The Vapors of Spring

April 4, 2005
     When historians come to write the history of this Republican reign, they will mark as the turning point the moment when Congressman Tom DeLay promised vengeance to the federal judges and others who allowed brain-dead Terri Schiavo to finally die. That was his Robespierre moment, when the little prick from Sugar Land, Texas, under-reached his grasp for the levers of public opinion because, it turned out, most of the American public did not approve of politicians pandering to them on behalf of the unfortunate Mrs. Schiavo.

     Meanwhile President Bush was still out on a sixty-day cross-country blitz, hustling his proposal to turn social security into a new revenue stream for Wall Street. Historians will also note that the stock markets followed a downward trend-line while Bush was out there pitching, while day-by-day the price of gasoline followed a steep trendline upward just as Americans were getting ready for their annual fiesta of summer motoring. The public was not buying the President's pitch. The younger voters didn't believe they'd ever collect social security no matter how it was rigged up. Anyway, it was hard to give a shit about something as abstract and distant as social security when all of a sudden it cost fifty bucks to fill your gas tank.

     There is something in the wind abroad in this land besides the vapors of spring.

      Last week, the International Energy Agency, after years of dithering, warned of an imminent global oil shortage and made a list of surprisingly draconian recommendations, from lowering speed limits in all the advanced industrial nations, to a reduced work week, to a ban on using privately-owned vehicles (!). Nobody in the American government dared comment on that because it might unravel the web of delusion that we can continue living as a nation of tanning hut managers who qualify to buy 3000 square foot suburban McHouses (while making monthly payments on GMC Yukons).

      But those rising prices at the gasoline pump send a message that is cutting through all the static of American Idol, Fox TV News, and the attempted panderings of vindictive little pricks such as Tom DeLay. Message: our standard of living is headed down. Fast.

      Now, there is every reason to believe that the public will come to misinterpret that message, too, because the whole nation -- including many enviro-progressives, by the way -- have bought into the notion that, whatever else reality offers, we are entitled to a life of easy motoring and Ditech Miracle Mortgages, and an awful lot of people are going to lose their personal revenue streams when that illusion falls away.

     What will remain is a continental-sized angry mob wanting to pole-axe the people who are running the show. Since the Democratic party has ceded its opposition by failing utterly to promote and alternate vision of reality, a new opposition is certain to form out of this mob. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of mobs to think not in terms of policy but of rolling heads.

      The warm part of 2005 is shaping up to be a time when the center no longer holds, or even ceases to exist.

Comments

[orionoir]

re delay as "the little prick":

love it, love it, simply love it! you're fighting the good fight, jim; remember, never the backward glace.

as for this rude beast (us economy) i say it's time to give that prudent bear guy a serious phone call, i hear he hangs his hat in dallas of all places.

[karl with a k]

1. something like 5 of the largest 7 global corporations deal with fossil energy and or cars.

2. capitalism has many problems. however, one advantage is the insentive for these corporations to bring on the next generation of goods to deal with expired oil wells.

3. as much as i hate to say it, these people know energy markets much better than i do. its true that many live under the false assumption of never ending wells. however, these corporations employ the bulk of geophysists. these gals and guys understand what is going on. they are in charge also.

don't believe these several billion dollar corporations are completely blind. just as much as you want anarchy to reign, they want to keep on living the life of luxery. through their desire for profits, they will provide goods for the public.

as much as i don't like bush and as much as his energy policies will prove worthless and elitist, i feel much more secure within capitalism heading for peak oil than i would in a government run economic system. there are a lot fewer people that need to be convinced in our system. the bulk of people don't need to be convinced because they understand oil, they specialize in it. this isn't like trying to teach dub and the rest of america math. rather, it is like trying to teach calculus to a physist. and if the rest of america doesn't want to care about it, they don't have to.

oil will become expensive. but, there are intelligent people working to make the transition smooth.

a revolution doesn't come free. if you want one, you have to convince the people. don't wait for peak oil.

[Jussi Hämäläinen]

What the oil companies know and what they tell the public aren't necessarily the same thing.In the short term,higher oil prices mean higher profits for the companies.In the longer term, however, inability to replace reserves through new exploration (already evident for Shell) will mean certain death.

Thus,oil CEOs have a financial incentive to put on a happy face about future prospects regardless of what they've heard in private.Imagine Apple telling the people that they'd be better off with PCs and you'll see what I mean.

[teague allen]

Karl with a k is korrect, for the most part. It's easy to ascribe lying motives in the corporate mindset -- we've become accustomed to lies as the societal norm since President Nixon, debating only the degrees of untruth and how important it is to our position. Despite what we've seen in the last half decade or so, I have to believe most business entities want to stay in business -- particularly those who actually produce a quantifiable product, such as petroleum.

Once again, the discussion of this topic resembles a past proto-panic, the Y2K non-disaster. More than a few people posting here (and elsewhere) appear to desire the collapse of mechanized civilization, preferably in dramatic fashion, and are actively proselytizing for it in several ways, including conspiracy theory, an easy out from real analysis of motives, and the even easier out of "society (i.e. everyone but me and my friends) is stupid". All these elements were present in the pre-millennium discussion of Y2K, and here they are again.

It dosen't mean peak oil is a schuck. It does demonstrate that fat dumb America is not the only one indulging in solipsistic fantasy.

[Stranger]

It isn't that we desire the collapse of current society, it's that we reognize the seriousness of the situation and the costs of doing nothing. If we aren't ready for peak oil when the time does come, that means the end of the whole show. From that perspective, the mindset that dictates a lot of the current action of the powers that be just seems completely insane.

Just look at the Cheney energy policy. It calls for the end of the tax write off for the hybrids yet it keep that write off for the Hummer. In the current energy sitaution, let alone the future one when peak oil does hit, this is ludicrous. We aren't even sure when it's going to hit and yet they are betting the farm just so they can go around driving over-hyped status symbols. It's like they are playing chicken with peak oil. As a result, most inevitably find themselves at a loss to explain it as rational behavior.

Bush just built himself a totally green house yet his energy policy is one that encourages the increased consumption of oil. Can you explain that type of behavior?

I'm not as optmisitic as Karl with a k, I'm not so sure they really do know what is going on (for instance, the higher management could be ignoring the more dire findings of their geologists) or that they are playing this in a way that is best for society.

Take the fossil fuel companies. If there are no alternatives and the price of oil does go up, what choice will we have but to pay their higher prices as long as we can? In that situation, they not only would not want to invest in alternatives, they would want to do their best to prevent their developement for as long as possible in order to make as much profit as possible (while still doing token PR developement so they keep the public's goodwill). When alternatives are developed, they can then just buy the companies that produce them and hence save a fortune on actual research.

Would you put that business plan beyond the average corporation? What if they aren't looking at the long term picture (something increasingly common in corporate culture)? Additionally this also assumes there is a possible smooth transitition. What if they have discovered there isn't?

How likely is it that these are the answers? Remember, we are still digging ourselves out of the hole 1990's mass stupidity left us in. We still have the housing bubble and the potentional that we have dug ourselves out of one hole by digging ourselves into another. With this in mind, I'm not nearly as sure that this is going to turn out as well as Karl with a K suggests.

[Stranger]

When everyone around you is choosing their SUV and the short term pleasure it brings over the fate of the planet in the long term, how realistically optimistic can you be that the peak oil situation will turn out for the best?

[Kevin]

karl with a k,

I hear what you are saying, but I know of several cases where a corporation didn't respond to reality and have failed miserably because of it. If you need an example look at what has happened to GM since the first oil crisis in the early '70s. They didn't respond to people's needs and they allowed the Japanese automakers to move in. I am not so sure the oil companies would know what to do next.

[Mike Harrington]

Delay is a right-wing zionist, a good friend of the nazi Ariel Sharon. I live in his 22nd Texas congressional district, and campaigned for his democrat opponent Richard Morrison. In the 2002 election, Delay got 63% of the vote. In 2004, even though Delay outspent Morrison 4:1, his vote dropped to 55%. He still won, but he's been weakened by the last campaign. Also, there's Austin DA Ronnie Earle's grand jury indictment of members of his Texans for a Republican Majority. In Texas, use of corporate funds for direct political campaigning is illegal. It's a holdover law from the days when the Populists held sway in Texas. The grand jury investigation is continuing, and others could be indicted. I think the day will come when the democrats here can beat him.

[teague allen]

In no way do I dispute that oil is a finite resource, that people (corporately and individually) defer (or ignore) long term good for short term gain, or that the bearers of bad news often get the blame.

All that said, when gas is $3 a gallon, it takes $90 to fill your SUV tank, most (not all)people will get the message. Since we no longer have the appetite for war we once had in this nation, I don't feel it strains credulity to predict more widespread investigation of alternatives. This is quite likely to be painful, but I would hope it falls short of the dark ages.

To bowdlerize H.L.Mencken, no one went broke overestimating the intelligence of the American public -- but this country was not built by the stupid, nor were energy providers. By no means put your faith in private industry or your government -- but trust they will act in self-interest -- or maybe self-preservation. All the profit they can stuff in Swiss bank accounts won't matter if it can't be spent, will it?

[karenas]

I too live in Texas, and I hope that bug zapper is run out of town, by Ronnie Earl or the elections. Whenever Bush calls Cheney in to give a little heeve-hoe, one should pay attention. Why did Cheney say he opposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Not to go against Bush, but to give the hardline right wingers a "hint" of what may come. We don't see any Bush bandwagon for changing the constitution to ban gay marriage. Bush is too busy ripping off social security and throwing life rafts to the right-to-lifers with his Schiavo stunt.

Now Cheney says it is not "appropriate" for Delay to make comments against judges. If Delay becomes too much of a liability, they will shove him overboard faster than a swift boat vet can lob a grenade. I hope that day comes soon.

[kd]

I'll probably get jumped on from all sides for this, but here goes.

After reading Jim's great post, I find that it's followed by several comments that reflect two on-going delusions: 1) Not to worry! The good folks who run our great corporations are aware of the problem & will surely have their brilliant scientists work out a plan that will allow us to keep our SUV & shop at the mall of our choice. 2) Corporate capitalism & big government are two different things! Corporate capitalism will provide innovative ways to solve every problem, while big government will only make things worse.

Corporate capitalism IS the "government run economic system" in this country, & it's been that way for quite some time.

[Cathode Ray]

Interesting news item in last Friday's Sydney Morning Herald. A Queensland Labour backbencher warned Parliment about the implications of peak oil. The faith placed in 'the market' by the economist is both delusional and frightening.

"As fuel prices double and then double again in the years after the peak [of oil production], we will be faced with some very hard choices in the fields of agriculture, food distribution and transport generally."

At the Centre for International Economics in Canberra, such hard choices are no bad thing. "To an economist, high prices are the solution to the problem. As long as we let markets work correctly, we'll get through this in the cheapest possible way," says the executive-director, Andrew Stoeckel.

Full story see http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/01/1112302233942.html

[Mike Harrington]

Just discovered this blog through Planetizen. This guy from somewhere here in Houston, obviously well-meaning, but confused, wrote an entry saying JHK is certifiably nuts.

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2005/03/this-man-is-certifiably-nuts-james.html

I don't agree with Kunstler on everything, just most things. I was tempted to write a response to try to set Tony Gattis right, but just got done trying to straighten him out on light rail when I noticed this earlier article. With talking heads on TV telling people that everything's cool and a president (sic) who tells people to go out and shop after airliners smash into buildings, what do you expect?

[Andy R]

kd,
No attack from me. I fully agree with your statement "Corporate capitalism IS the "government run economic system" in this country, & it's been that way for quite some time."
That's why I will continue to say that the crux of the problem is too much power concentrated in too few hands, compounded by an influence on government that serves to cement the arrangement.
karl with a k has the right idea - I think the best hope for innovation is with a capitalist (with a small 'c') system, but that doesn't mean we'll be "saved"
teaque allen's thought on $3.00/gallon gas changing our habits may be a bit optimistic as well.
I don't think a rising price would have nearly as drastic an impact as a disruption of supply would. Granted, demand will decrease relative to price, but not being able to get the gas whether you need it or not is more apt to cause instability or even panic. I guess the actual outcome would depend on which price driver is most prevalent - increasing demand or limited supply.

[Andy R]

Mike Harington,

Pretty neat blog you found. i have to give Mr Gatis credit - at least he has all opinions represented, regardless of their agreement with his own.

While I wouldn't go tossing "nutbag" assertions aroud quite so blithely, he does represent a school of thought that should be considered and does have valid points.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider that there is a middle ground between the two views wherein lies some truth.

[sammy]

Today's [4 April] Agence France-Presse is reporting that the head of the IEA is calling for more than lower speed limits. Indeed, he's asking oil importing countries to end energy subsidies. "Each subsidy distorts the market [and] gives the wrong signal as commodities seem less expensive than they are."

I don't think this distortion is greater anywhere than in the USA.

The true cost of gas--unsubsidized--in the US was estimated at about $5/gallon. That was three years ago. What would it be now?

Two unnaturally cheap things in the US have been gas and food. As ugly as things may get when gas hits, say $10/gal [what it costs in the Netherlands, for example], I wonder what will happen when that Bic Mac hits $10 too.

So does anyone else here foresee "mobs" and "rolling heads"?

[kd]

Thanks, Andy.

I've been trying to come to terms with capitalism for a long time (here I mean the generally accepted definition: an economic system in which the means of production & distribution are privately, that is corporately, owned, & used to create profit for the capital investors in a free market).

I think I know what you're geting at when you suggest a distinction between capitalism with a big 'C' & capitalism with a small 'c'. Perhaps in many people's minds
"capitalism" is synonymous with "free enterprise" & they think that only in a capitalist system can one open a small business or work freely "for" oneself. Of course this is patently untrue. (I lived in a communist state for some years & was surprised to discover that it was easier to start a small business there than it is in the United States. It was, however, harder to create & run a large corporation, not maily because of government interference, but mainly because of labor unions. Workers just wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited.)

Being "saved" of course depends on what one means by "saved". Looked at one way, Jim's dire predictions can be exactly what's needed to "save" us.

[Mike Harrington]

Gattis' comment about the hydrogen economy is accurate, I'll allow that.

But 2 trillion barrels from oil shale? The US gave up on that in the early 1980's when it didn't work. There may be 2 trillion barrels there, but to quote Colin Campbell, there are plenty of substitutes for cheap oil, but no good ones. When you try to use high-priced substitutes to make up for declining oilfield production, the cheap energy orgy is over.

Major change doesn't occur gradually. There is a build up of stress, and subsequent shear followed by a major upheaval. No one right now knows what the breaking point is. It could be $70/barrel, but it's certainly less than $100. Once that happens, you'll see a major discontinuity. You'll go to bed one night, thinking everything's the way it "always" has been, and the next morning it's game over.

This quote by Kunstler in an interview with Julian Darley, is pretty much the way it will happen, I think:

"So the main thing about suburbia was it could only be used and accessed by being in an automobile and that of course is its most obvious drawback and from the standpoint of energy it’s what makes the whole program a complete loser for the future. Because we are now stuck in America with tens of thousands of poorly integrated places that can only be used in cars. With massive amounts of mandatory motoring. We’re literally stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up."

With the major oil companies merging, paying out record dividends, not building any new refineries, having cut their exporation budgets, producing more year after year than they find, it pretty much spells it out for you. Gattis and others may be able to run from it for a few more years, but one day peak oil will come knocking at our door.

We're not ready. We've got the wrong infrastructure to make any meaningful energy saving. If we had started making the infrastructure change back in 1973, we'd probably weather the peak oil storm. But we didn't. We talked about fuel cells, carpooling, IC fuel economy, fusion and other alternative energy sources. But the one thing we didn't do was roll back the high-energy consumption infrastructure to 1945. Now we're toast.

[Dave]

All hell is about to break loose and there is nothing to be done about it. Starvation, mass migrations, sea levels rising, total madness lies ahead. Have a nice day. DS

[Dave]

All hell is about to break loose and there is nothing to be done about it. Starvation, mass migrations, sea levels rising, total madness lies ahead. Have a nice day. DS

[Devil's Advocate]

How many of you are willing to honestly, and I mean HONESTLY, look at overpopulation among much of America's illiterate, ignorant, and totally un self-sufficient populations as a factor in this inevitable Peak Oil wrought societal collapse ?

Really, consider the consequences in any large American city if the government were to announce that all food stamps, WIC, welfare, and other forms of taxpayer-subsidized support were going to be phased out for the most part in three months due to massive budget shortfalls.

Multiply the panic and outrage times twenty for a good idea of how people will react in our man-made concrete suburban hells when gasoline approaches 7 dollars a gallon and a small jar of peanut butter costs 8 dollars, on top of the drastic cutbacks in social welfare.

Overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation. It's just lovingly paid worshipful homage to in our rapidly devolving, idiotic pop culture, resulting in yet more overpopluation by people who are incapable of even feeding themselves, let alone a litter of hungry babies. Head to the local Safeway. Watch one 21 year old mother of three children by as many fathers after another pay for her food with other people's money.

In nature, when a species reproduces beyond it's available resource base, something very simple happens.

And if you look back to the enviromental movement of 35 years ago, "Zero Population Growth" was one of it's most solid planks.

Guess who is practicing it now ? No one but white yuppie environmentalists.

[aj]

Devils' Advocate, overpopulation is a problem, but it's a symptom, not the root cause. It does create a positive feedback loop (drives demand, greenhouse effects, etc.), but it's not the prime mover.

Trace the historical lines of population growth and fossil fuel use, and you'll find a direct correlation. Without the artificial boost to the world economy that cheap energy provided since the Industrial Revolution, coupled with the later Green Revolution in agriculture providing an artificial abundance of food, there is a strong argument to be made that the population overshoot wouldn't have happened.

It is likely (looking at the example of Cuba post 1991) that with the absence of cheap energy, we will see some sort of die-off that eventually stabilizes population levels -- though I must say no-one is looking forward to a worldwide "Special Period."

The latest predictions see things topping out at 9 billion sometime in the next 50 years, then declining, actually.

[chrispy]

It never fails. Make any kind of dire prediction, and someone trots out the terms "Y2K" and "conspiracy theory". This kind of argument however has a major flaw: sometimes there really is a conspiracy, and some dire predictions come true (global warming as the prime example). In the case of peak oil though, there is no conspiracy, in the sense of a group conspiring to do something. It is merely all of us together, consuming the planet. Some more than others of course, but 'twill do no good to point fingers now. We must simply reduce our numbers and our consumption as much as we can, and non-violently. All resources and sinks are on the line now. If running out of fuel doesn't get us, it will be running out of water, breathable air, or arable land.

[todd]

The only scary part about peak oil (to me anyway) will be the masses of people who will refuse to stop living well beyond their means. Check out http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1364040/posts?q=1&&page=1 and you'll see what I mean. The range of solutions to the rising prices of oil seems to be
1. drill EVERYWHERE
2. quote the Bible
3. screw China!
4. shale oil!
5. see #1

wonderful. There are a few of what I like to call "jet-packers" in the bunch also. These are the people who seem to think that we can drill until the very last drop of oil has been harvested, at which point "the corporations" will issue us all water powered personal jetpacks (or hydrogen cars, which are just as unlikely). What the hell, it makes as much sense as anything else they believe.

After peak oil bitchslaps America these are the folks you'll have to watch out for. They'll have no more credit, no more air conditioning and nothing to lose. The 60 minute drive to work in a 15MPG SUV and their McHouses in the middle of nowhere are all they've ever known. I have a feeling the majority of them wont be willing to change their way of life. The one good thing is that they wont be able to afford to fill up that SUV, so they'll be suck in suburbia 100 miles away, yelling at each other about how things aint what they used to be.

[kd]

For a glimpse of what the future might hold for the world's megacities, read Suketu Mehta's "Maximum City".

Or just visit a city like Mumbai or Chennai.
There you'll find streams that run black outside of tall, poorly conceived "modern" flats & office buildings. Migrant workers, whole families, live on the street. The air is bad & the water dangerous. Sure there's a growing middle class, a "consumer" class--but look at the degraded public space around them.

As William Burroughs said, wisely: the paranoid is the one with the facts.