Long Emergency

Carl Jung was correct about that.

The vast majority of society amounts to nothing more than bleating sheep. You can stick hard facts and figures right in front of them and they go baaaaaaaaaaaaaa and keep chewing their grass.

Seems to be the human condition.

 

very sobering article

 

Wow, what a scary article. And it certainly seems realistic as well.

 

Take a few facts, stir in fear and sensationalism, ignore the mitigating factors, and combine it all with a healthy dose of Hollywood style suspension of disbelief, and you can get some pretty stupid BS. Of all the twisted tales of doom that I've heard, this one may have been the most absurd. There is plenty of environmental quagmire out there. This kind of ignorant distortion just makes those of us who are concerned about these issues appear to be a bunch of nut jobs.

The vast amount of waste out there is a buffer. After the energy crisis in the seventies, energy consumption dropped dramatically until oil prices collapsed. In an economic downturn, energy demands are naturally reduced as costs are reduced through plant closures and conservation efforts. Natural market forces may not be the best policy makers but they do work. We will buy time through reduction of waste.

Inventions and innovation will continue to have dramatic and unforseen influence on our future. Our culture and societal makeup will adapt and evolve as it always has. Those that attempt to cling to the past will likely be the biggest losers.

Fear not for there is always a bright future possible.

 

:roll: Let me recall.... Was it "Chicken Little" who cried aloud "THE SKY IS FALLING !!!!!" ?

I'm with Ray Moore (my fellow Texan from the "Hill Country"). The Prius is an illustration of the inventiveness of our current culture and development of new technologies to maximize available resources. If you will re-live recent history it will become apparent that we do indeed have a bright future.

It seems shameful that the auto industry clings to the "macho" horsepower promotions. Such an approach would imply that the car buyer needs *POWER* to prove his/her worthiness - and I suppose some buyers do indeed have this need.

For one, I am not ready to join the naysayers.

 

problem is that too many think like Charles and Ray. at least u 2 have a Prius. now what is described is obviously on the negative side, but to say that there will be no problems?

sorry cant believe that. this aint the 70's. what helped alleviate the situation back then simply does not apply today

 

I'm sorry, but the chicken little story is not the only "story". There are also stories about having ones head in the sand.

I think this article helped show the integration that energy has in every aspect of our lives, and it should make one think about the various issues involved.

One need only look at the head of GM and his recent decision to cut back on some mid sized cars so GM can make more small trucks and SUVs to see that there are some pretty messed up decision makers in the USA today. And as far as I'm concerned, our government clearly has no energy policy at all beyond drill and invade.

And I lived through the 70's and the free market was not the only reason that OPEC collapsed and prices fell. Back then the USA put together an energy policy that included CAFE standards and other efficiency regulations. (That's right, something conservatives hate, Government intervention in the marketplace.) These forces all worked together such that American's were using LESS energy in 1980 than they were in 1975.

But since 1980, our energy use has only gone up every year. But OPEC learned their lesson so they have been very careful to not cut back production too much ever again or what happened between 1975 to 1980 would happen again, and they would lose. But everywhere we read now, we find that OPEC is pretty near their optimum in production. Thus, what happened in the late 70's could be a permanent phenomenon, and not a temporary one. This article points out the potential perils of such a scenario. Is it overstated? Probably, but we ignore it at our peril.

Currently, energy conservation is a bad word to our current government. And if we ARE approaching peak oil production, we do not yet have a viable replacement. ANWR and the hydrogen economy are a joke. I think hybrids can do a lot here, but I also think that our oil and auto industry are spending millions to hamper too much hybrid expansion. Thank God that Toyota doesn't make decision just on the basis of the next quarterly report, but instead looks 10 to 20 years ahead.

This article should be used to get people to pay attention to the consequences of their actions. It should not be laughed at and ignored.

 

For those of us who DO see what is coming there are some steps that we can each take to mitigate the personal effects that are on their way. Investing in solar and wind power for personal use will act as a cushion against the future problems. Purchasing Hybrids and switching our homes and business over to lower power usage will make the personal effect that much lower as well.

My wife and I made that descision two years ago and had a new house built. Due to insulation, intelligent heating and cooling purchases, and by putting mostly flourescent features in the house we have reduced our overall power usage by 50% while simultaneously doubling our living space and upping our quality of life.

Our second step was the purchase of my Prius. That has reduced fuel usage by 50 percent.

Third step will be a full solar system to home generate another 40 - 50 percent of our electric usage. (When pro-rated for an entire year. We live in the Pacific North West so generation is not as high as it could be.)

My point is that we can't do anything about the screaming masses, but we can take care of ourselves. As technology changes we can also keep ourselves on top of the situation personally. There is truly little that we can do about the situation as a whole.

 

There is a wealth of evidence that peak oil is imminent and that it will indeed cause changes in how the world operates. This article is very poorly written and is a distortion of fact and ignores the factors that will mitigate and delay it's doomsday predictions. Our purpose is not served by fear mongering and exageration.

When oil prices rise economic development slows, demand drops, prices moderate, and then development speeds up again. As demand surpasses production and world production levels begin to decline, our economy will suffer recession until demand drops below production and prices moderate somewhat. A cycle will be created where economies experience lower lows and lower highs. Energy prices will experience higher lows and higher highs. In a ragged way the whole system will self-regulate.

It is not a cliff we are approaching but a peak. It is going to be the end of cheap oil, not the end of carbon based society as a whole.

Dave-
I have not said that there will be no problems. We will indeed be forced into some rather drastic changes in how we do things, but that is a good thing, not a doomsday from which we cannot recover. The article reports that there is no way to avoid catastrophe and worldwide starvation. It predicts a mass exodus from the cities and a mother earth news way of life for all. It calls for this to happen relatively soon. That is a load of crap that ignores human resilience and ingenuity.

If a writer only focuses on the negative evidence in such a dynamic issue as this, he will utterly miss the mark in his predictions and will harm the credibility of his cause.

 

Prius04- In response to your statement.
"But since 1980, our energy use has only gone up every year." Please refer to the following link on world oil consumption. There are alot of false statements presented as fact on this issue. This table will illustrate that economic recession has had a moderating influence on demand. This often continues in the face of falling prices, due to the delayed effect of prices on economic recovery.

US oil demand has fallen in seven of the past 22 years, including in 2001. World oil demand fell in three of those same 22 years. Data is for the period of 1980-2002.

The facts are easier for people to ignore if they are twisted or exagerated so that they are easy to refute. The author should have relied on the facts. If he was only preaching to the already converted, then his source reliability would not likely be questioned. If one wishes to sway the skeptic, then one must use facts that are above reproach.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/i...alf/table12.xls

 

Thanks for the data, After looking at it, I think it would have been more accurate to say that since 1980, USA oil use has continued to trend ever upwards, whereas from 1975 to 1980, that trend was substantially downwards. And prior to 1975, again that trend was mostly upwards.

I'm not sure how this changes the arguments though. Oh, and this article above does not say that carbon based life will disappear. Only that life will change, and change radically.

You seem to agree that change will occur, you only seem to dispute just how radical it will be.

Through most of my adult life, I've been quite optimistic for the future in spite of articles like this one and in spite of other events in the world. And I've always felt that way because of my faith in the resilience of the common man.

But the phenomenal success of the Bush administration in achieving their agenda has me scared for the future. I'm still hopeful, but these guys are good, and they pretty much own our media now, so they will likely succeed. This is great news for the rich and powerful, but not good for America. (By the way, I'm probably closer to one of those that will benefit from what Bush is doing. But I care more about America than my portfolio.)

 

The point of the data is to show that oil prices will slow the economy and the slowed economy will reduce demand and moderate the prices. This regulating cycle will manage the speed of the changes that will occur. There will be time and resources available to shift to new technologies. The sooner we act the better, but exagerating the forecasted timeline has been tried before and failed. Driving at 55 mph with oil at 13 dollars a barrel in the 80s left a bad taste in the mouths of many. I think a strong energy policy before the supply crisis makes sense but these head fakes won't convince most people. The current high prices will fall again and many will see that as a sign that they can ignore the trends a little longer. When it gets serious, there will still be time to act.

I am not waiting to act. My home uses 1/4 Kwh per square foot per month. When nanotechnology substantially reduces the cost of photo-voltaics and batteries, I will buy a fully electric vehicle and charge it at home. Even that is not a sustainable solution. That plan simply allows me to envision maintaining my current lifestyle without compromise.

As long as we're peering into the future, what will it take for our planet to support us for 200 years? What will have to change for us to make it 1000 more years, 10,000? Can we?

We don't disagree fundamentally. I simply believe the article stretched the truth in a way that serves to discredit the environmental movement. Those that we must convince are looking for that type of BS so they can blow off the whole movement for a little longer.

As much as I regret seeing the damage done by the current administration, it is no worse than how I felt about president Reagan. Carter was the last president I really connected with and he failed miserably in the eyes of most Americans. Probably, most would agree that he has done a fine job since leaving office.

Until the situation becomes critical in the eyes of the average American, the average politician won't even pay lip service to it. There is just not enough short term profit motive in conservation to attract politicians and multi-national corporations.

Your Mileage May Vary

 

its funny that Carter did fail miserably in the eyes of most americans because he failed at the one thing we americans take for granted and that is military superiority. we blame him for the hostage situation, the crash of the helicopter and subsequent death of nearly a dozen us soldiers. but other than that, i dont consider him a failure at all. and every president has had an energy policy designed to last 4 years. he was the only exception. whether by force or necessity it doesnt matter.

now we can thank clinton and gore for essentially having no policy at all but even the dropping of the CAFE ball cant be blamed on them since bush would have done away with it immediately upon taking office anyway.

and does the article cry wolf? sure it does, its more gloomier than armeggedon. but i be damned if anything less will get us off our fat asses to do anything about it. i hope it scares people, because that is what it will take.

 

I too think that Carter was the last President I felt good about, and although I also agree that in the minds of millions "he failed miserably", I am not one who shares that view.

Indeed, I think Carter was one of our last greatest Presidents but just like there is a concerted effort to canonize Bush in much of our media, there was a concerted effort to demonize Carter in much of our media as well. And the same forces that are trying to canonize dubya, already pretty much succeeded in canonizing Reagan.

For all the talk about how "Christian" the USA is, Carter was the only president in the last 100 years who actually brought the principles of Christianity into our nations policies. And I think it was working for us all.

It's ironic that those very same Christian principles that told him that the USA could no longer support thugs like the Shah of Iran, allowed an even bigger set of thugs to come to power there. And then when Carter showed Christian decency to allow the Shah to get cancer treatment in the USA, the hostages get taken, thus dooming his Presidency. It's more than a bit ironic that the Christian right wing wants us to think of Bush and Reagan as pillars of Christian belief. One America's first and only President with an arrest record and the other the first and only President with a divorce.

As for the data that you presented, I understand how fuel prices will moderate the economy and that that moderation will slow oil consumption. I get your point on this. However, I think there are some fundamental changes in oil supply such that there could be a profound change coming. Maybe not as "armageddon like" as in this article, but surely not also a simple amelioration of our lives. Something profound COULD be in the wings for us and this article presents some very realistic points.

 

I think it's unrealistic to believe that it will require construction of new nuclear power plants to keep the lights on in america beyond 2020. Do you really think that gun ownership and christian fundamentalism threatens anarchy in the american southeast?

a quote:"

Wishful notions about rescuing our way of life with "renewables" are also unrealistic. Solar-electric systems and wind turbines face not only the enormous problem of scale but the fact that the components require substantial amounts of energy to manufacture and the probability that they can't be manufactured at all without the underlying support platform of a fossil-fuel economy. We will surely use solar and wind technology to generate some electricity for a period ahead but probably at a very local and small scale."

Not true at all and an example of the inference that our fossil fuel economy will end all of a sudden.

another quote:

"America today has a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of. Neither of the two major presidential candidates in 2004 mentioned railroads, but if we don't refurbish our rail system, then there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now."

Another example of taking a little fact and deriving a scenario that would require us to just lay down and watch our infrastructure rot. As energy costs rise, rail systems will become more competitive and will be modernized. We built a trans-continental railroad in the mid 19th century. Why would anyone think we couldn't pull it off in the 21st or that no other means would be developed or improved? What is this guy thinking?

another quote:

"Our lives will become profoundly and intensely local. Daily life will be far less about mobility and much more about staying where you are. Anything organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away. The turbulence of the Long Emergency will produce a lot of economic losers, and many of these will be members of an angry and aggrieved former middle class."

This adjustment will be generational. The changes will cause many to lament the passing of a way of life just as they have done for all of human history. Just as some will grieve the changes others will embrace the improvements and opportunities. I doubt that there is any basis for the assumption that it will lead to an angry and aggrieved "former middle class".

And the beat goes on. Peace out ya'll.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"76121)</div>

Carter was a failure for many reasons. We had runaway inflation during his tenure in office, he was a weak leader in foreign policy, and just plain "too nice" of a guy to be a strong leader in the number one slot in government. Even his energy policies which opened the door for major expansion of solar energy, lacked sufficient wording to insure the quality and safety of these systems. The result of this was huge numbers of fly by night solar energy "companies" that put up junk systems that did far more damage than good.

Much like GM did with diesel cars back in the late 70's and early 80's, these fly by night companies set solar energy back years due to alienating the public from the problems.

I genuinely believe that Carter is a nice guy. He comes across as someone that you would think is a preacher or something if you didn't know him. Good character, weak leader.

Personally, I think we need a President who has the leadership qualities of Reagan, a fiscal conservative, who is against more taxation, and not sold out to the corporate lobbies, and who has the balls to lay down the law in both foreign and domestic policy.

 

We had inflation is exactly true but it started in the Nixon years and Nixon imposed some price controls that only worked temporarily. Ford created the "WIN" button. (Whip Inflation Now). it worsened under Carter because he did not resort to foolishness and it worsened when OPEC cut production and oil skyrocketed.

Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve and then allowed Volcker to raise interests rates thru the roof. This killed inflation once and for all, but it also destroyed his presidency almost as much as the hostage crisis did. This showed phenomenal leadership and it showed more "balls" than any president before or after.

And whenever you are entering into new technology, you must fund projects that turn into dead ends. It's the nature of change. Had Carter been re-elected, we may have been able to sort out those bad projects, instead we got a president that abandoned that line altogether. And as for Carters foreign policy, American foreign policy has been rather militaristic based for most of it's existence. Just because it is our pattern does not mean that it is right. In fact, Carter used the "carrot" approach with Israel and Egypt and whereas Egypt had had 2 wars with Israel in the prior 20 years, at the time, and they have had zero wars since.

And as for Reagan being a fiscal conservative, how do you explain his having the biggest deficits in American history? (Prior to GW) And he was the champion of deregulation which is the very definition of selling out to corporate lobbies and he lowered taxes in his first term but when he saw the harm it was doing he raised raised them in his second.

And when you add in all the State tax increases that were required because of the Federal cutbacks, and all the property tax increases that were incurred again due to federal cutbacks, you will see that Reagan was not a tax cutter but a tax shifter.

Until Bush came along, Reagan oversaw the biggest shift in taxation from being shared by the rich and middle class, to being much more firmly on the shoulders of the middle class.

But millions of dollars are being spent to canonize Bush, just like they did Reagan. I can't beat that. The rich and powerful are winning the minds of Americans, and if they have their way, the entire 20th century will be repealed. And common Americans will go back to being little more than peasants for their masters.

 

I never stated that Reagan was a fiscal conservative. I'm well aware of his deficit spending. Such deficit spending is even more insane now, as we are no longer fighting the "cold war." However, I do like how what he said he wanted done, got done.

 

reagan did spend a lot of money but the benefits of that spending reaches into several different areas of technology and medical advances.

i know it seems like all those shuttle missions didnt seem to do much but launch, circle the Earth a few times then land, but what we had to learn (and stumbled upon by accident) soon became invaluable while searching for other answers in unrelated fields.

sure we went into debt, but the true profit and loss statement is much rosier it seems at first glance