# Salon.com: Kunstler's peak oil poppycock **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884 "2005-05-14T23:50:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/1 "2005-05-14T23:50:00Z")
Recently we discussed how [Richard Dawkins](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314481) made a fool of himself in a [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) interview. I’m not trying to make a regular thing of this, but this week Salon has an interview with professional liberogriper [James Howard Kunstler](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/14/kunstler/index.html) (subscription or “daily pass” required to read article). To Salon’s credit, whereas they seemed to take Dawkins rather seriously (or reverently), the Kunstler interview is prefaced with something of a disclaimer about, well, how lame he is: > [@](#): > > Kunstler displays a kind of macabre wit about the unpleasantness and strife that await us all. Talking to him is like trying to argue with a prophet. His assertions have a neat way of doubling back to anticipate your critiques. If you express doubt about his views, then you may well be among the deluded masses too addicted to your McSUV and McSuburb to accept the reality that lies ahead. OK, before we analyze, just a few prelims. First, that Peak Oil will happen is a mathematically sure thing if you grant that the planet is not producing new oil in its bowels right now. Second, I’m fairly convinced myself that Peak Oil has already happened or will happen in the near future. I don’t doubt either that this new reality will cause some hardships. What I do doubt, pace Kunstler, is that 1) The world will slide into primitive dysfunction straightway and 2) the world’s reaction to such dysfunction will be to create an order that is more and more congruent with my own political vision. Let’s look at some snippets: > [@](#): > > Q: Plenty of analysts are confident that in coming decades we’ll switch from oil to another form of energy, like Europeans switching from burning wood to burning coal when forests became scarce. Why aren’t you? > > A: …We have now become a people who believe that wishing for things makes them happen. Unfortunately, the world just doesn’t work that way. The truth is that no combination of alternative fuels or so-called renewables will allow us to run the U.S.A. – or even a substantial fraction of it – the way that we’re running it now. This sounds reasonable, but it’s surrounded by a lot of blather about how America _is_ these days. In any case, his position is clear here and keeps getting clearer: We can’t live without oil. We’re doomed. We’ll never maaake it! > [@](#): > > Q: You point out that there are all sorts of ways that we’re dependent on oil that we don’t think about. > > A: We have evolved a cheese-doodle agriculture system run by large corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, which grow immense amounts of corn by using fossil fuels to produce immense amounts of corn-based junk food. Cite! Many numbers missing here (“immense amounts”?). > [@](#): > > A (continued): Also, our national retail chain system – otherwise known as Wal-Mart and Co., Wal-Mart and wannabes, Wal-Mart and imitators – is unlikely to survive both the rising costs of oil and far more volatile price fluctuations. Their economic equation requires them to predict the cost of transport because their margins are so razor thin. And they won’t be able to anymore. Cite! Thin margins vs. cost of transport? Numbers please. I think the cost of transport will go up when we switch to nuclear power and fuel cells, but I doubt that it will be so very unpredictable. If anything, it ought to be higher but _more_ predictable, since fuel prices won’t be based on the volatile cost of oil. > [@](#): > > Q: You write that even the educated minority in the U.S. is clueless about its role in geopolitical problems, like the family in your neighborhood that had a sign in their yard that said, “War Is Not the Answer,” and two SUVs in the garage. > > A: Or all my politically progressive friends who drove their SUVs to the peace rallies of 2003. I’m not a fan of SUVs either, but this strikes me as being way too politically picky. > [@](#): > > Q: Why do you skewer Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who promotes the idea of a futuristic hypercar, which would get 100 miles per gallon? > > A: I regard Lovins hypercar venture as a stupid distraction, if for no other reason that it tends to promote the idea that we can continue being a car-dependent society. Clearly we can’t, no matter how good the gas mileage is. I wrote three other books about the fiasco of suburbia before I even got a bug up my ass about the energy issues. He’s not thinking. Obviously, if a car got good enough mileage after peak oil, then there would be no problem continuing to drive it just as before. > [@](#): > > Q: What’s wrong with trying to make a more efficient car? > > A: I’m not against efficient cars. I’m against the idea that somebody in Amory’s position would focus on cars at the expense of something else like promoting walkable communities. The New Urbanist movement, for example, was campaigning for a much more intelligent response to suburbia at around the same time. We can do both, right? > [@](#): > > Q: Is your basic critique of renewable energy that wind, solar and biomass all depend, to some extent, on fossil fuels? > > A: That’s one critique. I’m not trying to militate against them. We are going to use them. But we’re not going to run the interstate highways and Disney World on them. Suburbia is not going to run on biodiesel. The easy-motoring tourist industry is not going to run on biodiesel, wind power and solar fuel. The point I would repeat is this: We don’t know whether we can fabricate the components for these things absent a fossil-fuel economy. Umm, nuclear power? > [@](#): > > A (continued): We’re going to have to make tremendous readjustments in every aspect of how we live. Let me give you an example. One of the main characteristics of the suburbs is that everyone can lead an urban life in a rural setting. But land is simply not going to be available for suburban development anymore. No, it will disappear! > [@](#): > > A: How will this affect our livelihoods? > > Q: …The huge suburban metroplexes like New York and Chicago are not going to function very well. They’re products of the oil age. They are oversupplied with skyscrapers and mega-structures that have poor prospects in a society with scarce energy. > > …The Southwest is going to be real trouble. And the problem of contracting big cities will be real. I would also hasten to point out that many of them have already entered an advanced state of contraction: Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Des Moines, Louisville and Cincinnati. The list is very long of cities that have been in contraction for quite a bit of time. The difference, of course, is that they have been enjoying hyper-mega-growth in their suburbs, and that’s going to stop. Er, why would the cities be in trouble? You set up one nuke plant for each and you’re in business. Actually, I should think the cities, because of their centralization and walkability and all the things he seems to think he wants, would be in a _better_ position to do well. But noooo. And why “nooo”? Because that’s not what this joker _likes._ He likes the small towns and cities, real communities. Damn the mega-structures, damn them! I would also hasten to point out that the contractions in the cities he mentions have a lot to do with economic factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with his doomsday scenario. Lame. > [@](#): > > [Later on he says]One thing that I’m predicting is that there will be a vigorous and futile defense of suburbia and all its entitlements, no matter what reality is telling us to do. And this will translate into a lot of political mischief. You can quote me: Americans will vote for cornpone Nazis before they will give up their entitlements to a McHouse and a McCar. OK, now we’re in la-la territory. What is a “cornpone Nazi”? Perhaps that’s an oblique reference to the current president. :dubious: Now, I know what a McManshion is–a crappy constructed but expensive house for pretenders to the upper classes. But what is a “McCar”? That’s a new term to me. Really, this guy’s just doing the standard libero-socially-conscious paint-by-numbers griping that is a mirror image of Rush’s knee-jerk prattle. In any case, I think the “entitlements of suburbia” come down to a family’s desire to own its own house on its on land in safety and quiet. How does this contradict what he said before about cities shutting down and people surviving out in the boonies? > [@](#): > > Q: It’s too late to invest heavily in nuclear energy? > > A: No, we may do that. If we want to keep the lights on after 2020, we may have to seriously consider building more nuclear power plants. But even under the best circumstances, it would take five or 10 years to get them built. Ohmuhgawd, it might take _five years_ to find a solution to the Big Problem! By then all hell will have broken loose! This guy just can’t be taken seriously. > [@](#): > > Q: What are the benefits [of your scenario]? > > A: I think that we will return to many social relations and social enactments that we lost and that were of great value to us, such as working closely with other people on things that really matter to us. Yeah, we’ll light candles and sing, “I’d like to buy the world a Coke…” There’s a lot more blather, but I think that’s enough. Here’s the Straight Dope on what’s _really_ going to happen: Oil will peak out, true, but we are going to build a shitload of nuke plants, maximize solar and other “alternative” energy sources, and eventually develop fusion, at which point we’ll never worry about energy again. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/2 "2005-05-15T00:24:01Z")
I read the article too and, oddly enough, he seemed to understate the predicted consequences of a “peak oil” collapse. Most of what he mentioned in the article amounts to little more than annoying inconveniences when compared to things like massive global starvation and perpetual warfare (with nuclear weapons). Also, he all too quickly went to the “we’re doomed and there’s nothing we can do about it” attitude. > [@](#): > > And the problem of contracting big cities will be real. I would also hasten to point out that many of them have already entered an advanced state of contraction: Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, **Des Moines** , Louisville and Cincinnati. The list is very long of cities that have been in contraction for quite a bit of time. [**Boldness** added.] If I may hijack this thread for a moment, but _Des Moines_ is a big city? The metropolitan area where I live has a larger population than Des Moines’ but nobody outside of the most seriously deluded civic booster would ever consider us as a “big” city. This must of been some sort of subtle joke on Kunstler’s part that the interviewer didn’t pick up on. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/3 "2005-05-15T00:46:37Z")
> [@James Howard Kunstler](#): > > A: I regard Lovins hypercar venture as a stupid distraction, if for no other reason that it tends to promote the idea that we can continue being a car-dependent society. Clearly we can’t, no matter how good the gas mileage is. **I wrote three other books about the fiasco of suburbia before I even got a bug up my ass about the energy issues.** James, James, James, when you make it **this** obvious that your argument is being shaped to fit your preexisting political agenda, you take all the fun out of picking it apart. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/4 "2005-05-15T01:49:34Z")
I agree that Kunstler is hitching his own social agenda to a different problem, but I think he’s right to the degree that there is a real problem out there. I just don’t agree with him on what the consequences or the solutions are. I do think cities are particularly vulnerable to an oil crisis. Modern cities are dependent on transportation and that’s the segment of the economy that’s going to be most affected by an oil shortage. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/5 "2005-05-15T07:52:04Z")
Nuclear power is **not** the answer. The problem is we’re ostensibly running out of **fuel** , not **energy**. Fuel is a high density, portable storable form of energy. You can’t put a nuke plant in each car and even if you have a glut of nuclear power plants, it’s not yet imemdiately obvious how your going to power the car. ---
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/6 "2005-05-15T10:57:23Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Nuclear power is **not** the answer. The problem is we’re ostensibly running out of **fuel** , not **energy**. Fuel is a high density, portable storable form of energy. You can’t put a nuke plant in each car and even if you have a glut of nuclear power plants, it’s not yet imemdiately obvious how your going to power the car. With a large number of nuclear plants, you have the spare power to either produce standard gasoline from other hydrocarbon sources, or to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars. Now, the estimates I have seen predict that is would take roughly 400 large nuclear power plants to replace US gasoline production. That is a large number, and would be quite expensive, but given the political will to do so, not impossible for the United States to construct over a period of 10-15 years. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/7 "2005-05-15T11:03:26Z")
How do you produce standard gasoline? From natural gas or coal? And hydrogen cars are still in their infancy because we don’t have a good idea how to safely store H2. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/8 "2005-05-15T15:27:49Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > How do you produce standard gasoline? From natural gas or coal? And hydrogen cars are still in their infancy because we don’t have a good idea how to safely store H2. That’s right, as of now they’re in their infancy. That doesn’t mean they won’t be in their infancy in ten or twenty years, especially as the need for alternative-fuel vehicles becomes greater. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/9 "2005-05-15T15:29:26Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > That’s right, as of now they’re in their infancy. That doesn’t mean they won’t be in their infancy in ten or twenty years, especially as the need for alternative-fuel vehicles becomes greater. _…doesn’t mean **they’ll be** in their infancy…_ Better. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/10 "2005-05-15T15:51:43Z")
I like the nuclear option-we’ve BLOWN $300 billion on Iraq, and in all probability, we will spnd even more! If we had only invested that in nuclear plant-plus, the money would be spent here! Just freeing ourself from the ME would be worth it-and i don’t see us getting anything more than deeper and deeper into the mess that is the ME. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/11 "2005-05-15T16:04:26Z")
Why can’t people like Kunstler do simple math? Total energy expenditure in the U.S. is about 7% of GDP. And not all of this is petroleum. As the cost of oil increases, other energy sources start to be economically viable, and conservation begins to make great economic sense. How many factories out there could operate on less energy, but don’t because at current energy prices it’s not profitable to do so? Raise energy prices enough, and you’ll see large changes in manufacturing, transportation, etc. Alternative energy sources like wind and solar and nuclear will start springing up to take up the slack. But even if energy doubles in price every ten years, it would only have an effect of reducing GDP growth by .7% per year. But this slope will flatten, because as petroleum gets more expensive we will move away from it, lowering its influence. This is not an economic disaster, nor will it fundamentally change society in a drastic way. The changes will be on the margins - plug-in hybrid cars will become popular. Resistance to nuclear power will fade, leading to more nuke plants. Energy-intensive goods and services will become less competitive to their alternatives. No gloom, no doom. Hell, oil has gone from $20/barrel to $50/barrel in a short period of time, and most economists think the result of that has been a slight slowing of GDP growth and a slight increase in inflation, and that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/12 "2005-05-15T16:10:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Recently we discussed how [Richard Dawkins](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314481) made a fool of himself in a [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) interview. We did? IIRC, only you and \*\*Liberal \*\*were of that mind. To most everyone else, he was making perfectly valid points. As to this OP, I agree with **Sam**. Static economic analysis often leads to cries of “the sky is falling”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/13 "2005-05-15T18:36:58Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Cite! Many numbers missing here (“immense amounts”?).Cite! Thin margins vs. cost of transport? Numbers please. _tsk_ **Aeschines,** it’s really not fair to ask for “cites” what amounts to a magazine interview. Kunstler is talking about the arguments developed in his new book, _The Long Emergency_ – [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116182014/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_csp\_1/103-1050284-3472630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116182014/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-1050284-3472630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) – which is coming out just this month. It hasn’t even hit the bookstores yet (at least where I live). If there are no or inadequate figures in **that,** I’ll admit you have a beef. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Here’s the Straight Dope on what’s _really_ going to happen: Oil will peak out, true, but we are going to build a shitload of nuke plants, maximize solar and other “alternative” energy sources, and eventually develop fusion, at which point we’ll never worry about energy again. I earnestly hope you’re right – I certainly don’t want to live in the low-energy, local-economy, labor-intensive future Kunstler predicts (and I don’t believe he really wants to live in it either) – but what on what do you base your confidence in the inevitable triumph of technofix? “Alternative fuels” might or might be adaptable for making **cars** run the way they run now – and that’s the real elephant in the living room. As for fusion, researchers have been working on controlled fusion power since the ‘70s, and AFAIK they’re no closer now to a sustained fusion reaction that will yield more energy than was put into creating it. It might be as fundamentally insoluble a problem as the _Star Trek_ FTL drive, or the “impulse drive” that moves the ship around without expelling any reaction mass. "Ah canna change the laws o’ physics, Captain!" ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/14 "2005-05-15T18:50:09Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Why can’t people like Kunstler do simple math? > > Total energy expenditure in the U.S. is about 7% of GDP. I think his point is that that figure is going to rise, an eventuality for which we are absolutely not prepared. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > How many factories out there could operate on less energy, but don’t because at current energy prices it’s not profitable to do so? Raise energy prices enough, and you’ll see large changes in manufacturing, transportation, etc. Alternative energy sources like wind and solar and nuclear will start springing up to take up the slack. > > But even if energy doubles in price every ten years, it would only have an effect of reducing GDP growth by .7% per year. But this slope will flatten, because as petroleum gets more expensive we will move away from it, lowering its influence. > > This is not an economic disaster, nor will it fundamentally change society in a drastic way. The changes will be on the margins - plug-in hybrid cars will become popular. Resistance to nuclear power will fade, leading to more nuke plants. Energy-intensive goods and services will become less competitive to their alternatives. I think I detect a certain amount of hand-waving here, **Sam.** What good reason do you have to think that there’s really that much slack in our industrial efficiency that can be taken up so easily? And what does it mean to “move away” from petroleum? I don’t even live in the suburbs, but I put a lot of mileage on my car. There is really no alternative if I want to have a life. I hope someday I’ll be able to trade it in for a hydrogen fuel-cell car, but I’m not confident the technology will be perfected (if at all) before the crunch hits – and when it hits, it’s not going to stop. In 1974 and 1979, oil price spikes caused a global recession, and those were **temporary** spikes caused by fleeting political conditions; we won’t be so lucky next time. It’s not just personal transportation. Whatever adds to the cost of fuel adds to the cost of anything that needs to be shipped, which includes practically everything but information. When the grits hit the fan, there’s going to be a lot of panic and cutting of losses. I don’t know if industry will have the **time** to slowly adapt to changing circumstances the way you’re describing. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Hell, oil has gone from $20/barrel to $50/barrel in a short period of time, and most economists think the result of that has been a slight slowing of GDP growth and a slight increase in inflation, and that’s about it. “That’s about it”? Will you stop and think a few moments about the consequences of “a slight slowing of GDP growth and a slight increase in inflation,” year after year with no end in sight, at a time when the U.S. economy is already saddled with massive federal budget deficits, unprecedented levels of personal debt, and balance-of-trade deficits? It will make the '70s look like a walk in the park. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/15 "2005-05-15T19:10:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I think his point is that that figure is going to rise, an eventuality for which we are absolutely not prepared. That’s what I said. If it doubles every ten years, then the cost of energy as a fraction of GDP will go up by .7% per year, assuming everything else stays the same. > [@](#): > > I think I detect a certain amount of hand-waving here, **Sam.** What good reason do you have to think that there’s really that much slack in our industrial efficiency that can be taken up so easily? I made no claim about how much slack there is or isn’t. The point is that industrial manufacturing takes into account the cost of energy. When those costs change, the patterns of production and consumption change. If energy were free, we’d all be driving 500 HP monster cars. We don’t, because we have to consider the cost of energy. > [@](#): > > And what does it mean to “move away” from petroleum? I don’t even live in the suburbs, but I put a lot of mileage on my car. There is really no alternative if I want to have a life. The point is that as energy prices increase, the price of goods will change disproportionally in that goods that have a large energy cost as a percentage of their overall costs will be disadvantaged. People will move to alternatives, whenever it makes sense to do so. We have the capability today of making cars that get 80 mpg. Plug-in hybrids achieve that. We could even go to all electric if we really, really had to. The limitations of all electric vehicles have prevented them from having any traction in the marketplace, but hey, if it’s the only game in town, that’s what people will drive. > [@](#): > > I hope someday I’ll be able to trade it in for a hydrogen fuel-cell car, but I’m not confident the technology will be perfected (if at all) before the crunch hits – and when it hits, it’s not going to stop. What makes you say that? For example, if oil goes to 80 dollars a barrel, two things will happen - one is that people will reduce the consumption of petroleum, easing demand. The other is that previously unprofitable fields will open up, such as the Alberta tar sands. We may in fact reach a point where supply once again outstrips demand, and prices will stabilize for a long time. I don’t know if this will happen, but it might. In the meantime, the move to alternative energy sources may bring greater efficiencies and cost reductions to those sources, and we’ll wean ourselves off of oil completely (well, not completely, but to the point where we burn only as much gas as we get as waste from refining oil for other uses) > [@](#): > > In 1974 and 1979, oil price spikes caused a global recession, and those were **temporary** spikes caused by fleeting political conditions; we won’t be so lucky next time. Oil prices weren’t the only factor in the recession. Not by a long shot. > [@](#): > > It’s not just personal transportation. Whatever adds to the cost of fuel adds to the cost of anything that needs to be shipped, which includes practically everything but information. When the grits hit the fan, there’s going to be a lot of panic and cutting of losses. I don’t know if industry will have the **time** to slowly adapt to changing circumstances the way you’re describing. Yes, I understand. That’s why inflation follows price spikes in energy. Again, the result of that will be an increase in the price of transported goods, which will cause the market to adjust to take that into account. Assuming that the current patterns of production, distribution, and consumption will stay the same until there’s a crash is not the correct way to look at the problem. > [@](#): > > “That’s about it”? Will you stop and think a few moments about the consequences of “a slight slowing of GDP growth and a slight increase in inflation,” year after year with no end in sight, at a time when the U.S. economy is already saddled with massive federal budget deficits, unprecedented levels of personal debt, and balance-of-trade deficits? It will make the '70s look like a walk in the park. Oh, please. We’ve been average GDP growth of 3-4% for a long time. We may in fact be heading into a period of lower growth by .7% per year because of increasing costs of energy. That’s not a disaster. It means that recesions will be deeper, and periods of growth shallower. We may be heading into a time where the rapid growth experienced by our parents is gone, but that doesn’t mean disaster. And that assumes that no other technologies will come along that offset that increase in energy costs. With nanotech, biotech, and other potentially economy-shaking technologies right around the corner, I wouldn’t make that bet. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/16 "2005-05-15T23:05:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > _tsk_ **Aeschines,** it’s really not fair to ask for “cites” what amounts to a magazine interview. Kunstler is talking about the arguments developed in his new book, _The Long Emergency_ – [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116182014/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_csp\_1/103-1050284-3472630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116182014/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-1050284-3472630?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) – which is coming out just this month. It hasn’t even hit the bookstores yet (at least where I live). If there are no or inadequate figures in **that,** I’ll admit you have a beef. Sure it’s fair. In order to back up the BS he’s spouting, he needs cites. He may also say, “Cites are in my forthcoming book.” But he at least needs to recognize that what he’s saying isn’t prima facie obvious; rather, it’s mostly prima facie retarded. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/17 "2005-05-15T23:49:25Z")
I’ve noticed how all of these gloom-and-doom forecasts always ignore coal, which, last I checked, accounts for more energy production in the US than any other source. Of course, coal is a fossil fuel, too, and it isn’t unlimited, but there’s a heck of a lot more of it than there is oil. At current rates, we have enough coal to last for centuries. Call it 150 years, to take into account industrial growth, and to let coal take up the slack from oil on vehicle-moving (whether by liquification, fuel cells, or some other technology doesn’t really matter). And if we don’t have practical fusion within 150 years, our civilization probably doesn’t deserve to survive. Quoth **BrainGlutton** : > [@](#): > > It [fusion] might be as fundamentally insoluble a problem as the Star Trek FTL drive, or the “impulse drive” that moves the ship around without expelling any reaction mass. “Ah canna change the laws o’ physics, Captain!” Absolutely not. We know for absolute certain that sustainable, exoenergetic fusion is possible, because we’ve seen it. Step outside and look up, and you’ll see a self-sustaining fusion reactor. Doing it on a scale practical for powering a city is a devil of an engineering problem, to be sure, but it is an engineering problem, not a problem of fundamental physics. And any engineering problem **will** be solved, if enough time, money, and effort is devoted to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/18 "2005-05-16T00:28:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t even live in the suburbs, but I put a lot of mileage on my car. There is really no alternative if I want to have a life. Lord knows I’m no radical green but this is the crux of the problem: the American love affair with the personal automobile. While it’s provided untold and unheralded freedom of movement for the individual it has come with significant cost: pollution, consumption of resources, urban and suburban sprawl, and so forth. So it’s not like it’s been an unmitigated good. Seriously, why could one not live without a car? I live in a small town and could do so fairly easily. For longer trips I could take a bus or train (there’s no real air service within 100+ miles of where I sit). Do I currently do that? No. But it’s acheivable. I see no reason it couldn’t be. And my wife and I don’t even have a commute. I’m a consultant and she telecommutes to Washington DC so we both work at home. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/19 "2005-05-16T01:15:53Z")
In reading criticisms of America’s “automobile culture”, you might gain the impression that the USA is the only nation on earth where people drive cars. Hardly. Britain, France, Italy and other nations have a long history of domestic automobile production. People love cars, and will drive them as long as it’s affordable. Americans are not uniquely at fault there. What was different about the USA was that automobiles were invented around the time that the US became a global industrial powerhouse, outpacing Britain and the rest of Europe; and that we had large amounts of domestic petroleum for decades. We could afford to invest in an automobile culture to an extent that Europeans couldn’t. Britain, France and other European nations have long been in the situation that petroleum is expensive and has to be imported. This hardly means that civilization has collapsed there. I agree that it will be disruptive to the American economy when petrol costs $3.00 - $5.00 a gallon, but I don’t think we’ll see what Kunstler is evidently obsessing about: a “cascade” effect, where spiraling fuel costs cripple our very ability to adapt. As mentioned earlier, there’s a LOT of potential fuel sources that would be exploitable if the price of crude goes high enough. If nothing else, people will make the free-market descision to drive ultra-economy cars if they’re tired of their gasoline bills. I even wonder if coal-fired _steam_ engines could make a comeback in a dramatically improved form. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884/20 "2005-05-16T01:53:49Z")
> [@](#): > > In reading criticisms of America’s “automobile culture”, you might gain the impression that the USA is the only nation on earth where people drive cars. Hardly. Britain, France, Italy and other nations have a long history of domestic automobile production. People love cars, and will drive them as long as it’s affordable. Americans are not uniquely at fault there. In addition, the reason Americans tend to drive big gas guzzlers is not because Americans are less environmentally sensitive than Europeans, but because the U.S. is spread out, the roads and parking spaces are large, and this favors larger autos. Many European countries are densely packed, distances to travel are typically smaller, and the roads are often narrow and parking spaces tight. All of this pushes people towards owning smaller vehicles. Canadians tend to be more ‘European’ in outlook, and we even have high gasoline taxes that keep our gas prices much higher than in the U.S., yet we are just as addicted to SUVs and large sedans and big horsepower as are Americans. It’s all about the nature of the travel. But as soon as gas prices get to the point where this gets painful, you’ll see a mass exodus out of the gas guzzlers. It won’t even take that long, because once people become convinced that gas prices will be rising constantly you’ll see the resale and residual value of gas guzzlers go down, which will increase the cost of ownership and lease payments. The market is pretty good at pricing in future values. In fact, that’s already starting. SUV and truck sales have been softening dramatically, and the small sedan is making huge gains into the marketplace. Hybrids are a big sales success, with manufacturers selling pretty much all they can make. As these cars become more refined and hybrid technology moves into the mainstream, you could see the CAFE average go up substantially - without government interference. **Jonathan Chance** said: [quote] While it’s provided untold and unheralded freedom of movement for the individual it has come with significant cost: pollution, consumption of resources, urban and suburban sprawl, and so forth. So it’s not like it’s been an unmitigated good. [quote] Why is it always assumed that urban sprawl is a bad thing? Urban sprawl is a _benefit_ of the automobile. People move out to the suburbs because they like it there, and ultimately the success of any economy is measured by how it provides for the desires of the people. Suburban life is pretty damned good. It’s a major part of the North American lifestyle. Green spaces, comfortable, large living spaces, garages, backyard barbecues, play areas outside for the kids in a fenced in, safe place. Low noise, isolation from neighbors. Are there costs associated with it? Of course. Just like every other luxury on the planet. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/salon-com-kunstlers-peak-oil-poppycock/303884.md?page=2)