You’ve probably heard more and more lately about climate change (or global warming) — and probably a little too late — but there’s one thing politicians really really don’t want to talk about (apart from the Greens) and that’s our pending little energy problem.
This piece in the Rolling Stone, adapted from The Long Emergency, a soon to be published book by James Howard Kunstler about “Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century”, has this to say:
“The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don’t have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.”
and goes onto to say
“The best estimates of when this will actually happen have been somewhere between now and 2010. In 2004, however, after demand from burgeoning China and India shot up, and revelations that Shell Oil wildly misstated its reserves, and Saudi Arabia proved incapable of goosing up its production despite promises to do so, the most knowledgeable experts revised their predictions and now concur that 2005 is apt to be the year of all-time global peak production.”
To understand the enormity of this issue you only need to have a little understanding of the way we currently use fossil fuels (i.e. for everything) and that replacing this source of energy any time soon is most likely impossible, meaning that we are likely approaching a, uh, slight adjustment phase in our lives. Check out the rest of the piece which you can also read here.
Comments
· Good intro, C.B.
· Kunstler’s “Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century” got me started thinking about the difference between his American view of the near future and my own experience which is based on living in about 7 British Commonwealth countries, currently New Zealand.
· _My_ conclusions are now at:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/davd/050330-Oil_Peak-n-Crash_D-Ms-opinion.html
· At the end I summarise it with:
“~ The basic assumption behind Dr Robert L. Hirsch’s report is:
*** “To preserve reasonable levels of economic prosperity and growth ..” ***
That’s why down-sizing the economy is not seriously considered, and why he and many commentators talk about Crash: “world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide.”
~ Hirsch et.al also say (in the PDF report, p.64 of 91): “4. The Problem is Liquid Fuels:
Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an “energy crisis” in the sense that term has been used. Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon-based energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels …”
~ In summary: In over 95% of the world, specifically where rail transport is available and where the US oil-based economic system hasn’t completely taken over, a five-year transition (including considerable economic upset) is quite feasible; some nations like NZ have gotten started already and are ahead-of-the-game (largely thanks to Greens in-or-close-to government).
· Large cities/conurbations in the USA will certainly be in real trouble, but there are still huge areas of North America where a less-oil-based life is within living memory, and these regions will still be a good place to live.”
David MacClement — living sustainably for 13 years.