NationStates Jolt Archive


A to do list for the coming decades.

PsychoticDan
05-02-2007, 20:24
More Kunstler. People say the same thing about him as they do about me. All doom and gloom with no solutions offered. The problem is that people will read what the solutions are, not like them and then say, "Well then offer some solutions." Kunstler responds:

Out in the public arena, people frequently twang on me for being "Mister Gloom'n'doom," or for "not offering any solutions." I find this bizarre because I never fail to present audiences with a long, explicit task list of projects that American society needs to take up in the face of the combined problems I have labeled The Long Emergency. That the audience never hears this, and then indignantly demands such instruction, only reinforces my sense that the cognitive dissonance in our culture has gone totally off the charts.

Insofar as I just returned from a college lecture road trip, and heard the same carping all over again, I conclude that it's necessary for me to spell it all out a'fresh. I think of this not so much as a roster of "solutions" but as a set of reasonable responses to a new set of circumstances. (Not everything we try to do will succeed, that is, be a "solution.") So, for those of you who are tired of wringing your hands, who would like to do something useful, or focus your attention in a purposeful way, here it is.


Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme.

Get this: the cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common activities of daily life.
We have to produce food differently. The ADM / Monsanto / Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and will require more human labor. The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally.

This situation presents excellent business and vocational opportunities for America's young people (if they can unplug their Ipods long enough to pay attention.) It also presents huge problems in land-use reform. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and skill for doing these things has to be painstakingly retrieved from the dumpster of history. Get busy.
We have to inhabit the terrain differently. Virtually every place in our nation organized for car dependency is going to fail to some degree. Quite a few places (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami....) will support only a fraction of their current populations. We'll have to return to traditional human ecologies at a smaller scale: villages, towns, and cities (along with a productive rural landscape). Our small towns are waiting to be reinhabited. Our cities will have to contract. The cities that are composed proportionately more of suburban fabric (e.g. Atlanta, Houston) will pose especially tough problems. Most of that stuff will not be fixed. The loss of monetary value in suburban property will have far-reaching ramifications.

The stuff we build in the decades ahead will have to be made of regional materials found in nature -- as opposed to modular, snap-together, manufactured components -- at a more modest scale. This whole process will entail enormous demographic shifts and is liable to be turbulent. Like farming, it will require the retrieval of skill-sets and methodologies that have been forsaken. The graduate schools of architecture are still tragically preoccupied with teaching Narcissism. The faculties will have to be overthrown. Our attitudes about land-use will have to change dramatically. The building codes and zoning laws will eventually be abandoned and will have to be replaced with vernacular wisdom. Get busy.
We have to move things and people differently. This is the sunset of Happy Motoring (including the entire US trucking system). Get used to it. Don't waste your society's remaining resources trying to prop up car-and-truck dependency. Moving things and people by water and rail is vastly more energy-efficient. Need something to do? Get involved in restoring public transit. Let's start with railroads, and let's make sure we electrify them so they will run on things other than fossil fuel or, if we have to run them partly on coal-fired power plants, at least scrub the emissions and sequester the CO2 at as few source-points as possible.

We also have to prepare our society for moving people and things much more by water. This implies the rebuilding of infrastructure for our harbors, and also for our inland river and canal systems -- including the towns associated with them. The great harbor towns, like Baltimore, Boston, and New York, can no longer devote their waterfronts to condo sites and bikeways. We actually have to put the piers and warehouses back in place (not to mention the sleazy accommodations for sailors). Right now, programs are underway to restore maritime shipping based on wind -- yes, sailing ships. It's for real. Lots to do here. Put down your Ipod and get busy.
We have to transform retail trade. The national chains that have used the high tide of fossil fuels to contrive predatory economies-of-scale (and kill local economies) -- they are going down. WalMart and the other outfits will not survive the coming era of expensive, scarcer oil. They will not be able to run the "warehouses-on-wheels" of 18-wheel tractor-trailers incessantly circulating along the interstate highways. Their 12,000-mile supply lines to the Asian slave-factories are also endangered as the US and China contest for Middle East and African oil.

The local networks of commercial interdependency which these chain stores systematically destroyed (with the public's acquiescence) will have to be rebuilt brick-by-brick and inventory-by-inventory. This will require rich, fine-grained, multi-layered networks of people who make, distribute, and sell stuff (including the much-maligned "middlemen"). Don't be fooled into thinking that the Internet will replace local retail economies. Internet shopping is totally dependent now on cheap delivery, and delivery will no longer be cheap. It also is predicated on electric power systems that are completely reliable. That is something we are unlikely to enjoy in the years ahead. Do you have a penchant for retail trade and don't want to work for a big predatory corporation? There's lots to do here in the realm of small, local business. Quit carping and get busy.
We will have to make things again in America. However, we are going to make less stuff. We will have fewer things to buy, fewer choices of things. The curtain is coming down on the endless blue-light-special shopping frenzy that has occupied the forefront of daily life in America for decades. But we will still need household goods and things to wear. As a practical matter, we are not going to re-live the 20th century. The factories from America's heyday of manufacturing (1900 - 1970) were all designed for massive inputs of fossil fuel, and many of them have already been demolished. We're going to have to make things on a smaller scale by other means. Perhaps we will have to use more water power. The truth is, we don't know yet how we're going to make anything. This is something that the younger generations can put their minds and muscles into.
The age of canned entertainment is coming to and end. It was fun for a while. We liked "Citizen Kane" and the Beatles. But we're going to have to make our own music and our own drama down the road. We're going to need playhouses and live performance halls. We're going to need violin and banjo players and playwrights and scenery-makers, and singers. We'll need theater managers and stage-hands. The Internet is not going to save canned entertainment. The Internet will not work so well if the electricity is on the fritz half the time (or more).
We'll have to reorganize the education system. The centralized secondary school systems based on the yellow school bus fleets will not survive the coming decades. The huge investments we have made in these facilities will impede the transition out of them, but they will fail anyway. Since we will be a less-affluent society, we probably won't be able to replace these centralized facilities with smaller and more equitably distributed schools, at least not right away. Personally, I believe that the next incarnation of education will grow out of the home schooling movement, as home schooling efforts aggregate locally into units of more than one family.

God knows what happens beyond secondary ed. The big universities, both public and private, may not be salvageable. And the activity of higher ed itself may engender huge resentment by those foreclosed from it. But anyone who learns to do long division and write a coherent paragraph will be at a great advantage -- and, in any case, will probably out-perform today's average college graduate. One thing for sure: teaching children is not liable to become an obsolete line-of-work, as compared to public relations and sports marketing. Lots to do here, and lots to think about. Get busy, future teachers of America.
We have to reorganize the medical system. The current skein of intertwined rackets based on endless Ponzi buck passing scams will not survive the discontinuities to come. We will probably have to return to a model of service much closer to what used to be called "doctoring." Medical training may also have to change as the big universities run into trouble functioning. Doctors of the 21st century will certainly drive fewer German cars, and there will be fewer opportunities in the cosmetic surgery field. Let's hope that we don't slide so far back that we forget the germ theory of disease, or the need to wash our hands, or the fundamentals of pharmaceutical science. Lots to do here for the unsqueamish.
Life in the USA will have to become much more local, and virtually all the activities of everyday life will have to be re-scaled. You can state categorically that any enterprise now supersized is likely to fail -- everything from the federal government to big corporations to huge institutions. If you can find a way to do something practical and useful on a smaller scale than it is currently being done, you are likely to have food in your cupboard and people who esteem you. An entire social infrastructure of voluntary associations, co-opted by the narcotic of television, needs to be reconstructed. Local institutions for care of the helpless will have to be organized. Local politics will be much more meaningful as state governments and federal agencies slide into complete impotence. Lots of jobs here for local heroes.
So, that's the task list for now. Forgive me if I left things out. But please don't carp at me, by letter or in person, that I am not providing you with anything to think about or devote your personal energy to. If you're depressed, change your focus. Quit wishing and start doing. The best way to feel hopeful about the future is to get off your ass and demonstrate to yourself that you are a capable, competent individual resolutely able to face new circumstances.
http://www.energybulletin.net/25643.html
The Nazz
05-02-2007, 20:33
The only thing I didn't like about that piece was the constant reference to "take the iPod out of your ears and get busy." It's unnecessarily condescending and turns off your audience. I understand he may be exasperated, but telling your primary audience that they're a bunch of layabout slackers is no way to inspire them to the necessary changes we're facing.

I also think he's overstating the case at least when it comes to electricity transmission and production. The biggest issue as I see it is transportation--we absolutely have to change the way we conceive of ourselves as travelers and the way we transport goods and food.
PsychoticDan
05-02-2007, 20:40
The only thing I didn't like about that piece was the constant reference to "take the iPod out of your ears and get busy." It's unnecessarily condescending and turns off your audience. I understand he may be exasperated, but telling your primary audience that they're a bunch of layabout slackers is no way to inspire them to the necessary changes we're facing.But they are lazy slackers. I get your point, thouogh. It's a little, "that rock and roll is teh devil's music,"-ish...

I also think he's overstating the case at least when it comes to electricity transmission and production. The biggest issue as I see it is transportation--we absolutely have to change the way we conceive of ourselves as travelers and the way we transport goods and food.

the problem is that just about every single powerplant built since the 1960s has been a natural gas fired power plant and that electricity is pumping through an infrastructure that is 50 years old for the most part. Natural gas production peaked in North America in 2001 and nat gas declines very quickly. Unlike oil, with nat gas you're getting gas one day and you're not getting any the next - it basically falls off a cliff. That's going to be a real problem when you consider the fact that power plants take many years to site, build and bring online. We can't just go and replace all those plants by 2010. It will be that long before they break dirt and a decade or two before those nat gas plants are replaced.
PsychoticDan
05-02-2007, 23:02
And right on cue...


Poor Among PlentyFor the first time, poverty shifts to the U.S. suburbs.


Six years ago, Brian Lavelle moved out of the city of Cleveland to the nearby suburb of Lakewood for what he thought would be a better life. Back then, Lavelle, 38, was a forklift operator in a steel mill making $14 an hour. He had a house, a car and was saving for his retirement. Then, three years ago, the steel mill closed and Lavelle found that the life he dreamed of was just that, a dream. The suburbs, he quickly learned, are a tough place to live if you're poor. For starters, there isn't much of a safety net in his community. Food pantries, job-retraining centers and low-cost health clinics are hard to come by. He can't afford either gas or car insurance, and inadequate public transportation hurts him, too. Not long ago, he was offered a job in another suburb, "but it just wasn't doable." The commute by public bus would have taken him three hours each way.
More... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960673/site/newsweek/
Northern Borders
05-02-2007, 23:08
Wouldnt it be easier if he said we all would have to turn Amish?

The guy is freaking stupid. He wants us to turn back to the XVIII century.

"OH, I have an idea! I have amazing ideas on how the future will be! Ill just imagine a world without electricity and technology and tell them. But wait! The XVIII century was like that. That is how we should be in the future!"
PsychoticDan
05-02-2007, 23:14
Wouldnt it be easier if he said we all would have to turn Amish?

The guy is freaking stupid. He wants us to turn back to the XVIII century.

"OH, I have an idea! I have amazing ideas on how the future will be! Ill just imagine a world without electricity and technology and tell them. But wait! The XVIII century was like that. That is how we should be in the future!"

Great counter. You can tell you've really been reading up on energy issues. :)
Vetalia
05-02-2007, 23:18
This is pretty far out there; I appreciate the concern these ideas stimulate, but the idea that the end of fossil fuels will bring about a massive regress in our technological and social advancement is unfounded. As much as I believe that Peak Oil will mark the end of our current system personal transportation and a massive semipermanent shift towards urbanization, it's not going to end up sending us back to the Middle Ages. We're not going to collapse because we're no longer able to purchase oranges in December. That's simply illogical; I mean, we're not going to rip apart our technology or infrastructure just because oil gets more expensive.

I mean, outside of our current transportation system our infrastructure could function and grow perfectly fine without oil. The amounts used to ship, produce, maintain, and build our economy are nothing compared to the amount used in light-duty, personal transportation vehicles. I mean, in all honesty we could cut down on our fuel consumption significantly by rationing and regulating travel; alternate-day driving, hybrids/telecommuting, carpooling and public transportation could be established in fairly short order and would cut demand severely.

Natural gas would initially more difficult, but if we cut down on the amount we use in heating and use more organic and permaculture methods in agriculture, we would be able to seriously cut our demand in a short period of time. Think about it; over 2/3 of our natural gas is used in power, residential heating, and commercial uses. Replacing natural gas power with alternatives (and we could most definitely do it now with 150,000 MW of untapped geothermal power in the West, not to mention all of the other alternatives, coal and nuclear) and putting more effort in to developing ways of making fertilizers from other sources would pretty much eliminate the problem.

The remaining natural gas could be used for industry until alternatives are available or means of producing it from biomass or coal become widespread. It's entirely possible.
PsychoticDan
05-02-2007, 23:24
This is pretty far out there; I appreciate the concern these ideas stimulate, but the idea that the end of fossil fuels will bring about a massive regress in our technological and social advancement is unfounded. As much as I believe that Peak Oil will mark the end of our current system personal transportation and a massive semipermanent shift towards urbanization, it's not going to end up sending us back to the Middle Ages. We're not going to collapse because we're no longer able to purchase oranges in December. That's simply illogical; I mean, we're not going to rip apart our technology or infrastructure just because oil gets more expensive.

I mean, outside of our current transportation system our infrastructure could function and grow perfectly fine without oil. The amounts used to ship, produce, maintain, and build our economy are nothing compared to the amount used in light-duty, personal transportation vehicles. I mean, in all honesty we could cut down on our fuel consumption significantly by rationing and regulating travel; alternate-day driving, hybrids/telecommuting, carpooling and public transportation could be established in fairly short order and would cut demand severely.

Natural gas would initially more difficult, but if we cut down on the amount we use in heating and use more organic and permaculture methods in agriculture, we would be able to seriously cut our demand in a short period of time. Think about it; over 2/3 of our natural gas is used in power, residential heating, and commercial uses. Replacing natural gas power with alternatives (and we could most definitely do it now with 150,000 MW of untapped geothermal power in the West, not to mention all of the other alternatives, coal and nuclear) and putting more effort in to developing ways of making fertilizers from other sources would pretty much eliminate the problem.

The remaining natural gas could be used for industry until alternatives are available or means of producing it from biomass or coal become widespread. It's entirely possible.

Are you guy sreading the same article I'm reading? He's talking about building rail lines and mass transit and electrifying the rail so you don't have to use coal and if you do use coal using carbon sequestration technology. How is any of that Middle Ages?
Vetalia
05-02-2007, 23:29
Are you guy sreading the same article I'm reading? He's talking about building rail lines and mass transit and electrifying the rail so you don't have to use coal and if you do use coal using carbon sequestration technology. How is any of that Middle Ages?

True; more accurately, I'm talking about a couple statements that don't really make sense:

Let's hope that we don't slide so far back that we forget the germ theory of disease, or the need to wash our hands, or the fundamentals of pharmaceutical science. Lots to do here for the unsqueamish.

The Internet is not going to save canned entertainment. The Internet will not work so well if the electricity is on the fritz half the time (or more).
Intangelon
05-02-2007, 23:29
Wouldnt it be easier if he said we all would have to turn Amish?

The guy is freaking stupid. He wants us to turn back to the XVIII century.

"OH, I have an idea! I have amazing ideas on how the future will be! Ill just imagine a world without electricity and technology and tell them. But wait! The XVIII century was like that. That is how we should be in the future!"

Exactly where did he say we'd have to do without electricity and technology? He's saying the scale and scope of American life will have to shrink back down to local size as opposed to global size. There will not be the ABUNDANCE of electricity to power ALL of our technology, and some interesting choices lie ahead.

Read some, son, it'll help that whole comprehension thing.
Nag Ehgoeg
05-02-2007, 23:44
Sigh.

We all know that human beings (like war) never change.

And that we're going to have a third world war, were all the major world powers fight for oil.

The nukes will drop, and overnight everything people like Kunstler care about will be gone and the survivors will have to adapt to a simpler way of life - avoiding the Rad Scorpians and fighting off the Super Mutants.

Thinking that we're going to realise that destroying each other is stupid and suddenly stop is naive. Digging up chemistry manuals telling you how to harden up that Power Armour is what we should be doing.
Vetalia
05-02-2007, 23:58
Exactly where did he say we'd have to do without electricity and technology? He's saying the scale and scope of American life will have to shrink back down to local size as opposed to global size. There will not be the ABUNDANCE of electricity to power ALL of our technology, and some interesting choices lie ahead.

We'll have plenty of electricity; that's not the problem. The problem is those 1 billion light duty vehicles that consume 72% of all the world's oil and on which over 20% of the world's economy is entirely dependent for their transportation needs.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:06
Sigh.

We all know that human beings (like war) never change.

And that we're going to have a third world war, were all the major world powers fight for oil.

The nukes will drop, and overnight everything people like Kunstler care about will be gone and the survivors will have to adapt to a simpler way of life - avoiding the Rad Scorpians and fighting off the Super Mutants.

Thinking that we're going to realise that destroying each other is stupid and suddenly stop is naive. Digging up chemistry manuals telling you how to harden up that Power Armour is what we should be doing.

Well, one nice side effect of depleting energy supplies is that war on the scale that we have fought it for the last century may also not be possible.
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:09
Exactly where did he say we'd have to do without electricity and technology? He's saying the scale and scope of American life will have to shrink back down to local size as opposed to global size. There will not be the ABUNDANCE of electricity to power ALL of our technology, and some interesting choices lie ahead.

We'll have plenty of electricity; that's not the problem. The problem is those 1 billion light duty vehicles that consume 72% of all the world's oil and on which over 20% of the world's economy is entirely dependent for their transportation needs.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:10
Sigh.

We all know that human beings (like war) never change.

And that we're going to have a third world war, were all the major world powers fight for oil.

The nukes will drop, and overnight everything people like Kunstler care about will be gone and the survivors will have to adapt to a simpler way of life - avoiding the Rad Scorpians and fighting off the Super Mutants.

Thinking that we're going to realise that destroying each other is stupid and suddenly stop is naive. Digging up chemistry manuals telling you how to harden up that Power Armour is what we should be doing.

Well, one nice side effect of depleting energy supplies is that war on the scale that we have fought it for the last century may also not be possible.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:13
Sigh.

We all know that human beings (like war) never change.

And that we're going to have a third world war, were all the major world powers fight for oil.

The nukes will drop, and overnight everything people like Kunstler care about will be gone and the survivors will have to adapt to a simpler way of life - avoiding the Rad Scorpians and fighting off the Super Mutants.

Thinking that we're going to realise that destroying each other is stupid and suddenly stop is naive. Digging up chemistry manuals telling you how to harden up that Power Armour is what we should be doing.

Well, one nice side effect of depleting energy supplies is that war on the scale that we have fought it for the last century may also not be possible.
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:15
Exactly where did he say we'd have to do without electricity and technology? He's saying the scale and scope of American life will have to shrink back down to local size as opposed to global size. There will not be the ABUNDANCE of electricity to power ALL of our technology, and some interesting choices lie ahead.

We'll have plenty of electricity; that's not the problem. The problem is those 1 billion light duty vehicles that consume 72% of all the world's oil and on which over 20% of the world's economy is entirely dependent for their transportation needs.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:19
We'll have plenty of electricity; that's not the problem.

Not if we don't start doing something about it right now - and we're not. We're five years away from even okaying teh first nuke power plant and there may be a handful of coal plants in the pipeline but they're all planned to handle increases in electricity demand, not replacing existing power production. We need a massive national commitment to energy and we don't have anything approaching that now.
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:23
Well, one nice side effect of depleting energy supplies is that war on the scale that we have fought it for the last century may also not be possible.

I guess it's a good thing that there really aren't any alternatives to oil when it comes to powering our military. Maybe we'll finally realize that those $750 billion dollars and untold tons of equipment could be better used enhancing lives rather than destroying them...
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:28
Not if we don't start doing something about it right now - and we're not. We're five years away from even okaying teh first nuke power plant and there may be a handful of coal plants in the pipeline but they're all planned to handle increases in electricity demand, not replacing existing power production. We need a massive national commitment to energy and we don't have anything approaching that now.

No, we haven't, and that's going to be costly as natural gas prices continue to be volatile and rise strongly; at current growth rates, it will still take 10-12 years or more for any alternatives to replace natural gas' current share of power, not including the increase in demand which will be about 20% at current projections. If we start using plug-in hybrids or other vehicles, that's going to go up a lot faster. If oil peaks in 2007 or 2008 (as it appears to be), then that means natural gas will likely peak by 2018-2020, maybe 2030 at latest. Nuclear power started today will take five to ten years to build.

Some encouraging signs are the discovery of huge untapped geothermal potential in the West (where we use mostly natural gas) and enough offshore wind power to meet the East Coast's needs and over 50% more. Other things like improvements in solar and wind power along with higher levels of grid integration all help, but it's going to have to keep growing and fast if we want to make a major dent in our dependence on natural gas power.

There are some things we need to do right now: Expand and increase the PTC to all forms of renewable energy, divert funding to alternative energy research and exploration, and expand tax credits for household solar power and heating. These won't solve the problem, but they'll help.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:40
No, we haven't, and that's going to be costly as natural gas prices continue to be volatile and rise strongly; at current growth rates, it will still take 10-12 years or more for any alternatives to replace natural gas' current share of power, not including the increase in demand which will be about 20% at current projections. If we start using plug-in hybrids or other vehicles, that's going to go up a lot faster. If oil peaks in 2007 or 2008 (as it appears to be), then that means natural gas will likely peak by 2018-2020, maybe 2030 at latest.

Nat gas peaked in North America in 2001 and we have very little LNG capacity and it takes as long to build that capacity as it does to build power plants - longer than coal or nat gas power plants. We have a choice, do we use our time and resources to build LNG ports or do we use our time and resources to build nukes and renewables?
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:48
Nat gas peaked in North America in 2001 and we have very little LNG capacity and it takes as long to build that capacity as it does to build power plants - longer than coal or nat gas power plants. We have a choice, do we use our time and resources to build LNG ports or do we use our time and resources to build nukes and renewables?

Public opposition to LNG terminals is a lot stronger than opposition to nuclear power pretty much everywhere in the country, and it's many times stronger than opposition to any of the renewables; I'd say we're looking at the latter rather than the former because it will mean more money for Shell or BP to build a bunch of wind turbines and diversify away from natural gas rather than fight a losing battle to build LNG terminals. States like California simply aren't willing to suffer another repeat of the 2000/2001 energy crisis, and nobody wants to risk having to spend $15/mcf for natural gas when they could produce an alternative or nuclear for a fraction of that cost with less pollution.

And look at it this way: With Bush powerless and the Democrats in power, we're starting to get some real progress on this stuff. Expanded drilling and relaxing of LNG regulations are going to be dead in the water for at least another 6-10 years or more.

It's political suicide to oppose alternative energy, and the longer oil prices remain high the more and more it will be established in peoples' minds that this stuff has to go. At the very least, we need more politicians on all sides like Roscoe Bartlet out there increasing awareness and pushing for legislation to address this very real problem.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 00:53
Public opposition to LNG terminals is a lot stronger than opposition to nuclear power pretty much everywhere in the country, and it's many times stronger than opposition to any of the renewables; I'd say we're looking at the latter rather than the former because it will mean more money for Shell or BP to build a bunch of wind turbines and diversify away from natural gas rather than fight a losing battle to build LNG terminals. States like California simply aren't willing to suffer another repeat of the 2000/2001 energy crisis, and nobody wants to risk having to spend $15/mcf for natural gas when they could produce an alternative or nuclear for a fraction of that cost with less pollution.

And look at it this way: With Bush powerless and the Democrats in power, we're starting to get some real progress on this stuff. Expanded drilling and relaxing of LNG regulations are going to be dead in the water for at least another 6-10 years or more.

It's political suicide to oppose alternative energy, and the longer oil prices remain high the more and more it will be established in peoples' minds that this stuff has to go. At the very least, we need more politicians on all sides like Roscoe Bartlet out there increasing awareness and pushing for legislation to address this very real problem.

We shall see, grasshopper. ;)

When you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave. :)
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 00:57
We shall see, grasshopper. ;)

When you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave. :)

Peak oil meets Kung Fu. You have to admit, though, I've come a long way from the outright denier I was in 2006. How things have changed since those days...for that matter, I wonder whatever happened to Tactical Grace?

We should make one of those Long Bets to see who ends up correct.:p
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 01:02
Peak oil meets Kung Fu. You have to admit, though, I've come a long way from the outright denier I was in 2006. How things have changed since those days...for that matter, I wonder whatever happened to Tactical Grace?

We should make one of those Long Bets to see who ends up correct.:p

But the internet won't work so i won't have a way of saying, "I told you so!" :(

Though I think I'll have bigger fish to fry - like trying to make people think I saw Grizzly Adams get his ass kicked. ;) If I can just get people to believe that maybe they'll think I'm cool and then I'll be president and I can solve all the world's problems. :)
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 01:07
But the internet won't work so i won't have a way of saying, "I told you so!" :(

Or maybe all of our energy problems will be addressed through a combination of technology, conservation, and efficiency and I'll be talking to you somewhere in the virtual-reality Internet taunting you for being wrong. ;)

Though I think I'll have bigger fish to fry - like trying to make people think I saw Grizzly Adams get his ass kicked. ;) If I can just get people to believe that maybe they'll think I'm cool and then I'll be president and I can solve all the world's problems. :)

I'm still fascinated by that. So he actually got in a fight at this party and was thrown through a window? How strange...
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 01:13
Or maybe all of our energy problems will be addressed through a combination of technology, conservation, and efficiency and I'll be talking to you somewhere in the virtual-reality Internet taunting you for being wrong. ;)



I'm still fascinated by that. So he actually got in a fight at this party and was thrown through a window? How strange...

he wasn't thrown through a window, his head was shoved through it. basically, it was more like the guy used his head to break the window. He had been talking shit all day. He said something to this guy's son and the guy told him to apologize and Haggerty called him a pussy so the guy grabbed him, busted the window with Haggerty's head and threw him on the floor. Then everyone broke it up and Haggerty kept tying to fight the guy but everyone held him against this truck until he calmed down. Then he went and shook the guy's hand, said he was sorry and then said he had to go pick up his son and left. He was drinking tequilla all day and was pretty shit faced which I guess is very common for him.
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 01:18
he wasn't thrown through a window, his head was shoved through it. basically, it was more like the guy used his head to break the window. He had been talking shit all day. He said something to this guy's son and the guy told him to apologize and Haggerty called him a pussy so the guy grabbed him, busted the window with Haggerty's head and threw him on the floor. Then everyone broke it up and Haggerty kept tying to fight the guy but everyone held him against this truck until he calmed down. Then he went and shook the guy's hand, said he was sorry and then said he had to go pick up his son and left. He was drinking tequilla all day and was pretty shit faced which I guess is very common for him.

That is a really strange story...talk about a drinking problem there. I guess it's been downhill for Haggerty for a while.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 01:22
That is a really strange story...talk about a drinking problem there. I guess it's been downhill for Haggerty for a while.

I don't see what's so strange about it. It was a fight at a Superbowl party where everyone was getting drunk and there were a bunch of bikers hanging out. I'll bet there were fights just like that all over America yesterday. The only thing that makes this any different is that it was Grizzly Adams. Look at the guy. He's not a mountain man he just plays one in the movies. In real life he's an old biker who likes to drink too much. I think he was even arrested once for DUI on his motorcycle.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 01:24
That is a really strange story...talk about a drinking problem there. I guess it's been downhill for Haggerty for a while.

Look here he is doing a Harley promo for hacienda Heights Harley Davidson.

Hacienda Harley-Davidson 8th Annual Kick-Start Party
Mardi Gras Theme! 5:00pm-11:00pm
Live Bands on 2 Stages
Auctions
Celebrities - Chuck Zito, Dan Haggerty, and more...
Bike Show and Games
Great Food
Premiere Custom Bike Builders
Fashion Shows
Meet "Hacienda's VT Race Girl", Valerie Thompson
Trick Riders
Vendor Village
Register online at www.usbiker.com or call Hacienda Marketing at 480-905-1903
Vetalia
06-02-2007, 01:25
I don't see what's so strange about it. It was a fight at a Superbowl party where everyone was getting drunk and there were a bunch of bikers hanging out. I'll bet there were fights just like that all over America yesterday. The only thing that makes this any different is that it was Grizzly Adams. Look at the guy. He's not a mountain man he just plays one in the movies. In real life he's an old biker who likes to drink too much. I think he was even arrested once for DUI on his motorcycle.

I knew that he was arrested, but I didn't think he had a problem like that. I think what makes it strange is the fact that it was the guy who played Grizzly Adams was the one involved; that's just not something you see everyday.

Either way, he got what he deserved IMO.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
06-02-2007, 01:29
I wouldn't call him "Mr Doom'n'Gloom", quite the contrary really, I find his optimism in believing that human society would be able to survive a regression the level he's talking about to be rather, well, cute.
The loss of fuel would cause the governments to lose all power as their fancy tanks, aircraft and police cars grind to a halt at about the same time the masses lose access to the mass media that keeps them content and docile. With poverty and famine starting to appear on a scale that the first world is completely unused too, all those little lies about being a good citizen and preparing for future retirement will be forsaken in return for the much more immediate promise of grabbing whatever your neighbor has got through whatever means are present.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 01:39
I wouldn't call him "Mr Doom'n'Gloom", quite the contrary really, I find his optimism in believing that human society would be able to survive a regression the level he's talking about to be rather, well, cute.
The loss of fuel would cause the governments to lose all power as their fancy tanks, aircraft and police cars grind to a halt at about the same time the masses lose access to the mass media that keeps them content and docile. With poverty and famine starting to appear on a scale that the first world is completely unused too, all those little lies about being a good citizen and preparing for future retirement will be forsaken in return for the much more immediate promise of grabbing whatever your neighbor has got through whatever means are present.

Personally, I see it like this. There is a possibility that we will be back in teh stoneage in 30 years. There is also a possibility that the market will work miracles and we will pass over peak oil like a wake under a boat. I think both possibilities have about equal chance of happening. I think the most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle, but in the middle of the stoneage and no effect at all is really fucking bad. It's the loss of abundance that people in the first world have become accustomed to and dependent on and we will have to rediscover a lot of old ways of doing things and we're not prepared for it. I don't know that we'll pull each other limb from limb, however, because man is a pack animal and we build communities through instinct. I think in some places people will be able to pull together and create decent places to live. I think in other places they will not. Really, though, I don't rthink anyone has any fuckin' clue how things will actually turn out.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
06-02-2007, 01:58
It's the loss of abundance that people in the first world have become accustomed to and dependent on and we will have to rediscover a lot of old ways of doing things and we're not prepared for it.
I suppose that's the difference, I don't think we can prepare for it, at least not in the sort of timeframe we'd have to. It goes beyond just reinforcing certain aspects of national infrastructure and attempting to localize industry, it would require reingeneering the way society is built and completely revamping our culture. That sort of stuff takes generations, not a couple decades.
I don't know that we'll pull each other limb from limb, however, because man is a pack animal and we build communities through instinct. I think in some places people will be able to pull together and create decent places to live. I think in other places they will not. Really, though, I don't rthink anyone has any fuckin' clue how things will actually turn out.
Even pack animals turn on each other when resources or territory become scarce, and that would happen very quickly under his scenario.
PsychoticDan
06-02-2007, 02:06
I suppose that's the difference, I don't think we can prepare for it, at least not in the sort of timeframe we'd have to. It goes beyond just reinforcing certain aspects of national infrastructure and attempting to localize industry, it would require reingeneering the way society is built and completely revamping our culture. That sort of stuff takes generations, not a couple decades.

Even pack animals turn on each other when resources or territory become scarce, and that would happen very quickly under his scenario.

Well, they didn't start eating each oter in the Great Depression and they haven't started eating each other in the FSU so there is some hope that when we are finally able to absorb what reality is telling us that we'll be able to get down to business and build a society worth living in. I do understand your pessimism and share it in many ways, I just hope that what Lincoln called the angels of our better nature are capable of steering us clear of the Apocolypse.
Gartref
06-02-2007, 02:10
I think all this peak-oil apocolypse stuff is way overblown. There are plenty of energy technologies that can replace the cheap crude oil we have been using. Unfortunately, the cost per barrel equivilent of these technologies are in the 45-100 dollar range. This means that capital investment in these areas will lag until oil prices stabilize over the 60-75 dollar per barrel price. The transition will be economically rough for a decade, but it won't be the horror show some of these gloomers predict.