Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

We Must Imagine a Future Without Cars

By James Howard Kunstler, AlterNet. Posted April 4, 2007.


Kunstler argues that the coming age of energy scarcity will change everything about how we live in this country -- most of all our dependency on automobiles.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by James Howard Kunstler

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is James Howard Kunstler' recent speech to the Commonwealth Club of California. An audio stream of the speech is available.

Two years ago in my book The Long Emergency I wrote that our nation was sleepwalking into an era of unprecedented hardship and disorder -- largely due to the end of reliably cheap and abundant oil. We're still blindly following that path into a dangerous future, lost in dark raptures of infotainment, diverted by inane preoccupations with sex and celebrity, made frantic by incessant motoring.

The coming age of energy scarcity will change everything about how we live in this country. It will ignite more desperate contests between nations for the remaining oil and natural gas around the world. It will alter the fundamental terms of industrial economies. It will ramify and amplify many of the problems presented by climate change. It will require us to behave differently. But we are not paying attention.

As the American public continues sleepwalking into a future of energy scarcity, climate change, and geopolitical turmoil, we have also continued dreaming. Our collective dream is one of those super-vivid ones people have just before awakening, as the fantastic transports of the unconscious begin to merge with the demands of waking reality. The dream is a particularly American dream on an American theme: how to keep all the cars running by some other means than gasoline. We'll run them on ethanol! We'll run them on biodiesel, on synthesized coal liquids, on hydrogen, on methane gas, on electricity, on used French-fry oil... !

The dream goes around in fevered circles as each gasoline-replacement is examined and found to be inadequate. But the wish to keep the cars going is so powerful that round and round the dream goes. Ethanol! Biodiesel! Coal Liquids. ...

And a harsh reality indeed awaits us as the full scope of the permanent energy crisis unfolds. The global oil production peak is not a cult theory, it's a fact. The earth does not have a creamy nougat center of petroleum. The supply in finite, and we have ample evidence that all-time global production has peaked.

Of course, the issue is not about running out of oil, and never has been. There will always be some oil left underground -- it just might take more than a barrel-of-oil's worth of energy to pump each barrel out, so it won't be worth doing.

The issue is not about running out -- it's about what happens when you head over the all-time production peak down the slippery slope of depletion. And what happens is that the complex systems we depend on for everyday life in advanced societies begin to falter, wobble, and fail -- and the failures in each system will in turn weaken the others. By complex systems I mean the way we produce our food, the way we conduct manufacture and trade, the way we operate banking and finance, the way we move people and things from one place to another, and the way we inhabit the landscape.

I'll try not to dwell excessively on the statistics since I am more concerned here with the implications for everyday life in our nation. But it is probably helpful to understand a few of the numbers.

Oil production in the US peaked in 1970. We're now producing about half of what we did then, and our own production continues to run down steadily at the rate of a few percentage points of recoverable reserves each year. It adds up. In 1970, we were producing about 10 million barrels a day. Now we're down to less than five -- and we consume over 20 million barrels a day. We have compensated for that since 1970 by importing oil from other nations. Today we import about two-thirds of all the oil we use. Today, the world is consuming all the oil it can produce. As global production passes its own peak, the world will not be able to compensate for its shortfall by importing oil from other planets.

Nor is there any real likelihood that new discoveries will be adequate to compensate. Discovery precedes production, of course, because you can't pump oil that you haven't discovered. Discovery of oil in the US peaked in the 1930s -- and production started declining roughly 30 years later. Discovery of oil peaked worldwide in the 1960s, and now the signs suggest the world has peaked. Discovery of new oil worldwide in recent years has amounted to a tiny fraction of replacement levels. In fact, we may be burning more oil just in our exploration efforts than we will get from the oil we're discovering.

The oil industry has been dominated by what are called supergiant fields. The four reigning supergiant fields of oil our time were discovered decades ago and are now in decline. The Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing of China, Cantarell of Mexico, and Ghawar of Saudi Arabia. Together in recent decades they were responsible for 14 percent of the world's oil production, and they are now in decline. All except Ghawar of Saudi Arabia have been declared officially past peak by their own governments and Ghawar is showing clear signs of trouble -- though Aramco itself won't say so. Ghawar has provided 60 percent of Saudi Arabia's production. Saudi Arabia's total production is down 8 percent in the year past, despite a massive increase in drilling rigs, and the incentive of high prices.


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

See more stories tagged with: peak oil, auto dependency

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
it's all over now?
Posted by: edith on Apr 4, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
kunstler may be right. autos and national production are finished. Local is in. So whose going to explain to the millions of undereducated, semiliterate and politically apathetic/ignorant kids in urban schools that they can't have their twinkies and blowpop diet any more, and will have to labor in the fields? Hey, that is what they ran away from El Salvador and Mexico for! Thanks for resolving the immigration question, Kunstler.

BTW, the super spread of local govt Kunstler predicts as national economies fall and urban/suburban govts collapse means that some areas at least will be taken over by those who have guns. (vacuum of power and all)

Gee, isn't the left sorry it backed gun confiscation now?

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

» Wrong wording... Posted by: Wassermann
» Be careful ... Posted by: greenman
» Good Governments? Are you kidding? Posted by: albrechtkrausse
More apocalyptic doom and gloom from the Left
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Apr 4, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have more faith in humankind to solve problems such as coming up with alternate sources of energy than does this author. The Left predicts catastrophe for humankind, resulting from our "hubris" and/or the earth's retaliating on us, more so than any fundamentalist Christian I know. What a miserable, depressing existence, to be constantly reeling from the threat of one catastrophe to another!

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

» Electric cars Posted by: suprmark
» RE: lectric cars Posted by: bttl
» RE: lectric cars Posted by: suprmark
Wishful thinking...?
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 4, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would we necessarily be able to run a nationwide electric rail system, but not a few dozen centralized universities?

Though I agree with the desirability of some of the things the author advocates for, I get the impression a number of things he envisions reflect his inward desires more than an actual compelling need for change. For me, this undermines his arguments to some degree, since I can't distinguish between what things we really HAVE to change, versus those things the author simply WANTS to change, presumably for personal ideologic reasons.

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

» RE: Wishful thinking...? Posted by: richholland
Retreatment......
Posted by: Scott on Apr 4, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS is what he is talking about and as we do or are forced to do it, we will become a nation of tightly packed citizens much as the cities in Europe and Asia are! We will also have the added costs of tearing down and digging up all the buildings, parking lots, etc. of all the surburbia that has taken over local FLAT land as that land will be required once again for crops and animals at a much closer local level. As a society and a nation we (america) will not survive this retreatment and we will become once again a much smaller nation and/or a loosely bound state's centered entity!!!!!!

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

» RE: etreatment...... Posted by: suprmark
peace out, "american dream"
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Apr 4, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mistake the end of suburbia for "doom and gloom." It's about damn time.

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

jitterbugmom4
Posted by: hermionie on Apr 4, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think about how is America ging to adjust to a world without cheap gas. We have planned and/or built so many of our cities around the automobile...for all of you who live east of the misissippi you should realize that most cities built west of the river were built on railroad T's-thus the T-town and the term the wrong side of the tracks... railroads decided the shape of the future west, then later cars. How can these towns be restructured? I think about this every day as I drive my kids from place to place. Is there a school or a collection of people who actively think about these things? Not just the smart growth people but I mean an actual place/school of thought that consider the future city without cars- now. ??

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

» RE: jitterbugmom4 Posted by: richholland
» RE: jitterbugmom4 Posted by: cinattra
After the Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth - Good
Posted by: Windwhistler on Apr 4, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that it is highly likely that Kunstler's senario is coming to a neighborhood near us all. The possibility of a Deus ex Machina saving us is highly unlikely. Technology is highly over rated as a savior as I see.

And it is also clear to me that it would be near criminal for a government to NOT make plans to ease the coming adjustment but based on recent performance we can hardly expect any such action whatever by the US.

Nevertheless, for me, Kunstler's world (after the weeping and gnashing of teeth) sounds like a step up compared to the one we have now.

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

Economic Disparity?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Apr 4, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I want to know about is what this guy's, the whole peak-oil crowd really, take on economic disparity is (going to be). He mentions at least a few times that the "economic elite," a cumbersome phrase meaning "the rich," will come to be the only ones able to drive cars or consume the way we've been used to doing as a nation.

What upper-class is this guy talking about? Except for the last outposts of Old Wealth that remain in this country, the upper-class exists primarily because of the economy that just the same created the burgeoning middle-class. If the economy as we know it goes out the door, then the means by which people are said to be wealthy will generally go with it. Does that mean a collapse into a nostaligic, somewhat romantically primative, if not communistic utopia-- a stock delusion of the later 20th Century? I doubt it. Not that I wouldn't like it to be, but I even resist the temptation to speculate that it would.

There will be serious practical problems to tbe business of just getting by later in this century, but what this author doesn't give any attention to is how the means of production really will/could look like. We aren't going to go back for many of our answers to energy scarcity. It might have that appearance, but the world is several billion people larger now, and it got their because of the development of capitalism for the last 200 years. Where we go once capitalism spends its cash, so to speak, as an economic program, as a way of organizing and running society, will be deeply conditioned by the way things are right now.

For one thing, simply going back 75, 100-200 years when it comes to how we get our food, get around, get our jollies is not going to work. Thinking like that is not really going to help us either; such thinking is endemic to problem we're in now. We have come to where we are today, which is to say, over 6 billion people, around 300million alone in the United States, because we have outstripped the productive potentials of those former ways of making things and getting around.

Where we go next is going to be influenced by the greatest problem that will always be with humans and all living beings so long as they live: how am I going to get enough to eat? I am less confident that simply returning to an antiquated mode of food production, which is to say as a nation relying on local food production the way we used to do it, will solve the problem of feeding 300million people. Not because I think we couldn't do it, but because I don't think it would be enough, especially when there are a whole host of other local burdens most people would have to start to take on themselves. I think the change in how we get our grits will be much more complicated and influenced by the conditions we actually live in right now than this author deals with.

I repeat: talk of "return to this, return to that..." is symptomatic of the same thinking that brings us to the point where we have to change or die.

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

» RE: conomic Disparity? Posted by: Draconis
» RE: conomic Disparity? Posted by: pdxstudent
» What I am saying is this... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I'll give you that. Posted by: antiapathy
» RE: economic Disparity? Posted by: bttl
» some ideas Posted by: jan-karl
Forward Thinkers...
Posted by: daytripper on Apr 4, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forward thinkers are alway ridiculed. As Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Some people just can't get their brain to work in such a way that allows them to consider that their own narrow world view may, in fact, be wrong.

anarkissed.blogspot.com

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

Currently...
Posted by: Farmertim on Apr 4, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a organic/biologically based farmer my inputs of trace minerals still travel about 700 miles to get to my field and into my crops.
My feed source for grain is 30 miles away, and most of my customers for my dairy production is 25 miles away.
As I look to the ability to produce anything without this current footprint I am faced with two choices.
Grow crops at a lower rate of production and nutrient density which in time I will have no viable animals, milk or crops, or spend like crazy now to remineralize the soil so when the cost is too prohibitive I can keep the soil active and whole with the rotations that keep it so.
But as I look around the nearly 3 square miles of crops that surround me, it will be all corn next year to feed the ethenol plant 10 miles to the north.
Cornell and UC Berkley just found out what Sweden knew 25 years ago that grain to ethenol is a net loss energy conversion, at a rate of around 29%.
It is my plan to be self suffecient and sustainable with sound practices but I can only feed about 300 families on the acreage I have....that leaves about 750,000 people out of luck within 20 miles of me.
Kunsler is correct and is only getting better in speaking his message backed by more studies and realities that are coming apparent to more than just him and his colleages.
To think otherwise is to fall into the fact that it is hard to admit your whole life is based on a false pretense.
Every time you turn the key to your car, tractor, or buy a plane ticket, your one day closer to when you cannot, or wish you could, but cannot afford to.
The average miles on hamburger in the store, and veggies for that matter is now over 1500, cut that cord and see how much will be in the store on any given day.
There will come a day when you wished you had those canning jars you gave way found in the basment of your grandparents house when you cleaned it out.
We must begin to examine the way we grow crops, treat our land, and use what resources we have left to assure our grandchildren can live in the future, not hold up the 7% growth rate..simply live a life and enjoy each other without fighting for the scrapes our current model will leave us.
Farmer Tim

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

» RE: Currently... Posted by: richholland
» RE: Currently... Posted by: bttl
» RE: Currently... Posted by: georgiadrake
» RE: Mineralizing the Soil Posted by: krishna
Amen
Posted by: nopuppy on Apr 4, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The obsession on the automobile, the notion that life can't exist without it, is something I've never really grasped, though I do understand that several generations haven't known any transport system but the automobile and the airplane. However, I lived in New York City for 25 years and one of the things that kept me there was the fact that I didn't need an automobile to go to work or buy my groceries. Now I'm out of the city and, while I only drive to work and the grocery store, and once in a while to pick up friends at the bus stop, I am of course dependent on a car. I may love walking, but a 12-mile hike to work through a blizzard, a raging rain storm, or in subfreezing temperatures, as I enter my golden years, is not appealing. The "mass transit" system in my county is laughable and used only by the very poor and the handicapped. Its schedules do not even accommodate the standard workday hours. (It is, however, cheap.) I live in an area that used to be a major part of the NE canal system, and I'm hoping that as we transition into a carless future that system can be rebuilt, mass transit will evolve into something one can actually use, and the railroads will be brought back into efficient service. But car-obsession is not going to go gently into that good night. Like most irrational fixations, there is more emotion invested in it than reality warrants.

We've barely scratched the surface of biofuels and we're already seeing the havoc diverting foods to fuels will create. Nope, cars will have to go.

I don't have much faith in humankind, because most folks can't seem to see past the way things have "always been," i.e., the few years they've lived since their late childhood. If we'd started working towards a petroleum-free future we'd be halfway home by now. If the oil companies had invested in future profits from renewable energy rather than crouched over the quick, immediate profits of oil, they'd already be positioned for success. As it is, prehistoric thinking seems inextricably tied to prehistoric fuels, and we're all due for a bumpy ride.

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

» RE: Amen-Not! Posted by: SamFox
» RE: Amen-Not! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» nopuppy Posted by: SamFox
» RE: nopuppy Posted by: greenman
Energy needed, any way you slice it
Posted by: Jeffski on Apr 4, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question at "Wishful thinking" made me think of another, that I hadn't before -- where is he going to get all the energy needed for all these trains and boats, etc.? And not just *running* the trains and boats, but the energy to build or re-build the infrastructure? He says we have to do all this because we're running out of energy, but what he's describing needs massive amounts of energy to put into place, let alone to operate thereafter.

Trains may be more efficient than individual trucking -- but not by much, and he's talking about shifting virtually all existing freight *and* passenger traffic to rails. Most rails are already at capacity, with backlogs threatened at all major U.S. ports. The shift he's describing would require a massive expenditure of energy (mining iron ore for rails, shipping rails (likely from China or Indonesia), making sleepers and beds from wood or concrete, making rail cars (steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, fabrics), re-building passenger depots, etc.

I'm not saying it can't be done -- but if we're going to spend all that money and energy, is this the best way to do it? There will *always* be a need for individualized freight and passenger transportation. Even in the late 19th century, not every town was served by rail, and even in those that were freight haulers were needed to move goods from depots to individual stores, while residents kept individual wagons and buggys for personal transport. Ditto even the largest seaport communities in the 18th century -- how did people get from dock to store or home, except by individualized (and usually individually-owned) means of transport?

In other words, if we're always going to need some level of individualized transport, *and* we're going to make a massive investment of money and energy, is the most efficient answer a complete re-orienting of our nation's existing infrastructure -- or instead focusing that expenditure on evolutionary progress of that existing infrastructure?

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

The End Times of America.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 4, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cue the fiddler. Like ancient Rome, the United States is about to go up in flames. Lucky for me, having been born in 1935, I experienced the best times in American history -- never to be seen again.

Gone are the glory days of shared sacrifice and common goals. The label “USA” now means Universally Selfish Americans who eagerly follow examples set by greedy national leaders, both Republicans and Democrats.

Sadly for me because I witnessed the best days, America has become a two-class society of Haves and Have-Nots. Last year for the first time ever, the top 400 richest citizens had a net worth of one billion dollars or more. Conversely they were the biggest cheapskates in U.S. history who gave only 1 percent of their income to charity. Why? Because money is now a symbol of power.

More money also means bigger mansions, private jets, million-dollar condos in Dubai – coveted cash stuffed in offshore bank accounts, invested in global stock funds, never to be shared with Americans unfortunate enough to be born poor, the 37 million Americans who live below the poverty line, barely about to feed themselves and their families.

We should be ashamed of ourselves, but that virtue -- shame -- has disappeared from American society as well. For the first time since 1776, we are fighting a war that requires no shared sacrifice, except by our military and their families. For that same reason -- selfishness, which squanders precious national resources for instant gratification -- Americans 50 years from now will be lucky to own bicycles, much less cars.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with irrefutable, hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

It is amazing
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 4, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how dedicated some people are to industrialism. They are willing to fight wars and suffer just to continue to have that industrialism which they know very well will not lead to anything approaching their current standard of living and level of consumption.

The author talks about running out of oil changing the way in which industrial economies function. I would argue that what we face will make industrial economies nearly impossible to begin with. I would further argue that we should embrace this fact and learn to live again without industrialism... partly because we simply have no real choice in the matter.

I hear again and again that people just don't like all this doom and gloom and all these inconvenient things. Thats too bad, because you are each and every one of you going to have to grow up and act like adults because whether you like it or not, whether you would rather be doing something else.. watching TV or shopping.. this is not something you or any of us can simply opt out of because it is boring and not fun. This goes to show just how lazy and childish our society has become that we refuse to even begin to deal with these problems because they are depressing and we would rather just wrap ourselves in the consumerist haze that got us here in the first place.

www.greenanarchy.org

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

» It is amazing..... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It is amazing..... Posted by: HeroesAll
» two points Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Extremists
Posted by: ng1944 on Apr 4, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is what we'e got,
extremists on the right or extremists on the left

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

Population adjustment
Posted by: SteveO on Apr 4, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Mr Kuntsler doesn't say is that the population will have become much smaller by the time things settle out into the more localized economy. Many people will react to the total upheaval of their lives very violently. Others will simply give up, sit down and die rather than lose the Walmat/Mall/Happy Motoring life style.

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

» RE: Population adjustment Posted by: toolband
New techniques revitalize old oil wells
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BAKERSFIELD, Calif., March 5 Old oil fields in California and elsewhere are the petroleum industry's version of the fountain of youth thanks to new extraction technology.

The Kern River field at Bakersfield, Calif., has produced oil for 108 years and now kicks out 8 1/2 times the oil it did in the 1960s thanks to high-pressure steam injection systems. In Texas, carbon dioxide will be used to force more oil out of the 1930s-era Means field.

Yes, there are finite resources in the ground, but you never get to that point, Chevron engineer Jeff Hatlen said. That's why peak oil is a moving target. Oil is always a function of price and technology.But some petroleum geologists believe the peak is just about here, The New York Times said Monday. I am very, very seriously worried about the future we are facing, said Kjell Aleklett of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. It is clear that oil is in limited supplies.Still, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates recently placed recoverable oil resources at 4.8 trillion barrels, up from the 3.3 trillion barrels estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2000.

Copyright 2007 by UPI

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/36971.html

In 2006, Canadian producers put out 1.1 million barrels per day of oil from their oil sands reserves.

Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said they have two possible outlooks for the future of Canadian oil sands; both involve increased production, it's just a matter of how much.

"Conventional oil production is slowing but oil sands will grow," Stringham said at the Energy Information Administration 2007 Annual Energy Outlook in Washington Wednesday. Under ideal conditions, by 2015 production is predicted to be between 2.9 million and 3.5 million barrels a day and between 3.3 million and 4 million barrels per day by 2020. In a constrained scenario, the number is slightly less.

Some of the inhibitors Stringham suggested were in the number of refineries able to handle the heavy oil, the amount of available pipeline to transport it, the transportation infrastructure for moving construction equipment and the availability of construction work forces to build the oil sands recovery plants.

Costs of labor, tires and steel, among other things have driven up the cost of constructing a plant from $3.3 billion in 2001 to $10 billion in 2007.

One suggested solution was manufacturing components of the plants where the work force is more plentiful and then putting the pieces together on-site with a much smaller staff.


Copyright 2007 by UPI

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

Peak Oil
Posted by: astralman on Apr 4, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can jump off the ship, but how long can you survive in the water? Read The Long Emergency, check out the issues related to peak oil on the internet. Doom doesn't always hold the hand of gloom, change is inevitable therefore, work on your attitude towards life, rethink your priorities, then move on and accept that a life without petroleum products and the associate lifestyles isn't a problem, but getting there will be because of our current actions and wrong attitudes towards life.

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

a more optimistic view
Posted by: pennyscan on Apr 4, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
UK population 60 million
distance per person per year 7000 miles
or 20 miles per day

cost of electricity 5 pence / KWh
high performance electric car 0.5 pence per mile
(e.g. tesla etc.)
or 10 miles per KWh
or 2KWh per day
or 10 pence per day

or 730KWh per year
or £36 per year !

Nuclear power station = 5GW
or 43,800,000,000 KWh per year
or transportation energy
for 60 million people !
Extra power stations to reduce oil dependency by 60% - one
(unless my math is wrong)

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

» True Posted by: suprmark
» RE: a more optimistic view Posted by: keep_it_real
» RE: a more optimistic view Posted by: pennyscan
So...let me get this straight?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 4, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When energy becomes scarce, the value will increase, and people will either pay more for it or use less of it?

And that might affect automobile usage, you say?

Great Scott! Someone ring the economists! There is a new paradiggum in town, and we shall call it "supply and duh, man".

And yes, I did read it. The proof is in the typo: The four reigning supergiant fields of oil our time were discovered decades ago and are now in decline.

What will happen: as energy gradually gets more expensive, lower income urban folks folks who ride the bus will have to make room for the rest of the lower income folks who've grudgingly held onto their expensive-to-maintain hoopties. So, they win in "losing" their gasoline bill, "losing" their insurance (well...) payments, and "losing" the pressure to buy $700 wheels because they--now get this--spin!

Yay! No more trips to Al Sharpton's favorite pay-day loan company to make the car note on a 12-year old jalopy! More money for food, books, less time spent under the hood (no pun intended), and the cities will enjoy cleaner air once the 6 mi/gal Lincoln Land Whales with the "optional" EGRs and catalytic converters are perma-beached.

Smart middle-class urbanites will also give up the car, in favor of saving for retirement, a house, education, etc. as the price of owning and operating YourFavoriteHybridMotorCar increases beyond the level of "expensively foolish". As they begin to hop on the bus and elevated (yippee!) rail, the demand for these services will expand...and the yuppies will demand constant improvement. Which means that everyone wins again, eventually.

As for the author's little religious crusade against suburbia, suburbia will get commuter rail. Why? Initially, for the same reason they typically get better schools--they have the tax dollars to support it. And, eventually, rail penetration will be necessary to bring engineers, docs, and lawyers into town once the price of oil makes driving for even those folks prohibitive.

The situation won't change an awful lot for very rurual folks. The price of food will go up; we'll still need trucks for the foreseeable future to bring food to market, and they'll be able to put gas (diesel) in their necessary vehicles and pass the cost onto people who like to eat.

So. We're back were we started: The New Economic Law of Duh, Man and the Revelation that a Restricted Supply Might Affect Consumption.

Knustler should write another book. Royalties for the ideas above may be mailed c/o ABetterFuture.

One little issue with the author's manifesto. He claims that the U.S. has misallocated the largest amount of wealth...blah,..blah...blah. I submit to you that our resistance to let some petty tyrant with a narrow set of pet issues decide where a free peoples can and can't allocate wealth is what brought the wealth in the first place.

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

HORSE PUCKY!!
Posted by: SamFox on Apr 4, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Al Gore & his ilk start riding bikes I may start to believe. Until then I say Bull dumplings!!!

Small walk about communities: More like gov controlled minimum security prisons. Will the fat cats live there? Will they quit flying private jets? Will Rosie & Al lose weight? They both look like they do plenty of the consuming they want the rest of to control.

Oil peaked? Sure it has...There is plenty of oil but the oil company sponsored environmental bile movement has the oil fields locked up as they pretend to care for the environment. Sure, individuals in the movement care, but over all they are oil co shills.

Oil is not a fossil fuel & is constantly renewed.

http://www.the7thfire.
com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm
(One link. Delete space between "fire." & "com")

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanleyA.htm

Global warming?
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive113.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon168.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanleyA.htm
Here is a video by some in the scientific community:
http://www.bottomlineradio.net/ (Look for An Inconvenient Scientific Discovery.)

People, you can believe what you want. If you think the gov & the UN are our hope we are all doomed to their control. We already have the NY food police & are told that cows are ruining the atmosphere. If you believe that do you also believe what the war on drugs crowd tells us about the dangers cannabis & hemp as they continue the futile lost drug war?? Peak oil, global warming & the Reefer Madness war on drugs are brought to us by the same cabal. Man, the propaganda machine just never quits. When are we going to quit believing them? They are playing us for suckers. Don't play into their game or we will all be prisoners in gov controlled sanctuaries.

It's all about control. The control of us!!

SamFox

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

» You're an idiot... though... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» consider the source. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Peak oil Posted by: Klaxton
Many more articles are accessable from this link:
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remove space:

http://www.peacebytruth.com/archive.php?area=5&P HPSESSID=482703f97bda82fd8bf70a7bcef84ab1

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

atimes.com Julian Delasantellis :
Posted by: rwa on Apr 4, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...There's no real shortage of crude oil; actually, the world is awash in it. Spare refining capacity, that's another story...

There has not been a new refinery opened in the US in 31 years; during that time, the actual number of refineries operating in the US has dropped from 301 in 1981 to 149 in 2003. (This is less dramatic than it seems; US refiners have consolidated many of their, older, smaller capacity refineries into fewer large-capacity refineries.) If more refinery construction had been allowed, it is argued, the refinery capacity crunch implied by rising crack spreads and rising pump prices would never have occurred...

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, 96 of the world's countries have operating oil refineries within their borders; of the world's 10 largest-capacity oil refineries, only two, ExxonMobil's refineries in Baytown, Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are in the US. (The world's largest-capacity oil refinery, the Paraguana Refining Complex in Venezuela, ships almost the entirety of its product of 940,000 barrels a day to the US east coast.)


According to the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, total world refinery capacity has only increased 1.5% from 2000 to 2005, from 81.53 to 82.8 million barrels a day (mb/d)...

During the summer of 2000, California electricity supply crisis, when large parts of the state were being subjected to daily electricity blackouts, the late Ken Lay, at that time chief executive officer of the Enron Corporation, a major player in the California wholesale electricity market, mocked David Freeman, chairman of the California Power Authority, by, according to Freeman, stating: "It doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money."

The main thing that Lay's smart guys, as well as the people in the oil industry who are not building new refinery capacity, have figured out is that the market for energy is very unique. When demand is high and supplies are tight, you make less money selling your product than by not selling it. This is what Enron did through taking offline much of California-dedicated electricity-generating capacity for strategically timed (in the California summer, when air-conditioning puts intense demand on power supplies) "maintenance". This drove prices up and created scarcity, not just in California, but all across the western US's interlinked electricity power transmission grid.

"Maintenance" is the same reason that the oil companies annually, including this year, give for taking refinery capacity offline in spring, driving prices up, and setting the world's drivers up for the fuel price increase season that now lasts into early autumn.

This yearly problem, and the tightness in the world's petroleum products markets in general, could be alleviated with new refinery construction, but, as demonstrated above, this is not happening. Oil refinery construction can be a difficult and expensive process, one which probably requires the company to go into debt by either issuing corporate bonds or taking out lines of credit with large commercial banks.

Much better to take the money that would have been spent on refinery construction and use it more judiciously, on things like risk-free short-term dollar or euro treasury securities (currently earning about 5.25% annually) and increased and enhanced corporate salaries, perks and dividends. This strategy is certainly working; oil company profits are skyrocketing. Early this year, ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, reported the largest-ever quarterly and yearly profits, $10.71 billion and $36.13 billion respectively, ever reported by an American corporation...

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

» RE: I see... Posted by: ateo
Why I think this is (mostly) bunk
Posted by: swick on Apr 4, 2007 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kunstler seems to be thinking that the way forward is back, and his needle is stuck in that groove.
I agree that the automobiles and trucks will become something we use much more rarely. And that's about it.
There are many innovations that are conveniently being ignored. I can do my job now from home, on my PC. I commute to work largely due to tradition. These sorts of wasteful behaviors will end.
There is a man in New Jersey who invented a personal solar collector that fulfills his entire household needs and then some. Why wouldn't we mass-produce these things and have one for every household?
Railroads need to replace highways for long distance shipping. But why in the world would we use boats again? I can't imagine pushing merchandise again water resisntance and currents is more efficient than steel wheels on steel rails. Or better yet, maglev trains.
I think Kunstler is just a Luddite pushing the panic button.

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

» Well.. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Who needs cars?
Posted by: Maryanne on Apr 4, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was growing up in an urban setting, there were almost no people who owned cars. Most of what was needed could be purchased in the immediate neighborhood or was delivered to the house. What could not be obtained locally, was accessible via public transportation.

The only ones who would need autos would be those who actually live in rural areas.

The suburbs need to be changed to be more neighborhood friendly, with stores and services close by rather than large shopping malls. and limited to no public transportation available.

When my mother was young, she was able to travel throughout the western part of the state easily on trollys, and street cars, with much less stress than we have now.

And while we are at saving oil, should we not get rid of jet skis, ATVs, Dune Buggies , snowmobiles, etc. that are used primarily for entertainment? These shoud be limited to being used in emergencies.

And get more public transportation- including rail transport since the airlines are so uncomfortable and doing such a poor job. Try a train trip. What a way to travel!

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

» What a way to travel! Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: What a way to travel! Posted by: Maryanne
forget statistics, look at the quality of contemporary american life.
Posted by: astralman on Apr 4, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what is revealing about many comments are people's refusal to accept that life as we know it could change sooner rather than later and that the "incessant motoring," big box shopping, and suburban lifestyles are supposedly worth defending tooth and nail against any other possible way of utilizing financial and land resources for the public good. if you find vinyl tract housing, excessive auto traffic, and wal-mart smilies, and shopping malls to be the high point of western civilization's accomplishments then you need to read more books and travel outside of america and see the world. there's nothing wrong with being american, but we could make huge improvements upon our built environment and show much more compassion and charity towards each other.

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

» Paris Posted by: Dboy
This article is dumb
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Apr 4, 2007 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is stupid: we will not be facing an energy crisis anytime soon. There is more oil waiting in the shale in colorado than there is under Saudi Arabia. The only reason we would face an energy shortage is if the government were to prohibit the exploitation of this and other similar resources. What's more, the only reason it's so cheap for people to buy and use a car relative to, say, taking a metro, is because the government steals money from people to build roads they use for free! The solution to global warming isn't a bunch of environmental regulations, it is making it so that people can't socialize the costs of doing things such as driving to work or disposing of garbage.

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

» RE: This article is dumb Posted by: Dboy
» Your comment is dumb Posted by: HeroesAll
Neo-Totalitarians at it Again
Posted by: dayahka on Apr 4, 2007 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neo-Totalitarians are those who envisage a future to their liking and then try to argue that either it is inevitable (historical necessity) or is morally required (and must be politically enforced). The author is clearly a Neo-Tot.

Why on earth should we necessarily or morally give up cars? Isn't part of the problem the fact that everyone is driving a "group" or "family" car, nearly 99 percent of the time with only one passenger? (Smaller, one-person cars would be much more suitable for an urban environment--and cheaper to operate.)...And while locally-produced food is a nice idea, what makes the author think that we can't grow food in the urban areas, in "green" buildings, the way they do in China? And why do we just absolutely have to give up and go back to the past? Can't we just let human ingenuity and natural "market" forces determine the outcome?

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

» RE: Neo-Totalitarians at it Again Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Electric cars are available already
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Apr 4, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is possible, but not likely, that affordable electric cars will come on the market before we get into serious trouble with oil."

Electric cars are already on the market. For example:

Zenn Motors

These are quite good enough to get around town, especially once it is recognized that they meet safety targets and the law limiting them to 25 mph ican be raised to 35 mph.

They're also less expensive that most combustion-driven cars.

Combine them with a good, cheap solar system and you'll be free of both the local power company and the gas station.

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

Car Free for 2 Years
Posted by: Gravitas on Apr 4, 2007 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I gave up my car 2 years ago in protest over denial of global warming. So far, I think there are more advantages than disadvantages. I enjoy walking, definitely a stress reducer! (Although some on the left want to capitalize on the alleged "obesity epidemic" to get people to go car free, sorry but it did not make me any thinner. Not that I wanted to be anyway!) It did help me cut down on consumption! No more going to Costco and loading up the trunk. I have to think about what I can physically carry! So it helps me stick to my budget. I have been able to save some money finally. I also have more time for reading/writing on the train/bus/el. And one can indulge occasionally and not have to worry about driving home intoxicated. The major disadvantages are fellow riders who have no manners. The cell phone yackers who think everyone on the bus wants to be a party to their drama (or mundane details of their boring little lives). Or those obnoxious headphones that leak and one can only hear static. People who let their bratty kids run up and down the isles, deluded into thinking everyone else thinks it is cute! All in all, I don't regret my choice!

"Weight obsession is a social disease. If we cared more about CO2 than BMI there would still be time."

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

The Current Establishment’s Bad Decisions Are Hurting Us All.
Posted by: Pojer on Apr 4, 2007 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We seem to be, as a single human race, unable to settle our differences up until now. We seem to have been unable to thus far reach peace agreements allowing the people of the world to co-exist in harmony. We seem to be in a time when many feel powerless to make the systemic and cultural changes necessary to survive as a species. And as depressing as it sounds, sometimes you have to hit bottom before you can pick yourself back up. That is why as an earthbound species that expects future generations to survive, we can no longer tolerate global political corruption or warfare.

As a species who’s survival expects our children of today to be able to securely raise our children of tomorrow - we can no longer tolerate abusive practices that attempt to perversely harness or live outside the laws of nature.

As a species who’s survival is dependent on earth’s healthy ecosystems and balanced populations, we can no longer tolerate unmitigated growth and unbalanced wealth.

As a species that currently depends on oil to maintain the infrastructure used to grow and transport food, energy, and maintain vital modern living accomodations - we can no longer rely on fuels that run out in the future.

As a species who’s survival depends on a reliable supply of food, water, and shelter- we can no longer afford to operate the food and agricultural system as it operates today.

As a species who’s survival depends on cooperation among neighbors, diversified local economies, and consideration of future generations in today’s decision making - we can no longer afford to avoid this conversation.

And the conversation needs to take place, right now, peacefully, and at the world level, or we are all doomed - and you still have this life to live, all the way to the end. So I ask you to make changes needed to preserve the world and the beautiful animals that inhabit it, and that includes humans.

Whether God made us or not, it is your duty to help preserve the earth.

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

It is amazing.....
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 4, 2007 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....to me that some people assume that anyone who disagrees with certain points in essays such as Mr. Kunstler's are, seemingly, assumed to be doing so because they're "dedicated.....to industrialism" and would prefer to "be doing something else...(i.e.), watching TV or shopping".

While I agree with the general thrust of most of Mr. Kunstler's views - the need to "de-Walmartize" the economy, abandon the entire concept of suburbs as currently conceived, and limit or even eliminate use of the personal automobile - I nevertheless sense certain contradictions in his vision which I suspect represent personal ideologic bias. If we can set up an entire national electrified railway system, as he suggests, why wouldn't we be able to support centralized universities for the higher education of our young people? After all, electrified rail didn't exist in the pre-industrial era, but universities certainly did. One can't help but wonder whether what's really going on here is that the author dislikes the concept of university education in a personal sense, and thinks we should dispense with this option for our young people for ideologic reasons rather than real reasons of "unsustainability".

Beyond that fact, though, I think there are a lot of reasons why "partial doubters" like me would prefer to try to maintain some of humanity's hard-won "techno-fixes" for future generations if possible - and they don't just have to do with a desperate desire to maintain access to multiple cable channels via HDTV. As a doctor who witnessed a human life saved just last week by access to a CT scanner - a young, otherwise healthy woman found to have massive pulmonary embolism, who would likely not have been correctly diagnosed otherwise - I have some respect for the positive benefits of technology. I also treat about 60 patients with HIV infection, whose lives literally depend on the administration of "high-tech" anti-retroviral medications - as would the lives of about 40 million other patients worldwide, should we ever choose to treat them.

Those who advocate for a "pre-industrial" future often cast themselves in something of a heroic mold - struggling against the apathy and mental lassitude of consumerist society, cleansing the world of selfishness and "me-first" thinking, restoring a lost sense of environmental responsibility and humanism to intellectual discourse. I question, though, whether this vision is unreservedly accurate. Advocating for an unqualified reversion to pre-industrial society as it existed in the 16-1700's is a recipe for death and devastation on a massive scale - not only over the short, but over the long term as well. One shouldn't forget that life for MOST individuals of that era was harsh, brutish, and (probably mercifully) short in most cases. If we really propose to dispense with all modern "techno-fixes", then that is likely what we'll revert to. I'm not sure that's something I - or most individuals alive today - would sanguinely accept. Indeed, I personally would view it as something of a sign of "terminal" apathy if we did.

I actually get the impression Mr. Kunstler does believe in some degree of "techno-fixing", meaning that his vision isn't entirely as "doom and gloom" as some posters'. That provides some basis, perhaps, for disagreement and positive discussion. In any case, I'd hope that those who argue against "techno-fixing", or "industrialism", or whatever one wants to call it, will realize that at least some of their "opponents" - who may actually agree with them on many fundamental points - aren't always coming from the perspective of maximizing personal conveniences or "techno-pleasures", but may actually at times be arguing instead from a perspective of preserving elements of our industrial society that actually contribute in a genuinely positive way to bettering the lives of human beings, both now and in the future.

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

» Thanks for elucidating this. Posted by: Ben Furman
» RE: It is amazing..... Posted by: astralman
My horse
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 4, 2007 7:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could replace my car. Except the nearest town is 13 miles away.
What we need are villages.

I was just talking the other day to a woman who lives in California. She has a windmill and she has NO electric bill-plus the power company pays her each month for the extra power she sells them...we already HAVE the technology.

What we need to change is the way we live...which is impossible when our president is an oilman.

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

Yes, just keep dreaming and imagining but
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 4, 2007 8:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it ain't gonna happen any time soon. It's gonna take a long time to ween out of it. L8r.

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

slow change, sure
Posted by: bostongatewayfpm on Apr 4, 2007 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Americans could reduce energy usage by 40% what would life be like? Like Japan.

I live in Yokohama a city of nearly 4 million next to Tokyo with 12 million. Public transport is great, no need for a car. If someone around here owns a car, then it's probably the 'family car,' not one car per person in the family... just one car. There's almost no public parking, so keeping a private parking space costs about $200 a month. Gas costs $5 a gallon. Parking near shops is about $5 an hour, no public street parking at subsidized rates like the US. Highways are only Tollways starting at $8. A simple 2 hour ride on the expressway may cost up to $50 plus gas. Speeding tickets are easily $800 and parking tickets in the $300 range. Sound expensive? That's because there are almsot no subsidies. Japan imports about 98% of its oil.

Most people buy smaller, energy efficient cars... but BMW and Mercedes still do great business here for the status conscious. I live a comfortable middle class life with out a car, no need it's too much trouble. My brother-in-law even offered to give me a car! No thanks, I'll take the train which is faster, safer, and cheap.

Public transport here is clean, safe, and on time. When I lived in San Francisco (a US city with 'good' transport) trains and buses were rarely clean, safe, or on time. Those factors are very important for successful public transport.

Until the true cost of car ownership is stripped of its subsidies Americans will drive and love their cars.

Make gas $10 a gallon, charge market rates for street parking, tax parking at suburban shopping centers (say $250 a month per space), end the federal subsidies of the interstate system. In a about 10 years America's oil usage would easily be cut in half.

The truth is car ownership isn't freedom. If you don't have a car most cities are virtually unliveable. People don't interact with each other. Life is only about convenience and Costco. Everything is drive-thru and mass marketed. New Jersey, Georgia and Oregon all feel the same because they are. Same highways, motels, and fast food joints.

The American lifestyle is held hostage to car ownership. We fight wars to secure the main energy source for our 'lifestyle.'

Live your life without a car for two years and see how much freedom you get back. Of course not everyone can do that, but if you can't then you have to admit you are addicted.

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

» No change at all! Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: slow change, sure Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: slow change, sure Posted by: peterklok
Where is the solution?
Posted by: justAnEgg on Apr 4, 2007 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China is a perfect example of food production vs. population growth inefficiency, throughout her long history. Only by introducing capitalism - the economy of growth - did China finally reduce the poverty rate, starting a cycle of production meeting the population's needs.

I don't see a successful model of sustainable economy without a restrictive demographic policy. Then again, doesn't sustainable economy mean return to agricultural societies, stifling scientific and technological development and - ultimately - doesn't it mean downfall to primitive societies, because scientific and technological development require concentration of wealth which doesn't exist in agricultural societies? I'm just asking, because I'm aware of the fact that those very same agricultural societies historically spawned industrial and technological revolution - but wouldn't return back to local, agricultural economies mean a loop back in history of mankind?

Joseph Schumpeter introduced the notion of "growth through innovation", as opposed to Walrasian equilibrium. Where is the place of such a concept of innovation in the eroding industrial society? Where is - in terms of science and economy - the point of successful reconciliation of the two of them?

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

The only way we end oil dependence is out of necessity, suddenly, and violently
Posted by: ateo on Apr 5, 2007 12:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either we will replace our current energy sources with something different (not necessarily sustainable, just different - and abundant) or we will continue with things as they are until it all comes crashing down around us. If we fail to replace oil with another energy source then perhaps the general collapse of civilization and a new dark age awaits humanity.

Expecting people to adapt to something before it happens is unreasonable. Since when do people change their life style until they absolutely have no choice? Never. The best we can do is attempt to plan ahead. The problem there is, as the writer points out, our system is incapable of maintaining anything resembling itself in such a scenario so planning for it would necessarily include the destruction of the bureaucracies doing the planning. No organization plans for the destruction of itself, indeed, they are incapable of doing so.

So we've ruled out anything the government can do to plan for this scenario should it play out. Beyond that you have to acknowledge that if our cheap energy and all that it produces were to disappear the population of the U.S. would likely crash. I'd expect no less than a 30% die off of the U.S. human population over 5 years. People know how to do everything except survive in a world without cars, freeways, and supermarkets.

I certainly hope the writer of the article's vision doesn't come to pass because there won't be much left of the U.S. but a military dictatorship, various hillbilly communities + ultra right wing militias, and massive gangs running the show. The American economic machine runs on oil and it doesn't just stop one day and life continues as normal. I would expect death and chaos on a scale never before seen in human history.

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

of compost toilets and carfree living.Thanks Mr Kunstler
Posted by: Christy Xy on Apr 5, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born in 1954 and never bought or owned a car. I have a family of four now and we have no car still. California has been easier than Kentucky and Minnesotta for this. Having a "bike truck" has really helped once we had kids.
Kunstler is right as I read most environmentalists and others are too obsessed with car solutions. There is no way to convey what it means but to live without it. You have to experience it, develop those sixth senses, drunk driver approaching fast from behind...whatever...Life is fatal.
I would love good passenger rail, but I think suburbs can become farms...small wells in the west, cisterns in the rainy places. But what replaces the 95% of our nitrogen fertilizer now made from natural gas? (albeit "stranded") Humanure. Joe Jenkins wrote this great book. In the west, most cities, counties, and states use their greatest allocation of energy on water pumping. This is a three for one, save energy, save water, and get good compost for growing your food...no transportation...bucket hauling, or other systems. I have been doing this three years and now on a larger scale for temporary music camp, all extremely sucessfully...
Homeschooled my kids until one decided to go, but that choice has completely altered her relationship with the institutions she has attended, she is in control, has choice...Son will never go, I think...Sure universities can exist, what many are becoming now is just corporate research and development outposts anyway.
Kunstler forgot to mention that manufacturing in US now beyond extended housing bubbles with hairdstylists, nail painters, and chicken fryer/burger flippers....is armament manufacturers...Depleted uranium munitions exporters and whatnot...
Oil companies are not building refineries because there is not that much to refine, the capacity for the oil that exists, exists...Venzuela has the largest refinery in the world...

What is happening to the bees? This I suspect is likely to be the circle that closes the population issue ...the population grew with cheap oil/Green Revolution and it will decline. Only China succeeded in reducing population growth, by 300 million with the one child policy...India figured out how to feed its hords, soon to exceed Chinese numbers...Thanks Mr. Kunstler, another great article, we don't have to agree on everything.
Coming of age rites now need to bypass car driving and ownership, drinking and drug use, and shift to land gifting food growing, water management, and the practice of citizenship, thinking and talking to each other...Music making, dancing, and other arts should be practiced from day one...no one makes you learn to write before you talk, nor should they with music, learning and sharing by ear will increase all of our self confidence, competence and satisfaction from a young age...perhaps helping us wean ourselves from computer addictions...

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

Somewhere near Topeka...
Posted by: greenman on Apr 5, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... another idiot is taking a drive for no particular reason, possibly to inject an illusion of meaning into an otherwise vapid existence. But they are living the American Dream, brought to you courtesy of Corporate America. Have fun, and keep the money rolling in, you all!

Greenman

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

» RE: Somewhere near Topeka... Posted by: Logic's Edge
Marty
Posted by: marty.ferguson on Apr 5, 2007 11:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone had mentioned Michael Pollan in an earlier posting. For anyone interested in the science of the "Green Revolution" along with the details of fixing nitrogen in fertilizers, there was an excellent article in the Smithsonian Magazine recently. It is posted on the their site here:

Whats Eating America

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

Marty
Posted by: marty.ferguson on Apr 6, 2007 1:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, and about light rail... the dismantling of our nation's trolley system in the 20th century. It's not a conspiracy theory, but documented fact. Read about the scandal on wikipedia

Great American Streetcar Scandal

My point here is not about the merit of the scandal and the underlying motivation for the US to become more cosmopolitan, but rather the rate at which these overlapping infrastructures were built out and dismantled.

So for those who doubt about the ability for major infrastructure changes to be deployed in a short amount of time, I would suggest you consider just how rapidly the canal system and the national rail systems were built out, then followed by the interstate highway system and the mega-industry to support motor vehicles; tire dealers, service/gas stations, state troopers, and DOTs, DMVs, the automotive enthusiast journalism press, and everything else wrapped up in our insane love affair with our vehicles.

The greatest threat to be considered is the extent to which our livelihoods will change when presently so much of our economy is centered around automotive transportation and energy distribution. By the same token, if we were to consider the massive expenditures for the war department (DoD) and then consider how those same resources could be leveraged toward transforming our economic engine, it becomes easier to fathom how these proposed changes could be effected.

In terms of the ability to support 6+++ billion people on the planet, one of the first things we all can do is to gravitate toward a more plant-based diet. When one does the arithmetic, it would be far more efficient for us to just digest petroleum oil, compared to the massive enerty inefficiencies required...
to grow the corn
to feed the animal
to transport it to the slaughterhouse
to ship it in refrigerated trucks
to deliver it to the supermarket freezer
to drive my vehicle to the store
to buy the flesh
too cook it on the propane grille
to feast on the fatted calf at the house
that jack built.

These are not sustainable practices, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are star-wars defense systems, nor are bunker buster nukes, nor are tall fences with infra-red video cameras on the Mexican border. Blowing the tops off of mountains and bulldozing the debris into the valleys and streams in order to get at the coal? Also, not sustainable. Really, we're all in this together.

What is important is that we begin moving steadfastly and confidently toward transforming these existing non-sustainable and inefficient infrastructures while petroleum is still plentiful and cheap. We could frame this situation as an upcoming crisis. But in the broader picture of history, it's more accurate to look at this as the end of the 20th century oil glut.

Each day we delay taking the steps toward transformation is a day closer to peak oil; the gravity of the situation warrants immediate action.

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

Time To Change
Posted by: badger on Apr 6, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first read "Geography Of Nowhere" about ten years ago. Since then, I resolved to sell my house in the country (which required me to drive to a job that paid well enough to pay the mortgage AND the car insurance AND the gas...), and after careful looking, chose to move to a small town. This town, located on a river, has a rail line (which once carried passenger trains), a small university, and just across the river was X Company. So I resturned to school (yup, I walk to my classes - so far, so good ...), and buy locally-grown produce, and applied to intern at X Co. Problem was, X Co. decided it was "too far away from the interstates to be convenient" and moved to a city 20 miles away. X Co. is now located amidst several auto dealerships; no way will there ever be public transportation there!! X Co. never once considered trying to take advantage of the rail line, either for delivery of goods or people. I'm still stuck driving to work, as there's no other reliable employer around here.
My point is, change isn't easy and our attempts can be both painful and exasperating. Nevertheless change will happen to us anyway, so it's best to anticipate what that might be and so "get busy" as Mr. Kunstler has put it. But maybe my choice of locale isn't too far off the mark: across the river is an abandoned canal that could be put back into working shape again. I may yet become a university-degreed mule driver, instead of trying to go to work past all those rusting-dead dealerships.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Kunstler. Rachel Carson was ridiculed, too, but she was still right.

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

Too dismissive of alternative technologies
Posted by: johndoraemi on Apr 6, 2007 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've had my run ins with other "peak oilers" about their derogatory and dismissive treatment of up and coming alternatives.

The DOE told us years ago that the wind in 6 states had enough energy to power the entire US grid.

If the US had been building wind turbines 30 years ago, the way the Europeans have in the last 10 years, there wouldn't be much of a noticeable problem.

Doom and gloom does sell books. That's an economic fact.

My second argument with the classic "peak oil" reasoning is that we must use (mostly WASTE) energy in the future the way we do today (expressed negatively that we won't be able to continue at current levels). That's a terrible baseline argument! Most energy is wasted, plain and simple. The electric grid wastes over 90% of the energy produced simply by transmission loss.

Vehicles waste millions of gallons of fuel simply sitting in traffic twice a day.

The current paradigm is INSANE from an energy standpoint. Telling us that it will have to change in the future is not problematic to me. It's common sense.

Wind, solar and tide generation have enormous potential. If we ever create a "zero point" energy system for commercial distribution then the problem disappears instantly. I wouldn't bet the farm on zero point energy, but I suspect there's more there than the military industrial complex will allow us to see.

New articles at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

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

compare USA with Europe
Posted by: richholland on Apr 7, 2007 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Europe Parliament decided to lower the need of peak oil with 20% within 10 years.
A president who is in the Oilbussiness is unthinkable.
The price of 1 gallon now is 10 $ here.

in 1981 I visited USA and was disapointed about the many poor people.
Although Americas rich people have more money then an average Europa rich man the lifestyle of the middlemen is no higher than Australia, Japan or Europe due to our social system.
in this country 25% of the families have a car but 60% have bikes and you can go into the train with the bike.
please go to a library and read George Orwell 1984

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

Without "owning" a Personal Auto
Posted by: jerrypenguin on Apr 9, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, there exist a possibility that human life can exist without automobile "ownership." With my mid-life crisis, I lost everything. The crisis, that defies logic, can occur. One impact of the crisis was ending automobile "ownership." For transportation, I had to rely on my biped mechanism. That is, feet and legs. This included use of a bicycle.

Currently, I "fully own" four to seven bicycles. The use of the bikes range from rapid uphill sprinting to transportation of freight. It is possible to move two hundred pounds of stuff with a bike. Some of my bikes are given away or sold. I have become very strong physically and an expert bicycle mechanic.

Thus far, I have traveled ten's of thousand's of miles on a bicycle. The use of the bicycle started when I had to fill a two mile gap in a commute. I encourage others to attempt to walk and/or cycle. It actually works.

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

confluence of disasters
Posted by: neoanachronism on Apr 9, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I foresee a confluence of disasters with the eventual sparcity of both oil and water. The ridiculous population explosion in areas that lack their own water supplies will be compounded by the alterations in global climate. Yes, there will be wars over oil. But, these might be dwarfed by the conflicts over water.

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

Hydrogen fuel cells
Posted by: Roberto on Apr 11, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good article. Hopefully it will encourage people to buy local. The arguments are somewhat time worn though. The back to the land movement was talking about same issues 40 years ago during my college days.
The hydrogen fuel cell technology is here already. Just ask Honda. I would love to buy a basic electric car that could go 60 miles and 50 mph using an overnight charge. Why won't some benevolent billionaire start the project? Why did Chevrolet and Ford recall all their California leased electric cars and destroy them? The people I heard from said they were great cars for short trips. Why are electric cars limited to 25 mph by Federal law? Why aren't the auto manufactures on electric cars like it was the Manhattan project?
For all you political name calling partisans out there I am sick and tired of your rants about the liberal left, fundemental christians or the radical right. Partisans get a life.

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

This is excessively pessimistic
Posted by: JedRothwell on Apr 12, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am no friend of automobiles, but this is an excessively pessimistic and narrow view of technology. Liquid automobile fuel can easily be synthesized with nuclear reactors or with large numbers of wind turbines or solar thermal devices. Plug-in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles reduce the need for liquid fuel by a factor of 5 or 10. For drivers who commute less than 30 miles per day, plug-in hybrids would practically eliminate the need for liquid fuel. I expect their biggest problem would be unused gasoline that remains tank for months and gets "stale." In short, we are not going to run out of liquid fuel anytime in the foreseeable future, or if we do run out of energy or any other resource, it will be for the reasons Arthur C. Clarke predicted: "If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone Age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed." ("Profiles of the Future," 1963)

I discussed the future of automobiles in some detail in this e-book, chapter 17:

Cold Fusion and the Future

Quoting the book:

"Various schemes have been proposed to reduce some of these problems, but I regard them as unsatisfactory, unrealistic half-measures. They will cost too much. Some people advocate more mass transit, but this is a 19th-century solution to 21st century problems. It is naïve to think that Americans might give up cars and ride bicycles or walk to work, or stop living in suburbs. If those are the best solutions we can come up with, we might as well resign ourselves to living with miserable traffic jams for the next thousand years. What we need are bold, radical new solutions that eliminate the carnage, the expense, waste and frustration caused by cars, while at the same time preserving the convenience and freedom cars give us."

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

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

Sensible Transport
Posted by: Vernon Huffman on Apr 14, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I admit my vehicle isn't oil-free, but it will go 4000 miles on 4 ounces of lubricant. It's bio-fueled by whatever I eat before I spin the pedals and it carries me all over the continent.

We're now on our way from Portland, OR, to Washington, DC, by way of Santa Barbara, CA, by bicycle with two adults, an eleven-year-old and a pair of 18-month-old twins. you're welcome to join us, on a bicycle or from your home. Please visit http://www.catalystsofhope.org/.

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

Cure for all ills
Posted by: hurshy43 on Apr 23, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kunstler's arguments could be a cure for a lot of problems. A lot of the comments have come from the gloom and doom side like the college students he mentioned at the end of his article. In so many ways his view could mean good things. It might hurt but maybe it is time we are forced to do what is best for us.

This article looks at it from our dependency on gasoline. Oil is
used for so many products other then gas. It is used to make plastics which we don't know how to get rid of. They end up in our Land Fills and they are filling up. No plastics less land fill problems.

There are other problems oil products have created that can be solved also. It was commented that Kunstlers opinion was
showing in his writeing. The solution to a problem is started from an opinion. This problem is the kind we need to all take an opinion on it and find solutions to the problems.

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