James Howard Kunstler has penned a compelling essay about the impact of energy, or specifically the lack of it, on our future. In a nutshell, The Long Emergency (or here) suggests that our inability to move from ever-more-expensive petro-chem-based fuel to something truly more sustainable will have far-reaching effects on society, including a retraction of cities and the general economic regression one would associate with a global disaster. In fact, that's a pretty fair summary of his predictions:
It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency.Most immediately we face the end of the cheap-fossil-fuel era. It is no exaggeration to state that reliable supplies of cheap oil and natural gas underlie everything we identify as the necessities of modern life -- not to mention all of its comforts and luxuries: central heating, air conditioning, cars, airplanes, electric lights, inexpensive clothing, recorded music, movies, hip-replacement surgery, national defense -- you name it.
The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.
Granted, Kunstler is a very "glass is half empty" kind of guy. His Eyesore of the Month serial (covered in GearBits in January, 2003) is a prime example of the pessimistic cynicism that pervades his mind. Of course, just because he's pessimistic doesn't mean he's wrong: the logic he uses in The Long Emergency is consistent, fact-based, and pretty frightening.
But, I personally believe that Kunstler isn't putting as much stock in one thing as he should: our ability to innovate. Mankind has proven to be incredibly adept at making itself comfortable even in the worst conditions. Now that we have seen the marvels of economic transcontinental flight, cheap hot water, and ubiquitous fresh food, I doubt very much that we'll give it up without a fight. The fight that Kunstler alludes to -- class warfare and violent uprisings -- may happen, but I don't think it will. These changes will come about slowly, if at all, so it's not like there will suddenly be no oranges in the supermarkets in Michigan.
No, I believe that we'll figure out ways to compensate, at least partially, for oil's increasing rarity and cost. For one thing, I continue to believe that nuclear power needs another go.
But then, I certainly don't think that we'll all be living better in 20 years than we are now. At the least, we'll be living differently. I do agree with Kunstler that the suburban growth model is unsustainable and doing awful things to this country. Many of suburbia's "advantages" are short-sighted and/or built upon illusory benefits. This pattern seems to fit perfectly with a country where many of its business leaders make decisions that only serve them through the end of the quarter (when their bonuses are calculated) and many political leaders make decisions aimed primarily, if not solely, at creating short-term or personal benefit (setting themselves up for the next election). But I digress. :-)
To sum up, Kunstler's essay is interesting, frightening, and perfectly possible. In order for us to avoid such a disturbing future, we need to start making smarter decisions, both individually and as a community/nation/species, today. If we don't, then Kunstler's dark predictions may actually resemble reality more than most of us are prepared to accept.
(Thanks for the lead, Mitch.)
Leave a comment