Anyone Read This?

[SoonerInKCMO]

The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802142494/qid=1145230679/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/002-7915483-4080802?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) by James Howard Kunstler.



The circumstances of the Long Emergency will be the opposite of what we currently experience. There will be hunger instead of plenty, cold where there was once warmth, effort where there was once leisure, sickness where there was health, and violence where there was peace. We will have to adjust our attitudes, values, and ideas to accommodate these new circumstances and we may not recognize the people we will soon become or the people we once were. In a world where sheer survival dominates all other concerns, a tragic view of life is apt to reassert itself. This is another way of saying that we will become keenly aware of the limitations of human nature in general and its relation to ubiquitous mortality in particular. Life will get much more real. The dilettantish luxury of relativism will be forgotten in the boneyards of the future. Irony, hipness, cutting-edge coolness will seem either quaint or utterly inexplicable to people struggling to produce enough food to get through the winter. In the Long Emergency, nobody will get anything for nothing.

Just finished it tonight and I thought it was pretty good. I'm not sure how plausible a lot of his 'doomsday' scenarios are simply because of my lack of knowledge of the suitability of alternative energy sources... it has prompted me to start learning more about that though. I recommend it.

[GulfCoastBamaFan]

Have you ever heard of an early 19th Century economist named Sir Thomas Malthus?

Malthus predicted virtually the same thing as this guy does. And as Lester Brown did nearly 200 years after him.

Look, doomsday prophets are a dime a dozen throughout history. Each time they predict suffering on an unimaginable scale, and each time their prophecies have been proven wrong. The ingenuity of mankind will always, always solve the problems these false prophets foretell.

The Malthusian Theory held that since population grew exponentially and food production grew only mathematically, at some point the food supply would be so exhausted that mass starvation and war was the only result. Lester Brown of WorldWatch predicted basically the same thing, using a modern twist on the Malthusian principle of exponential vs. mathematical growth. They sound logical on the surface.

The people predicting the end of our energy supplies are falling on the same swords these false prophets did. Don't believe them. They only want to scare you into either (1) giving them some money so they can continue their PR campaigns or (2) electing them to some office that grants them control over the means of production.

Just don't do either one, and we'll all be better off for it.

[SoonerInKCMO]

They only want to scare you into either (1) giving them some money so they can continue their PR campaigns

Aww, crap... I already gave the guy $14 for the book. ;)

[SoonerInKCMO]

And yes, I've heard of Malthus and his ideas on the exponential growth rates of populations.

I also know we've had plenty of doom and gloom folks in the past that have been mostly shown to be wrong... but, we do have a finite supply of fossil fuels - I don't think the topics covered in this book can just be dismissed out of hand with a simple "we've always been able to figure something out."

[Octavian]

Look, doomsday prophets are a dime a dozen throughout history. Each time they predict suffering on an unimaginable scale, and each time their prophecies have been proven wrong.

odds on this thread developing into a Nostradaumus discussion??


The ingenuity of mankind will always, always solve the problems these false prophets foretell.

way to jinx us :rolleyes:

;)

[GulfCoastBamaFan]

We have a finite supply of fossil fuels at their current prices, given the current technology of extraction, refining and consumption. Change the price, improve exploration and extraction, improve refinery efficiency and change the incentives to consume, and the supply changes.

At the risk of boring all non-economists and non-engineers, let me give you an example. Let's say you've discovered a new oil field with a 100 million barrel potential. Given the current technology and current prices, you could realistically expect to get only about 80 million out of it. The last 20 million would just cost too much to extract. Today, that is.

In 10 years, after you've extracted 40 million barrels, technology advances to not only improve your ability to cost-effectively extract another 10 million barrels from the field, but your geotechnical people are also employing new technology, and they're now telling you that there's really 140 million barrels down there. You've extracted 40, but your 100 million barrel field was really a 140 million barrel field. You can still realistically expect to get 90 million out of it, even after 10 years and 40 million of extraction. But that's given the current price level and consumption rate.

If the price of oil goes up (and it likely will), the incentives to develop even better extraction and refining technology increase too. In theory (and in fact, as the historical evidence grows), the supply of any supposedly finite resource will never be exhausted. The price increases associated with expected future shortages result in incentives to develop better technology. Technology is what results in better efficiency, and extensions in the horizon of "exhaustion." Those extensions will continue indefinitely.

This is what Malthus, Brown, et al have never been able to comprehend: Markets respond to incentives. Math does not.

[jacru]

Wow, GCBF you're quite intelligent when not snockered on home brew.:D:D

[GulfCoastBamaFan]

Some people stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

I drink handcrafted beer.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Those extensions will continue indefinitely.

This is where I disagree. For a good length of time, yes. Indefinitely, no. At some point, all of the oil in the ground will have been extracted and used. Before that occurs, the ingenuity we've shown as a species in increasing the efficiency at which we extract oil will have to be re-directed to developing different sources of energy.

What are your thoughts on the idea of 'peak oil' and whether we've passed that point?


Ooh - the author will be in town Thursday night; anything you want me to ask/tell him? ;)

[GulfCoastBamaFan]

This is where I disagree. For a good length of time, yes. Indefinitely, no. At some point, all of the oil in the ground will have been extracted and used. Before that occurs, the ingenuity we've shown as a species in increasing the efficiency at which we extract oil will have to be re-directed to developing different sources of energy.

I agree, insofar as the price of the last barrel doesn't change. But that's as unrealistic as the last barrel being extracted.


What are your thoughts on the idea of 'peak oil' and whether we've passed that point?

The concept of 'peak oil' is a statist one. It assumes that prices, technology and consumption will not change. We know that all of these factors are dynamic.

There will come a point where we will have to abandon fossil fuels as a source of energy. I just disagree with people who think they know when that time will come about. I also think that the point where we do have to abandon them is so far off into the future that anyone who is reading this now will not live to see it.


Ooh - the author will be in town Thursday night; anything you want me to ask/tell him? ;)

Ask him to explain asymptotic supply curves. And ask him why is he different from Malthus or Lester Brown.

He will blush.

[SoonerInKCMO]

The concept of 'peak oil' is a statist one. It assumes that prices, technology and consumption will not change. We know that all of these factors are dynamic.

So, then are you of the opinion that U.S. production has consistently decreased since '71 (other than a brief spike when the North Slope came on-line) only because oil in other parts of the world was easier to get and cheaper?


Ask him to explain asymptotic supply curves. And ask him why is he different from Malthus or Lester Brown.

Will do.

On a different but related note, do you know of any good resources for reading about methane hydrates?

[GulfCoastBamaFan]

So, then are you of the opinion that U.S. production has consistently decreased since '71 (other than a brief spike when the North Slope came on-line) only because oil in other parts of the world was easier to get and cheaper?

U.S. production has consistently decreased since 1971. And the chief reason is that because oil in other parts of the world was cheaper and easier to get at. This does not say that the oil (and gas, and coal) that we have in the ground has been depleted. Oil exploration, drilling, extraction and refining in this hemisphere have faced significant regulatory hurdles since the early to mid-1970's. There are no signs of those hurdles being removed. Yet. See the ANWR, Florida and Virginia fields as examples. There are untold billions of barrels and cubic meters of fuel in these locations. But politics and regulatory matters make their exploitation a matter of price and time.

And make no mistake about it--it is only a matter of price and time.

[Skysooner]

This is where I disagree. For a good length of time, yes. Indefinitely, no. At some point, all of the oil in the ground will have been extracted and used. Before that occurs, the ingenuity we've shown as a species in increasing the efficiency at which we extract oil will have to be re-directed to developing different sources of energy.

What are your thoughts on the idea of 'peak oil' and whether we've passed that point?


Ooh - the author will be in town Thursday night; anything you want me to ask/tell him? ;)

Gulf Coast has it correct. Ultimately we will run out of oil, but there are trillions of barrels of heavy oil that can be extracted from Canada if the price just stays high enough. There are more reserves there than the proven reserves in the Middle East. Heavy oil has become the hot topic at the recent technical conferences in the oil industry.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Ooh - the author will be in town Thursday night;

Oh good ****ing grief I've never seen such a bunch of granola chompin', tree huggin', kool-aid drinkin' nuts in my life! With all the "mmm-hmmm!"-ing and "amen!"-ing and "you got that right!"-ing I was afraid that some sorta freaky hippie church revival was gonna break out at any moment.

He barely touched on the whole "we're running out of oil and there isn't an adequate replacement fuel out there" angle that made up nearly half the book, instead focusing on the "what will happen to society when we're out of cheap fossil fuels" part - implying that the first issue is a self-evident forgone conclusion. And really, from what I gathered from eavesdropping on conversations before the talk started, there was near unanimity of opinion amongst the others - oil gone in 30 years tops. I heard some people mentioning USGS surveys pegging the supply at 3 trillion barrels - and dismissing them out of hand as complete fabrications.

I didn't bother with any questions afterwards because all the others were some mix of hand-wringing and self-righteous indignation. Remember the South Park with the 'smug cloud'... yeah, that's what happened here. :rolleyes:

Gah.

[C&CDean]

Oh good ****ing grief I've never seen such a bunch of granola chompin', tree huggin', kool-aid drinkin' nuts in my life! With all the "mmm-hmmm!"-ing and "amen!"-ing and "you got that right!"-ing I was afraid that some sorta freaky hippie church revival was gonna break out at any moment.

He barely touched on the whole "we're running out of oil and there isn't an adequate replacement fuel out there" angle that made up nearly half the book, instead focusing on the "what will happen to society when we're out of cheap fossil fuels" part - implying that the first issue is a self-evident forgone conclusion. And really, from what I gathered from eavesdropping on conversations before the talk started, there was near unanimity of opinion amongst the others - oil gone in 30 years tops. I heard some people mentioning USGS surveys pegging the supply at 3 trillion barrels - and dismissing them out of hand as complete fabrications.

I didn't bother with any questions afterwards because all the others were some mix of hand-wringing and self-righteous indignation. Remember the South Park with the 'smug cloud'... yeah, that's what happened here. :rolleyes:

Gah.

How many times have I told you? Leave the dark side. Come on over to the light/right.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh good ****ing grief I've never seen such a bunch of granola chompin', tree huggin', kool-aid drinkin' nuts in my life! With all the "mmm-hmmm!"-ing and "amen!"-ing and "you got that right!"-ing I was afraid that some sorta freaky hippie church revival was gonna break out at any moment.

He barely touched on the whole "we're running out of oil and there isn't an adequate replacement fuel out there" angle that made up nearly half the book, instead focusing on the "what will happen to society when we're out of cheap fossil fuels" part - implying that the first issue is a self-evident forgone conclusion. And really, from what I gathered from eavesdropping on conversations before the talk started, there was near unanimity of opinion amongst the others - oil gone in 30 years tops. I heard some people mentioning USGS surveys pegging the supply at 3 trillion barrels - and dismissing them out of hand as complete fabrications.

I didn't bother with any questions afterwards because all the others were some mix of hand-wringing and self-righteous indignation. Remember the South Park with the 'smug cloud'... yeah, that's what happened here. :rolleyes:

Gah.

This is precisely why otherwise reasonable people can't bring themselves to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon. Obviously oil isn't going to last forever, and I think it's in our long term interest to find a cheap source of renewable energy.

However, I take that position because of national security and interest concerns having nothing to do with the environment. Interestingly enough, Sen. Coburn is in favor of a massive nation wide effort to develop an alternative source of fuel on national security grounds.

There's a lot of absurd talk from the left about "no war for oil", but aside from immediate territorial and domestic security concerns there is no greater threat to our national security and well being than keeping our sources of oil open.

Our entire economy and society would collapse without access to oil. If we were ever cut out from our foreign sources of oil especially in the Mid-East and Venezuala were ever cut off then we would HAVE to immediately go to war for oil.

I'm just not a fan of having the life of our nation dependent upon islamic fundamentalists and a latino communist.