a "Post-Abundance" era, the rest of the world is catching up to us rapidly. Europe is leaving us behind in the dust, and quality of the living in so called third-world countries is improving rapidly. The playing field is being leveled out, which is great for everyone but the US (and Africa, but I don't know enough that to go into its details)

For a truly informative and remarkable incite into the real trends of the global economy, I highly recommend watching this presentation by Hans Rosling, professor of International Health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute: http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=hans_rosling

The presentation is available free of charge as streaming video, downloadable video, or audio. I Highly recommend this as well as other videos on their website.

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

Carter? What about central America?
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 7, 2006 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Were you an adult in the Carter years? How about what went on in central America while he was President? He was no innocent, though of course being followed by Reagan makes him look good.

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

Comments from a "technology optimist".....!
Posted by: mjabele on Dec 7, 2006 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this article, which seems to be that an impending scarcity of resources will inevitably lead to an increasingly "restricted" lifestyle for all of us - it seems to leave out the implication (though the author hints at it in certain places) that the economic scarcity he projects will also, inevitably, cause us to modify our behaviors in such a way that the effects of scarcity might be obviated to a significant degree by shifts to alternative energy sources and more efficient use of remaining resources.

I own a hybrid car, which gets about twice the gas mileage of my previous vehicle. Although gas prices have risen since we purchased the car, the overall effect of this on our personal finances - and our driving behavior, which wasn't particularly extravagant to begin with - has been negligible due to the fact that we're now able to travel twice as far on a tank of gas as previously. What's to say that even more fuel-efficient vehicles might not be around the corner? And if so, would it really be necessary to restrict the way we live, given that effects on the environment might progressively diminish due to improvements in technology?

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar strike me as another potential example of this. At some point I'd like to install some form of solar power generation in our home. Though the up-front cost of this might be significant, I expect - particularly given that the price of solar technology seems to be trending down - that I would reap the benefits not only in terms of recouping the installation costs, but also by lowering my electricity bills from "the grid" over time AND becoming more self-sufficient in terms of reliance on outside sources of power. Assuming the cost of power from "the grid" rises over time, other homeowners might be persuaded to do the same - indeed, my understanding is that some developers are now incorporating solar into their housing designs, perhaps foreseeing what the author projects. But if these changes do indeed come to pass, would homeowners necessarily need to drastically cut down on the amount of power they use? What if their electricity bills stayed the same or dropped - would they necessarily feel compelled to "turn down their thermostats" or start using candles at night...?

I'm not a foe of conservation - indeed, I think it represents a very valid approach to our impending "scarcity" problem - but I think simple economics will have more of an effect on people's behavior than the author seems to suppose. Insofar as power is concerned, there are certainly alternatives, and as the costs of fossil fuels increase, the costs of alternatives like wind and solar will inherently become more competitive. People WILL switch over, though admittedly this might be hastened somewhat by public policy measures.

I would be VERY surprised if anyone is still driving a gasoline-powered vehicle in 2100. Indeed, I'm doubtful that oil will even be a significant player in terms of power generation at that point in time. My suspicion is that alternatives like hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and nuclear will have emerged as competitive alternatives to fossil fuels, and that a lot more power will be generated locally in communities and by homeowners themselves. Combined with more efficient use of material resources, who's to say that our children and grandchildren will necessarily be confined to a "medieval" lifestyle?

Maybe my optimism is misplaced, but it seems to me the laws of economics do have a certain inevitability about them. That's not to say I'd mind it if government, either national, state, or local, would implement measures to "push" some of these changes along. The tax deduction on our hybrid, for example, certainly made it easier for us to swallow the higher sticker price when we bought the vehicle.

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

» Point taken... Posted by: mjabele
This article explains why we are at war in Iraq - look at A. Juhasz for the specifics
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 7, 2006 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the other article published by Alternet today. Putting these two articles together allows one to understand the mentality of our so-called 'leaders' in Washington, something the corporate media has done all it can to cover up. The Washington press corp is talking on and on and on about the 'implications' of the Iraq Study Group, while the words 'oil' and 'privatization' never pass their lips. Living proof that the corporate media is just the propaganda arm of the corporatocracy - and they aren't discussing the number one political issue in the election either - corruption!

Klare, on the other hand, addresses the general conceptual mentality of those in power, while Juhasz lays out the details of how the latest chapter in the struggle for global control of oil resources is being carried out. For this they are attacked by Alternet commentators - Sheesh.

I'll add that the effects of global warming are going to put a serious squeeze on the resource issue - drought in continental interiours and floods in coastal regions will have a negative effect on agricultural production.

All the commentators who attack these articles for not focusing on sustainable agriculture, low-energy lifestyles and the like are missing the point - that's not the topic of these articles. Trying to survive in a warming world beset by energy resource limitations is a very important topic, however. Regardless of what you think about Cuba's political situation, they had to do just that after the Soviet Union collapsed (and they are also very vulnerable to hurricanes, but they learned how to survive those as well, unlike the US government!). I would highly suggest to all the commentators that they look at this film: http://www.communitysolution.org/cuba.html

Quote:
"The documentary, "The Power of Community – How Cuba Survived Peak Oil," was inspired when Faith Morgan and Pat Murphy took a trip to Cuba through Global Exchange in August, 2003. That year Pat had begun studying and speaking about worldwide peak oil production. In May Pat and Faith attended the second meeting of The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, a European group of oil geologists and scientists, which predicted that mankind was perilously close to having used up half of the world's oil resources. When they learned that Cuba underwent the loss of over half of its oil imports and survived, after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, the couple wanted to see for themselves how Cuba had done this. "

The take home point is this: The United States can cut off all foreign oil imports from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran and Iraq and we'll do JUST FINE - it'll even reduce the national health care bill.

P.S. I'd say publishing these two articles side-by-side on Alternet was a real stoke of genius by the editorial staff. Keep it up!

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

Will we mend our ways, or have them mended for us?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 7, 2006 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will say it again: we are an infinitely-expanding species in a finite environment; the most destructive in history in both shear numbers and ability to upset natural systems which took eons to develop. I think we all know, or can figure out, what Nature does with a situation such as this: famine, war, disease or environmental cataclysm will ensure that NO species will permanently upset nature's balance. The fact that we have had an extraordinarily good run thus far and our childish religious belief that we were plunked down here by some Big Daddy in the Sky have warped our thinking to the point that we believe that we are above the laws of nature. I assure you, we are not.

Whatever we do, the Earth will go on spinning through the cosmos, as it has for the last five billion years or so (forget that crap about the world only being 6,000 years old). However, if we keep raping the Earth, keep spending our "life capital" faster than it is replenished, keep fouling our own nest, we will go the way of the dinosaurs and the dodo bird. The history of life on this planet should have taught us – had we been listening more than talking or learning more than chasing our own tails – that there is nothing in God's or Nature's plan that says human beings must inhabit this world forever. We will be here only as long as this world will tolerate us and our excesses, and the world is giving us plenty of hints that our excesses are catching up with us. For once, we'd better shut up and listen.

It is the height of arrogance to think that we will hold dominion over this world forever. We do not own this planet; we are only passing through. It is up to us whether we maintain our welcome or are kicked out of the inn – and believe me, it can be damn cold out there.

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

Post Bush American Decline
Posted by: Fresno Blue on Dec 8, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My vote for what to call this period in American history is "Post Bush American Decline." In every sense of the phrase, America has declined under Bush. You name it, America has declined in it: education - NCLB has failed to improve student's ability to participate in the workplace; environmental quality - Bush-speak initiatives such as Clear Skies and Healthy Forests have resulted in exactly the opposite happening; fiscal responsibility - a hugely increased national debt due to irresponsible fiscal policies have rendered our children's and grand children's future fraught with a looming exorbitant tax burden; acceptance of diversity - Bush's win-at-all-costs (as in lie, cheat, and steal) electioneering has led to a devisiveness in America that has resulted in a decline in civility both in Congress and on Main Street USA; international stature - Bush's go-it-alone foreign policy and a trumped-up war recommended by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon cabal has resulted in a decline of American stature worldwide. I could go on and on with many more examples of the decline of America under the Bush regime - it just becomes too damned depressing after a while, though.

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

I don't understand
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Dec 11, 2006 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US grows so much food you export stuff.

You barely pay restaurant workers enough live badly on.

So exactly HOW are restaurant meals becoming unaffordable?

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

Post-Risk or Post-Sacrifice Era
Posted by: wzeallor on Dec 13, 2006 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the Post-Risk or Post-Sacrifice Era? We have a President who tells us to keep shopping and a slew of war advocating bloggers and journalists. We even avoid paint damage to our cars with magnetic "Support the Troops" ribbons.

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