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.

Environment

Finding Hope in a Post-Oil Society

By James Howard Kunstler, Orion Magazine. Posted January 23, 2007.


America invested most of its late twentieth-century wealth in a living arrangement with no future: Suburbia represents the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. It's time for us to make other arrangements.
Advertisement

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. It is a particularly American dream on a particularly 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. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production peaked in December 2005 at just over 85 million barrels a day. Since then, it has trended absolutely flat at around 84 million. Yet world oil consumption rose consistently from 77 million barrels a day in 2001 to above 85 million so far this year. A clear picture emerges: demand now exceeds world supply. Or, put another way, oil production has not increased despite the ardent wish that it would by all involved, and despite the overwhelming incentive of prices having nearly quadrupled since 2001.

There is no question that we are in trouble with oil. The natural gas situation is comparably ominous, with some differences in the technical details -- and by the way, I am referring here to methane gas (CH4), the stuff that fuels kitchen stoves and home furnaces, not cars and trucks. Natural gas doesn't deplete slowly like oil, following a predictable bell-curve pattern; it simply stops coming out of the ground when a particular gas well is played out. You also tend to get your gas from the continent you are on. To import natural gas from overseas, it has to be liquefied, loaded in a special kind of expensive-to-build-and-operate tanker, and then offloaded at a specialized marine terminal.

Reprint Notice:

This article appears in the January/February 2006 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, ($35/year for 6 issues). Subscriptions are available online: www.orionmagazine.org.

Half the homes in America are heated with gas furnaces and about 16 percent of our electricity is made with it. Industry uses natural gas as the primary ingredient in fertilizer, plastics, ink, glue, paint, laundry detergent, insect repellent, and many other common household necessities. Synthetic rubber and man-made fibers like nylon could not be made without the chemicals derived from natural gas. In North America, natural gas production peaked in 1973. We are drilling as fast as we can to keep the air conditioners and furnaces running.

What's more, the problems of climate change are amplifying, ramifying, and mutually reinforcing the problems associated with rapidly vanishing oil and gas reserves. This was illustrated vividly in 2005, when slightly higher ocean temperatures sent Hurricanes Katrina and Rita slamming into the U.S. Gulf Coast. Almost a year later, roughly 12 percent of oil production and 9.5 percent of natural gas production in the gulf was still out, probably for good. Many of these production platforms may never be rebuilt, because the amounts of oil and gas left beneath them would not justify the cost. If there is $50 million worth of oil down there, why spend $100 million replacing a wrecked platform to get it?

Climate change will also ramify the formidable problems associated with alternative fuels. As I write, the American grain belt is locked in a fierce summer drought. Corn and soybean crops are withering from Minnesota to Illinois; wheat is burning up in the Dakotas and Kansas. Meanwhile, the costs of agricultural "inputs" -- from diesel fuel to fertilizers made from natural gas to oil-derived pesticides -- have been ramping up steadily since 2003 to the great distress of farmers. Both weather and oil costs are driving our crop yields down, while the industrial mode of farming that has evolved since the Second World War becomes increasingly impractical. We are going to have trouble feeding ourselves in the years ahead, not to mention the many nations who depend for survival on American grain exports. So the idea that we can simply shift millions of acres from food crops to ethanol or biodiesel crops to make fuels for cars represents a staggering misunderstanding of reality.

Still, the widespread wish persists that some combination of alternative fuels will rescue us from this oil and gas predicament and allow us to continue enjoying by some other means what Vice-President Cheney has called the "non-negotiable" American way of life. The truth is that no combination of alternative fuels or systems for using them will allow us to continue running America, or even a substantial fraction of it, the way we have been. We are not going to run Wal-Mart, Walt Disney World, Monsanto, and the Interstate Highway System on any combination of solar or wind energy, hydrogen, ethanol, tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates, nuclear power, thermal depolymerization, "zero-point" energy, or anything else you can name. We will desperately use many of these things in many ways, but we are likely to be disappointed in what they can actually do for us.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy, suburbia, oil

James Howard Kunstler is the author of The Long Emergency and The Geography of Nowhere. His work has appeared in The New York Times Magazine and Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! 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:
Faith, love and hope. The greatest of these is "hope."
Posted by: straykitty on Jan 23, 2007 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At 68, I've created a lot of hope. How Kuntsler describes creating your own hope is a science all it's own.

My latest hope: My husband and I are taking our stock portfolio and building a large multi-family strawbale dwelling on 30 acres of sweltering Texas...geothermal, wind enery, solar, rain water capture, gray-water system, small farming, etc.

One and a half years in, it's so labor-intensive and so expensive up front, I continually ask myself: Are we doing the right thing? Taking our money and building this gift just in time to leave to our children? Are we over-reacting to the Peak Oil theory, when most of the voices one hears say it is many years off? Are we misreading the signs? Our stock broker certainly thinks we're crazy.

The flip side is, what else would we do if not this? Play golf? Consume Chinese products? Eat at one of the thousands of restaurants lining I-35?

So, hope is what we're left with, my 70-ish husband and I. It's enough. Common sense and hope. We'll finish this farm, and see what happens. I hope things aren't as bad as Kuntsler says, but I'm afraid they may be.

But when we leave this world, what we'll be leaving behind is hope: hope for survival for our children and their children. I really believe in this hope thing.

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

back to the future
Posted by: warden on Jan 23, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your observations are logical Jim, particularly in regard to the devolution of power and balkanization that seems to have already begun globally. My own self-delusion is that plug-in electric hybrids (fueled by wind and sun) will keep us mobile. One thing is certain, the revolution in new energy technologies will drastically change the future, and swiftly. Travis Bradford's "Solar Revolution" is a good read. He lays out a pretty persuasive argument for the inevitability of a solar mass movement. If you have been following the 'green building' movement, there is a lot to be excited about. Architecture is responding to our needs for a different paradigm. Time and human will are the only restraints!

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

» RE: back to the future Posted by: richholland
» RE: back to the future Posted by: MAD
Hope for what? To be the lucky survivor?
Posted by: mjabele on Jan 23, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't actually disagree with any of the "prescriptions" laid out by Kunstler - they strike me as eminently reasonable, essential even, if we hope to survive as a species through the course of this and succeeding centuries.

Nonetheless, there is something very bleak about the future he projects, and I can't escape some feeling that the author takes satisfaction from the idea that people will be leading far more limited lives in future than they currently do.

His vision of greater food insecurity in future doesn't strike me as something to be hopeful about, even if we manage to mitigate this to some extent - here in the US, anyway - by growing and purchasing more locally. Readying ourselves for greater "triage" as a result of "contraction of the medical system" also strikes me as something depressing rather than hope-inspiring - as a doctor, and the father of a child with Down syndrome, I'm just a tad suspicious of those who accept the idea of rationing with such seeming equanimity.

I also wonder what his vision of the future holds for those in the developing world. As someone who's worked overseas and seen starvation firsthand, I don't relish the idea of abandoning the rest of humanity in quest of a more secure future for ourselves here in the already prosperous West. It would be a shame if, in the process of conversion to this more environmentally sound way of life that he proposes, we lost our basic humanity and empathy for other human beings.

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

BioFuel For Cars: "A Staggering Misunderstanding of Reality"
Posted by: Douglas on Jan 23, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Both weather and oil costs are driving our crop yields down, while the industrial mode of farming that has evolved since the Second World War becomes increasingly impractical. We are going to have trouble feeding ourselves in the years ahead, not to mention the many nations who depend for survival on American grain exports. So the idea that we can simply shift millions of acres from food crops to ethanol or biodeisel crops to make fuels for cars represents a staggering misunderstanding of reality."

There are those on the "left" who share this "staggering misunderstanding of reality." All of us need to get our feet more firmly planted on the ground and acknowledge the ethanol/biofuel delusion for what it is. As Kunstler adds, "the key to understanding the challenge we face is admitting that we have to comprehensively make other arrangements for all the normal activities of everyday life." Denying the problem and/or villainizing those who remind us of it, is definitely not "making other arrangements."

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

The elephant in the room.
Posted by: kyblue on Jan 23, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with everything James says, it makes sense, but he leaves one thing out. It's the elephant in the room that nobody will even bring up - population. Suburbs, big box stores, mass consumerism, cheap food and medicine, none of these things will survive as they are. But even more important is that we cannot sustain a population as large as ours has become without cheap and abundant oil.

There is virtually no discussion about population control. One of the best things we could do right now is to at least begin to study what a sustainable population would look like in terms of numbers, locations, etc. and begin devising the means to shape our population to that mold.

It's not a popular concept and there will be much opposition, even to the concept of studying the problem, but it must be done.

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

» "They got criticized"???!!! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: The elephant in the room. Posted by: nickptar
» RE: The elephant in the room. Posted by: nickptar
West left in the cold in Arctic oil boom
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carl Mortished and Julian Evans in Moscow

State companies get monopoly rights
Region has huge untapped reserves



Moscow has closed the door further to Western participation in Russia’s Arctic energy wealth with a proposal to grant Rosneft and Gazprom, the state oil and gas companies, exclusive rights to develop offshore oil and gas.
President Putin has approved the decision to grant Gazprom and Rosneft a monopoly through amendments to laws on subsoil use and offshore activity, according to Russian media reports.



The initiative will be another blow to the big Western energy companies, for which the Russian Arctic offers tantalising reserves of oil and gas, now receding beyond reach.

Last summer, Mr Putin ruled that Shtokman, a giant gasfield in the Barents Sea, would be developed by Gazprom alone. His decision was a rebuff to several American and European oil companies that had hoped to take part. In December, Gazprom took control of Sakhalin-2, another giant gas project in Eastern Siberia, sidelining Shell, the operator.

Valeri Nesterov, an oil and gas analyst at Troika Dialog, said that the market was getting used to Russia’s resource nationalism. “We still think Western firms will be involved in the consortiums for offshore projects, but they won’t be in the driving seat,” he said.

Russia is believed to have enormous untapped oil and gas reserves off its coasts, particularly in the Arctic Sea and the Pacific coast.

According to Wood Mackenzie, the oil consultancy, the undiscovered potential of the Arctic is vast. Some 160 billion barrels of oil and gas remain to be found — a resource equivalent to three times the total reserves of the UK North Sea when the first wells were sunk almost half a century ago.

Wood Mackenzie reckoned that Russia accounted for 60 per cent of those reserves, excluding fields already discovered, such as Shtokman.

However, the consultants questioned whether Gazprom had the resources to develop such large offshore projects alone: “There is a heritage of exploration skills, but the scale required for production takes them into a different league.”

The Arctic Sea alone, which Russia is set to explore in partnership with Norwegian firms such as Statoil, is thought to contain at least a quarter of the world’s untapped gas reserves. The region has barely been explored, but as the polar ice-cap melts access is becoming easier. The Pacific coast, especially around the island of Sakhalin, is also a promising site for hydrocarbons.

Jonathan Stern, of the Oxford Energy Institute, said: “We’re not just talking about Sakhalin I or Sakhalin II here, but a whole region that will be of equivalent importance to the North Sea for future energy supplies.”


http://business.timeson line.co.uk/article/0,,13130-2560649,00.html

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

Another idiotic doom and gloom article. Ever heard of hemp? And why not try making the most of solar
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 23, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and wind energy projects out there? How many more stupid authors who put themselves on the defensive going doom and gloom all the while never going on the offensive fighting for solutions does Alternet have to keep posting? I'll bet these authors are so freakin' rich they could do a better job of exposing the government's scam of defunding or even illegalizing some of these alternative renewables they've been doing for just about a century. And I'm not talking about the Hemp Prohibition alone. Wind and solar energy projects have faced massive setbacks regardless of whether the liberals or conservatives were in charge. Gawd, these authors ought to either get a life and be active or take a passive treatment in a hurt locker !

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

Its suburban culture stupid
Posted by: psychochurch on Jan 23, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Of course, the single worst impediment to clear thinking among most individuals and organizations in America today is the obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs."

We need to maintain focus on a few key issues...cheifly is the fact that the suburbs have evolved into their own countries, complete with their own political, economic, and cultural systems...the automobile is a key component of the apartheid process...they exploit/enslave/trap the inner city dweller then get in their SUV...and leave the US for planet suburb....A place where everyone is good looking, above average, and natural resources are endless....These seperate realities must be bridged if "symptoms" like pollution/global warming/crime/poverty/racism, etc are ever going to be addressed effectively

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

» RE: Its suburban culture stupid Posted by: bornxeyed
The author disregards heavy oil altogether
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CSM:
Even as conventional oil supplies begin to play out in the US, the North Sea, and some other major production areas like Venezuela, the [Oil and Gas] Journal says that the most "realistic" replacements would be other "hydrocarbon resources [such as] oil shale, tar sand, extra heavy oil, and possibly coal liquids."

Only hydrocarbon sources like tar sands and coal liquids are in great enough supply to supplement regular oil, the Journal says.

Until now, energy companies have by and large bypassed hydrocarbon alternatives to conventional oil because of cost. Producing oil from something like Canada's vast tar-sand deposits was just too expensive at $30 or $40 a barrel when Saudi Arabia could pump and deliver conventional oil for about $4 a barrel.

Current tight markets and rising prices for oil have changed that equation. Today, there are already a few places with limited but growing production of synfuels. South Africa, for example, has two firms that together produce 200,000 barrels a day of synfuel, mostly from coal, but more recently from natural gas.

Even more ambitious projects are under way in Canada, where private firms such as Royal Dutch Shell are mining and refining tar sands into synfuel that competes directly with conventional oil. Shell plans to more than triple its output from Canadian tar sands to 500,000 barrels a day by 2015, Malcolm Brinded, the company's executive director for exploration and production, said this month.

This is only one of Shell's several efforts to expand oil output from unconventional sources. Mr. Brinded says the company also recently set up a joint venture with a Chinese partner "to explore the possibilities for developing oil-shale resources in Jilin Province."

Among the top candidates to replace conventional oil are:

• Tar sands. The world's largest deposits of this bitumen are in Canada. After billions of dollars of investment by private oil companies, output from the Alberta tar sands has reached 1 million barrels of synthetic oil a day. That should rise to 2 million barrels a day by 2010, and 3 million by 2020. A recent report indicates that costs of producing the oil have declined to $18 a barrel - making tar-sands oil comfortably profitable in today's market.

• Oil shale. Extensive deposits - perhaps 2 trillion barrels of hydrocarbons - lie in America's Rocky Mountain West, mostly in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Difficulties in extracting and refining the hydrocarbon have frustrated earlier efforts. But if oil prices remain at recent levels, oil-shale deposits will become more attractive as conventional deposits in North America play out. Already, the US government has begun to get "expressions of interest" from oil companies about oil-shale deposits on public lands, according to congressional testimony in April by Tom Lonnie, an official with the US Department of the Interior.

• Extra heavy oil. Located in deposits around the world, extra heavy oil, like tar sands, is costly to process, but it could eventually become an important resource. There are hundreds of billions of barrels that could be produced.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0922/p11s01-usec.html

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

The author disinforms on supply and demand
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Paris based International Energy Agency has a completely different outlook that suggests a coming crash in oil prices due to supply outpacing demand:

"Data issued by the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy watchdog of the industrialized countries including Ireland, show oil consumption in the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell 0.6% in 2006. While the the fall appears small, it marks the first annual drop in more than 20 years among the OECD countries, which use close to 60% of the 84.4 million barrels of oil used globally each day."

"The fall in oil use by the industrialized world is a sign that the reactions to higher oil prices by businesses and consumers from the US to Germany to Japan may be adding up to a cycle-turning downdraft in demand."

"World oil supply rose by 110 kb/d in December to 85.4 mb/d, as strong recent non-OPEC growth continued."

Remove space:http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusi nessnews/publish/article_10008746.shtml

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

Fast and Loose with the Facts
Posted by: mpwilliams on Jan 23, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Kunstler attempts to support his dubious premise by citing erroneous petroleum supply statistics, purported to have been published by the U.S. DOE, viz.:

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production peaked in December 2005 at just over 85 million barrels a day. Since then, it has trended absolutely flat at around 84 million."

In point of fact, the U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency, the International Energy Agency and the Oil & Gas Journal report that world oil supply (essentially, crude oil + natural gas distillates production) averaged 84.6 and 85.3 million bbl/day for calendar years 2005 and 2006, respectively, while world oil demand averaged 84.0 and 84.5 million bbl/day in those same years. The current forecast for 2007 puts supply and demand at 86.5 and 85.9 million bbl/day, respectively. It is worth noting, as well, that supply figures reflect the fact that the principal OPEC swing producer, Saudi Arabia, constrains production below capacity in order to render an overall balance between supply and demand that is effective in defending price objectives, so actual supply capacity is somewhat greater than the market supply figures reflect.

In short, world oil production during 2006 was not flat at 84 million bbl/day, as suggested by Mr. Kunstler, nor has demand exceeded supply during that year or any other in recent history. Without the 'sky is falling' predicate of global oil shortage, Mr. Kunstler's thesis comes unthreaded like a cheap suit.

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

» RE: Fast and Loose with the Facts Posted by: Monitor523
» Global warming? (nt) Posted by: nickptar
» True. But my point was Posted by: nickptar
Oil is not the answer.
Posted by: ImSwiss on Jan 23, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like he is saying that oil is the only answer. It ain't.
Companies are making ethanol from garbage and land fill.
Brazil from sugar cane. ( energy independent ). Ethanol is a major export of Brazil. Don't believe it that we must fight wars for fossil fuels, we don't! But population control is a must. The world will be a much better place post-oil.

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

Plummeting oil prices create problems for treasuries
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Andy Mukherjee:

"If oil keeps plummeting -- because of global warming, the El Nino weather effect, slowing world economic growth, rising crude output, or whatever -- Asia may pay a big price as a financier of U.S. consumerism.

Last year, the Asian monetary authorities, together with the central banks and state investment agencies in oil-exporting countries, bought about $770 billion in foreign-currency assets.

These official purchases financed most of the estimated $870 billion U.S. current-account deficit in 2006, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

If the petrodollar surpluses dwindle, the job of sustaining U.S. consumption will fall squarely on the Asian central banks.

Should the monetary authorities in China, Japan, South Korea and India continue to feed the American spending habit or invest their surpluses elsewhere?

Asia's Dilemma

If they keep loading up on U.S. Treasuries, and the dollar eventually collapses, Asian central banks may have to sustain large losses on their balance sheets.

If they stop buying ``risk-free'' U.S. debt, the dollar might decline anyway. That's the dilemma.

Of course, it all depends on the extent of the slide in energy costs. Last year, oil-producing nations probably added about $600 billion in assets. ``Even with crude at $50 a barrel, oil sovereigns would still be channeling some $300 billion of savings annually into global financial markets,'' says Ramin Toloui, a fund manager at Newport Beach, California-based Pimco, a unit of Germany's Allianz SE.

Yet, Toloui's research shows that compared with Asian central banks' penchant for investing trade surpluses primarily in dollar-denominated ``conservative'' securities, petrodollars are more likely to have been invested in riskier assets, including emerging-market equities.

Oil as Spoiler

It stands to reason, then, that if oil-exporting countries from Russia and Venezuela to Saudi Arabia and Norway earn substantially less for their commodity this year, or if they get spooked by a fall in the dollar, they might be tempted to soup up their total returns by cutting back on U.S. Treasuries and shifting funds to higher-risk, emerging-market assets.

To the extent that such diversification may already be under way, the rise in emerging-market stock and property prices and the narrowing of bond spreads aren't surprising.

While investors in Asia won't complain about petrodollars chasing emerging-market assets, the monetary bosses in the region may not be particularly happy.

A shrinking appetite for dollar-denominated securities, if it leads to a precipitous decline in the U.S. currency, will dent the value of Asian central banks' foreign-currency reserves."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=col umnist_mukherjee&sid=airEHuMlkGao

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

The author is welcome to build his house...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 23, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...wherever his means allow him.

It's time for us to make other arrangements.

He should feel free to do so, if that is what his heart desires! He certainly doesn't need my approval of his living conditions.

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

Kunstler Is A Bit Strident, But On Track
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 23, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Robert Redford asked his secretary in an old movie, Spy Game
When did Noah build the Ark?
Before the rain

While we still have relatively cheap fossil fuels broadly available we need to make the investment for the post carbon era. The task will be immense as our country is defined by cheap and abundant fossil fuel in every way imaginable. Last minute crisis management won't cut it this time.

Retrofitting houses, restoration of public transit, improving the efficiency of our industrial base and utilities infrastructure will cost truckloads of money and energy. We need to get started while the money and energy are readily available. When the effects of our $9 trillion debt and increasing energy prices are fully felt our hands will be tied and things will be much more painful.

Like most prophets, Kunstler is shrill and harsh, but our society probably needs it. It's later than we all think. Even ExxonMobil is quietly making moves in the background even as they deny the problem is real. When big conglomerates are buying up Solar & Wind technologies as fast as they can it ought to tell you that the issue is real and the concern legit.

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

Freddy Mercury had it right in 1978
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 23, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike
I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride it where I like

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

Force of Economy, Economy of Force
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 23, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Orion is a worthy read for anyone who thinks. Thanks to all involved.)

Mr. Kunstler writes;

"Recent events have caused many of us to fear that we are headed toward a Big Brother kind of governmental tyranny. I think we will be lucky if the federal government can answer the phones, let alone regulate anyone's life,".....

To discount of the emergence of a police state that protects special interest from the displeasure of an rapidly expanding impoverished population is, however, a very big pass on reality. It seems to ignore a number of incontrovertible facts.

1. A rapidly aging and soon to retire bubble of boomers in needing the resources of a soon to be bankrupt retirement fund and SS landscape.
2. Over 85% of our population now concentrated in a few dozen population centers.
3. Guaranteed poverty for increasing percentages of both young and old through mismanagement of Federal resources, a declining domestic economy and the the ongoing corrupting influence of multi-national corporations in economic legislation and policy. Lip service to policy change.
4. Badly deteriorating infrastructure in both power generation and distribution. (Many engineering studies from many sources.)
5. Diversion from domestic investment in the above of what will be trillions of dollars to continue supporting the continuity of foreign sources of energy to the immense profit of huge oil in the foreseeable future.
6. Paltry investment in energy efficient design in transportation, architecture, appliances and public awareness of alternatives.
7. Property value, aesthetic considerations and lesser eco considerations overriding otherwise eco friendly wind farms, tidal generators, hydro electric, and new age nuclear power plants.
8. Detroit and imports still marketing muscle cars & trucks.
9. Ridiculously inefficient standards of planning and development nationwide furthered by the myopic, misguided necessity for economic "growth" based on debt.
10. A generally unacknowledged reality that provisions in the "Homeland Security" laws are applicable towards a swift transition to martial law. (You will be required next year (08) to carry a National Identity Card, with chip. You will be assimilated, resistance is... well you know.)

While we spend trillions on the attempted securing of the future of energy exports from the Persian Gulf, and threaten higher food costs by usurping agricultural production for fuel, (to the great profit of Archer Daniels Midland), we move even further away from even accommodating a transition towards a breadth of sustaining energy policies and technology.

Marry those facts with the expansion of commitment to an energy war of enormous cost in lives and borrowed money yet to be realized, along with the 45 trillion of unfunded liabilities already accrued, a negative savings rate and record consumer debt in an ever narrowing economy, and you have a very potent recipe for a domestic decline, in conjunction with a global monetary collapse, the order of which has never been seen because there has never been so many other economies dependent on one country staying economically healthy. We're not. Ask Greenspan or Volcker.

Anyone that thinks that our Government will successfully abandon it's dependence on corporate funding, and apply itself to dealing effectively with a host of very pressing domestic issues, as it's been unable to do for decades without a crisis, is smokin' some good shit. Just watch the funding facts for the upcoming Presidential campaign. Reform? Get real.

We all better wake up to what's just down the road for this country and the freedoms that we say we love so much. Maybe we won't, maybe we'll just ride it into the ground and let Big Brother pick up the pieces for us.

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

U.S. Petroleum Demand Dipped in 2006
Posted by: rwa on Jan 23, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While oil companies reaped gargantuan profits in 2006 amid high prices, U.S. demand for petroleum dipped last year to below 2004 levels, a trade group said Friday.

Total U.S. petroleum deliveries, a measure of demand, fell by roughly 1 percent to 20.6 million barrels per day, according to a report by the American Petroleum Institute. That's down from 20.8 million barrels a day in 2005 and below the 2004 level of 20.7 million barrels a day. The group said the figures are preliminary and may be adjusted.

The analysis was released one day after the Paris-based International Energy Agency estimated that oil demand in the world's industrialized countries declined by 0.6 percent in 2006. Global demand rose in 2006 due to the strength of consumption in China and the Middle East, but the world's appetite has grown at a slower pace for two straight years.

"We've entered that era on a worldwide basis where demand is growing more slowly," Citigroup oil analyst Tim Evans said.

"Oil producers may have priced themselves out of some markets," he added, noting that declining petroleum demand has historically occurred during economic recessions.

Most analysts are forecasting slower economic growth in the U.S. in 2007, in part because of high energy prices but also due to the financial reverberations caused by a slowdown in the housing sector.

In the U.S. - still the world's largest energy consuming nation - residual fuel oil deliveries experienced the steepest decline, falling nearly 27 percent to 673,000 barrels per day as industrial and electric utility facilities made major shifts to natural gas, the report said. Jet fuel demand declined by 2.8 percent to 1.6 million barrels a day, as airlines conserved fuel as best they could.

The year's largest increase in demand was for distillate fuel, which includes highway diesel and heating oil. Deliveries of distillate fuel rose 1.3 percent to about 4.2 million barrels per day.

Gasoline demand rose 0.8 percent to average more than 9.2 million barrels per day. The slight bump was met entirely by ethanol blends, which rose by nearly 35 percent, to an estimated 5.4 billion gallons, API said.

"Our figures show modest increases for some products but a decline in overall oil demand," said Ron Planting, manager, information and analysis, for API. "That decline came as airlines continued to find additional ways to economize on fuel, and as industrial users and electric utilities substituted less expensive natural gas for heavy fuel oil."

Despite the dip in demand, U.S. refineries and blenders produced record amounts of gasoline and distillate fuel oil in 2006, and many also produced massive quarterly profits.


The report also showed:

_ Total petroleum imports fell slightly to 13.6 million barrels per day, with a 1.9 percent drop in products partially offset by a 0.5 increase in crude oil imports. Imports accounted for 66 percent of domestic petroleum use for the year.

_ U.S. crude oil production slipped 1.1 percent in 2006 to slightly more than 5.1 million barrels per day because of a 12.1 percent decline in Alaska due to the shutdown of a major pipeline. But output in the lower 48 states saw its first increase in six years, buoyed by the Gulf Coast's recovery from 2005s hurricanes and new production elsewhere.

_ Oil well completions in 2006 were the highest in 18 years, and natural gas completions reached an all-time high.

http://www.forbes.com/home/fe eds/ap/2007/01/19/ap3344579.html

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

What wasn't said
Posted by: willymack on Jan 23, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without population control, all other problems become abstractions. Mother Nature will take over and begin killing huge numbers of us off, and leave the rest of us foraging in dumpsters and landfills just to stay alive. Don't think so? Then you haven't been to the Philipines or other places in Asia, where this very thing is taking place, RIGHT NOW. Ignorance is another factor. We Americans are so abysmally ignorant of the forces affecting our lives, that we "elect" cretins like bush, and allow him to continue to eat us alive. How many of our citizens know what goes on inside an internal combustion engine, and how it propels a vehicle? If enough of us did, they'd probably know that the science is there to replace them almost overnight. Even if we don't do it that quickly, we can make gasoline, or something very much like it, out of things other than oil or coal. Getting back to population, I was talking to a project manager the other day about the destruction of productive farmland to make way for a shoddy housing tract. I asked him why here and now? He said that people have to live SOMEWHERE, so why not here? Implicit in this is that the people are coming from somewhere else, so room has to be made for them. So pervasive is the belief in the inevitability of population increase, that our economy is built around and actually DEPENDS on it. This type of thinking is DEAD WRONG, emphasis on "dead". So, there it is: increased population and ignorance-a deadly combination if there ever was one.

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

Smile Mr. Kunstler
Posted by: tunejunky on Jan 23, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Firstly, bravo. Secondly, i do understand that you are shouting in the wilderness, but please have a little more faith in american ingenuity. or human ingenuity... i firmly believe that once the dire nature of our situation becomes clearer (chickens coming home to roost that is), the huge intellectual capacity of our corporations will turn from masturbatory self enrichment to survival. and nothing focuses the mind as a life or death struggle. so in this case it is my cynicism that builds my optimism.

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

Shifting momentum = better get a merc force
Posted by: eddie torres on Jan 23, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Step one: Kill Madison Avenue

Step two: Nuke Hollywood

Step three: Bulldoze K Street

If you take away America's marketing gurus, its dream factory, and its corporate lobbying hordes, the US may just be able to alter its current course. Otherwise, use your $50 million (everybody has that much, don't they?) to buy guns, mercenaries, and ranches. The Bush family sure is.

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

Great article; now let's make Congress stop subsidizing petroleum!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 23, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What needs to happen is an end to official US government support for the fossil fuel industry (i.e. repealing the Truman Doctrine, the Carter Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine, etc.) - and that means that the $32 billion in subsidies that the fossil fuel industry will receive over the next 5 years (the Democrats cut it down to $27 billion, and made no arrangements for renewables, so excuse me for not cheering) should be done away with entirely.

Every renewable energy company says that growth and investment in their industry relies entirely on the ability to make stable business plans over the next 5-10 years. This is why we need to force Congress to deliver guaranteed subsidies to solor photovoltaics, solar water heating, rebuilding the electricity grid, wind-generated electricity, and sustainable biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) production using renewable energy inputs.

This will also have the great economic benefit of providing well-paying jobs to US citizens, as well as getting rid of the need for subsidizing industrial agriculture (currently $26 billion per year, about 4 times more then the fossil fuel subsidies!) - the excess agricultural production can be fed into ethanol production, which means farmers will do very well financially - certainly a better use of dollars then dumping them in the bank accounts of Saudi oil sheiks, Nigerian military governors, and international oil funds.

Ethanol (currently about 15% of corn goes to ethanol) is also a better use for corn then factory farming hogs (currently where 50% of corn goes), or exporting it to Mexico at below-market prices subsidized by the US government (about 20% of corn production) - though the real future of ethanol is in cellulosic ethanol from non-food sources.

Of course, the international fossil fuel conglomerates are completely opposed to this because ethanol sales will reduce their market share of transportation fuel. That's the reality -fossil fuel corporations view ethanol production as the #1 threat to their market share and to the demand for fossil fuels, though I imagine they're also starting to worry about electric cars and fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards as well. They're like heroin dealers who don't want their customers to kick the habit...

Ethanol must however, be produced sustainably, using fossil fuel-free agriculture and solar/wind powered biorefineries, unlike the coal-fired biorefineries currently in use in the US Midwest. Again, Congressional subsidies for ethanol should therefore be limited to sustainable, fossil fuel free ethanol production - then the biorefineries will convert to wind and solar, and the farmers to sustainable agricultural practices.

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

» may I make a suggestion? Posted by: AdamG
"the unedifying spectacle of the sucker economy"
Posted by: eddie torres on Jan 23, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In light of the issues discussed in this article, will America ever again support and defend the sick and the weak in the future? Because, unfortunately, it seems that America's current momentum is buried in "the unedifying spectacle of the sucker economy" (Simon Schama): you go get yours, cause I already got mine.

The post-WWII era was marked by relative abundance, and eventually (with enough effort) America managed to spread a portion of its wealth to those who had traditionally been left out - the poor, the sick, the oppressed minorities, etc.

With the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to what end are public resources (the military, etc.) being used to better US society as a whole? If the purpose was to secure oil for every American, how do climate change and future CO2 limits allow Americans to reap the benefits of that oil gift?

Most importantly, in a future world of scarcity and unpredictable climate change, how much of US society's resources will be available to disperse and share with the sick and the weak?

America's leaders (corporate and political) have already voted with their feet: they are in a desperate frenzy to secure enough wealth for them and theirs, and to lock it up in well defended locations like Swiss bank accounts, rural ranches and estates, and well-trained merc security forces.

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

» What a naive notion! Posted by: rwa
» Does not compute Posted by: rwa
» Sure it does Posted by: thoughtcriminal