Salon.com: Kunstler's peak oil poppycock

Great Debates
21

In terms of efficiency suburban sprawl is a terrible thing. Especially as it’s supposedly self-limiting and leads to ever longer trips thereby using more and more resources to acheive any set goal (groceries, commutes, whatever).

I speak as a man who used to drive 3 hours of commute a day having my home 60 miles outside DC.

Also, from an aesthetic point (inherently subjective, I know) I find suburbs dismayingly ugly and single-minded. I prefer either the country or city-centers (small town right now but bang in the heart of it).

22

In terms of efficiency, Lord of the Rings was a terrible thing. 300 million dollars spent, for nothing.

In terms of efficiency, this board is a terrible thing. Hundreds of thousands of hours of productive time, just wasted. I could be out improving society.

Any luxury is ‘inefficient’, and in a wealthy society like ours, 90% of what we do is a luxury. Suburban living is a luxury. It has costs, including longer commute times. On the whole, however, people clearly choose it over living packed like a sardine in the city.

Then you should not live in the suburbs. Isn’t freedom great? Just don’t presume to take it away from other people because their chosen way of living doesn’t match your personal sensibilities.

23

Knee-jerk, much, Sam? Where have I said anything about denying someone else their ability to do what they wish?

I merely state that I find suburban living ugly and short-sighted.

And I always find it amusing how hardcore free-marketeers (a view I largely share in many ways) love the efficiency of the market until it comes to homes. The simple fact is that in a society that worships efficiency (and the United States does. I won’t speak to Canada where you are, Sam) we utterly throw the idea out when it comes to housing. With more and more people in the US each week and people moving up the ladder suburban living becomes unsustainable over the long run.

The time to address the fact is early with mass transit, promotion of city living, and so forth. In fact, it’s my belief that such will become a growth market in the future with condo and large apartments becoming more affordable that suburban living.Combine that with accessible mass transit (trains and buses) and the fact that not having a car means no car payment nor fuel costs and you look at a long-term move that’s a winner for those who adopt it.

24

We DON’T worship efficiency. We drive big cars, we spend huge amounts of time playing games, watching TV, and otherwise engaging in non-productive behaviour. We vacation far away by taking very expensive, energy consuming trips. We like huge spectacles like the Olympics or major sporting events.

What we DO like is to be efficient in our non-efficiency. If we’re going to drive big cars, we want the best big car we can get for the least amount of money. If we live in the burbs, we want quality homes for good prices, etc.

Economics isn’t about choosing what we want - it’s about allocating resources to give us what we want in the most efficient manner. Given that we prefer living in suburbs, the free market will ensure that our suburban lifestyle is managed efficiently.

Sorry, I confused this thread with the one about whether or not the free market was a better tool for regulating the environment than government. And many of the people who feel as you do have no qualms about trying to use the power of government to force people to not live this way, or at least to punish them by subsidizing alternative lifestyles. They’ll use zoning laws, land use laws, taxes, subsidies for inner city living, and other coercive measures to stop people from living the way they want. If you don’t feel this way, that’s great.

25

400,000 in the greater metro area. Not big, not small. No traffic, little crime…

Just right :slight_smile:

26

Sure it is. As prices increase, people are forced to make choices that not all the tree-hugging liberal whining in the world can’t force them to make. We can live in our suburban lifestyle because it is cost effective to do so. Should the economic situation change, the landscape of our cities will change too, provided we manage them correctly.

Personally, I find suburbs dull and isolating. But they do represent a desire to have your own space. There’s a lot to be said for having a yard and some shrubs between you and the neighbor instead of living crammed into 0-2 bedroom appartments with a family of 4. Not to mention people like the freedom of having a car. I imagine that transportation costs will have to get pretty high before people are willing to give that up. I’m sure some people would rather poke along in solar powered scooters (I can’t call them ‘cars’) than live like ants. Then again, some people like urban living.

I have to think that the reality of peak oil lies somewhere between the Pollyanna optimism of the “the market will provide” camp and the doom and gloom Mad Max scenarios of the Long Emergency camp.

27

On that particular subject…

Here’s a review of Jared Diamond’s Collapse by David Brin that you folks might find interesting. He goes off in many directions.

28

I’m not sure that I buy Kunstler’s vision of how things will develop from the quotes provided, but I don’t have blind faith in the “invisible hand” or the eventual development of fusion either. I find it a little odd that the OP would question Kunstler on so many points and then flatly state that we will somehow (magically?) develop fusion.

It should be noted that the US, due to it’s infrastructure and lack of efficient public transport is particularly vulnerable to oil prices (in comparison to Europe for example) and its economy has already been having significant problems for some time now. While gas prices have nearly doubled over the last two years, I don’t see any evidence that we are any better prepared than we before.

I think any market response will be after the fact. Our already delicate economy will take serious damage for years before anything can come close to replacing cheap gasoline. In the end I think we will have to reinvest in our infrastructure (fuel distribution systems, public transport, housing locations, etc…) and the incentive to do so will only be there when our economy has already become crippled. No it ain’t Mad Max, but it’s not looking good over the next 10-15 years.

29

I knew you were going to call me on that after I posted the message. I poorly worded what I was trying to say. Of course economic factors affect our choices. Given enough costs associated with suburban living, people will choose to move elsewhere. What I was trying to say is that economics has nothing to say about our social values and desires (although economic reality can shape values over time).

An efficient economic system does not imply a just economic system, nor does it mean that everyone’s ideology is served. The poster I was responding to was saying that economics doesn’t lead to ‘efficiency’ in the sense that everyone chooses the least ecologically destructive or energy efficient lifestyle. This is certainly true, because his definition of ‘efficiency’ is essentially ideological. What it boils down to is that he doesn’t like the choices people are making, and turns that into an argument against the market. But the market isn’t about maximizing the absolute ‘efficiency’ of living, or it would push us all into walking or riding bicycles and living in 600 sq ft apartments and being vegetarians.

30

I think my ears are burning, Sam.

Again, while I might find others choices distasteful (people listen to Britney Spears, after all) I wouldn’t force them to do otherwise.

Nor do I argue against the marketplace. But I do find that an absolute faith in the market to be shortsighted. Can a market-oriented system work? Certainly. Will it work to provide efficient services and sustainability in a continually growing population? I have my doubts. As population grows the system eventually becomes more and more unbalanced until a balancing effect occurs.

31

Didn’t mean to sound harsh.

I must say that one of the most annoying things about arguing this discussion is that inevitably the ‘perfect market’ strawman gets thrown out. Do I have ‘absolute faith’ that the market will always work? Of course not. Why does that always have to be the comparison?

Markets can fail, for numerous reasons (the most common of which is government interference). I would argue that since the market is an excellent tool for optimizing our use of resources, the proper role for the government should be in creating conditions that allow the market to work.

Unfortunately, too many people define market failure as, “people not doing what -I- think they should do.”

32

Which is, I think, the attitude you’re projecting on me.

To sum: I believe that markets work. But…

Markets work to acheive set goals for specific niches. Whether the sum total of markets works for all niches when combined is an open question. Governmental regulation exists, in my opinion, to ensure that no specific niche or market allows its own ‘maximization’ to trample other necessary markets.

It’s that balance that is the necessitating force in government regulation. Whether and how much regulation is necessary for that balancing force is the role of political debate as many people (perhaps all) will have answers that vary subtley or massively.

Example: I believe that, in the United States, some form or other of Nationalized Heatlh Care will develop in the next few decades. I don’t necessarily few this as a positive and many people will few it as a negative. But the political marketplace (that of the ‘will of the people’ leading to elections) will force this issue into the political arena and eventually into enactment. This will be the triumph of the political marketplace over the economic one.

In short, I’m a moderate. There is some amount of regulation of industry, lifestyle, etc, that is necessary and desired by the American people to maintain the interlocking system of markets that make up American society.

After all…it’s not like someone, in the system employed in the United States, can just wish markets away. Regulation just changes the shape of it…maybe for the better if done wisely…usually for the worse. But the fact is that the market remains.

Let me point out a few specific quibbles with your statement here:

Of course government interference can lead to market non-optimization. But is optimization the goal? In a perfect world sure. But which market and where? And there are instances where a market can be totally deregulated yet lead to train wrecks in other markets.

You use the term ‘optimizing our resources’ rather cavalierly. I find that to be a judgement value for all of us. One man’s ‘optimized resources’ is maximum value gain where another man’s might be ‘maximum arable land available for use’. Again, the differences in the interpretation of that phrase lead to the political marketplace as expressed by the voters every few years.

In short, Sam, I find your statement

to apply to your interpretation as well.

33

But cities are supposed to be “walkable,” etc. Why are they more vulnerable than small, quaint little towns with general stores and cracker barrels?

34

It’s not perfect, since it produces nasty waste, but not much waste in proportion to the energy produced. No air pollution, no greenhouse gasses whatsoever. All in all, it really is the most environmentally friendly form of power.

It’s “immediately obvious” how you are going to power the car: You use fuel cells with hydrogen electrolyzed from water. The power for that is nuclear power.

35

H[sub]2[/sub] really isn’t very dangerous. You store it as a liquid gas like anything else. If you don’t find a tanker full of gasoline rolling down the road scary, then a tanker full of hydrogen should be even less scary.

Because it really is safe:

One other advantage to hydrogen over gasoline (not mentioned in the link) is that, even if it catches fire, it flows upward and evaporates even as it’s burning. In contrast, gasoline pools on the ground and flows outward like lava, burning everything in its path.

36

I call bullshit on the whole “suburban sprawl” concept. I’ve yet to hear a clear definition of this “sprawl.”

When is a suburb “sprawling”? When is it not “sprawling”?

What is an “urb”? What is a “suburb”? What is an “exurb”?

Right now I live in downtown Indianapolis. There are some cool things about it, but the goodies that are supposedly available for us enlightened urban dwellers are not always there. There is only one rather sucky grocery store within walking distance. I have to get in my car and drive 25 minutes to my office or just about anywhere else because public transportation in this city is pure suckage.

On the other hand, if you live on the North Side (is that still part of the “urb” of Indy) or the suburbs of Carmel, Fischers, etc. (the “suburbs”), you have lots of good shopping and whatnot right next to you. Is that “sprawl”? Sometimes traffic can suck, depending on where you are going.

Of course, there are also plenty of farms within the Indy city limits. Is that “rural sprawl”?

Frankly, good is good and bad is bad and every city and even every part of every city is different. I think the term “suburban sprawl” is just political bullshit language with not even a decent set of concepts to back it up.

You make it sound as though such nonsense was imposed on you. I had an uncle once who had 4 hours of train commuting every day because he worked in Manhattan and wanted to live out in Connecticut. Cry me a river.

Yeah, right, “Another Pleasant Valley Sunday,” and all that. I don’t buy that, either.

Again, what is a “suburb”? What is the kind of “urb” you are going to find acceptable? Is it a certain population density you require–or what?

Again, I say good is good and bad is bad. Some urbs are hellish, bombed out areas, and some are glistening Ozes with great communities and block parties. Some small towns have soul, some don’t. Some burbs are awesome, some aren’t. If someone can paint for me an actual category to get ahold of, that’s when I’ll start taking the “Pleasant Valley Sunday”-style griping seriously.

37

Excellent commentary throughout the thread, Sam, but I’ve got to call you on the following:

If the government is interfering, then it really isn’t the market at work, is it?

Maybe the airline industry before deregulation wasn’t all that great; it’s been an outright disaster since. Just an example.

I think the role of the government (that is, the People) is to determine those sectors that free markets serve well (most) and those that free markets serve poorly or unacceptably (a significant few). Then government should regulate so as to preserve the most freedom and goodness within those segments that it must regulate.

No, that’s not it, that’s way too strawy.

People call a market a failure when it fails the red-face test. That is, when good things are supposed to happen under a free market and a disaster ensues instead. The airline example is a good one here. We were supposed to have lower fares, better service, and profitable airlines to boot. What we have instead are highly erratic fares (super cheap where we don’t necessarily need them and crushingly expensive and inconvenient everywhere else), crappy and surly service, and nearly every major airline in Chapter 11.

Market failure by any conceivable standard. I’ve seen it otherwise. In Japan, a highly regulated market, you can just walk into the airport and get a ticket for a decent price without a reservation. No gouging business travellers, no funky rules about weekends and stayovers–just convenience and reasonableness. Success under regulation.

38

Good point, but I was thinking of things like wage and price controls, which essentially cause the market to fail by not allowing prices to convey information.

Unfortunately, the only mechanism we have for doing that is government, and there is almost no evidence that government should be trusted with that much control. They’re just no damned good at it. And for good reason. When discussing the value of the market, you can’t hold it up to the hypothetical standard of perfect government. The real question is whether we should prefer capitalism, with all its flaws, over government, with all ITS flaws. Not only do they lack the information needed to make good decisions, but they rely on collecting that information from their constituents, which basically makes the whole thing an exercise in pandering. When the standard of correctness is not, “What is the most efficient way to do this”, but rather, “Which choice will maximize the number of people voting for me next election”, you get bizarre outcomes. Always. Like a Rural Electrification Administration that has existed for 70 years after rural America was largely electrified. Or the spectacle now of all those Senators fighting to stop base closures in their own states.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry for ‘Market Failure’.

39

If you look at the soil under any U.S. city with a large underground homosexual population, Des Moines, Iowa, for example. Look at the soil around Des Moines: you can’t build on it, you can’t grow anything on it, the government says it’s due to poor farming, but I know what’s really going on! It’s the anti-urbanites! And the anti-sprawlers! They’re building city centers for anti-urban anti-sprawlers! I swear to God!

40

“That much”? You didn’t even discuss my example of airline deregulation. It seems as though government’s level of control was appropriate and the results successful.

Not I. I said that air travel under regulation wasn’t perfect–just a hell of a lot better than it is now.

Use of the word “capitalism” is a pet peeve of mine. It’s too vague a term (usually borrowing the connotation of “that good economic system that works well and isn’t communism”), and, in any case, they system we have in place was in place before the term “capitalism” even existed.

Also, false dichotomy. “Capitalism” (or, “our current economic system”) anticipates and even requires a degree of governmental control/regulation/etc., if only to protect private property and enforce contracts.

So, the FDA and EPA are “exercises in pandering”? Where did all that great thought and analysis go to, dear Sam. I think your market fundamentalism is showing.

Yes, like George Bush, the original Big-Government-Sans-Qualms Conservative.

Whatsapoint, anyway? Should we just have a king who does the bare minimum that Gov should do while letting the markets faire their laissez? It sounds as though you’re not much of a fan of republicanism.

Or CEOs who protect their own with golden parachutes for all. The phenomenon is the same: castes and organizations doing whatever it takes to survive, efficiency be damned. ENRON did 50B x more damage than the TVA ever could or shall.

I hope the implication isn’t that this article contradicted anything I said, since it doesn’t.

Sam, I was expecting so much better from you!