Book Review: World Made by Hand
Posted by Robert Rapier on May 1, 2008 - 10:30am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: book review, evolution, hubbert peak, james kunstler, matthew simmons, peak oil [list all tags]
When I read James Howard Kunstler's (JHK) book The Long Emergency,
The impact of The Long Emergency wasn't necessarily because I thought JHK's vision of the future was correct, but it made me think about possibilities. It caused me to look at the suburbs in a new light, and to really appreciate how vulnerable the U.S. is to oil shocks. It made me realize that problems will start to crop up – not when we run out of oil – but simply when supplies can't meet demand. In the U.S., we built a society based on cheap oil, in which one can live 40 miles from work and drive a gas guzzler to and from work each day. As I read his book, it sank in that this model was likely to come to an end sooner rather than later. And just as soon as I finished reading it, I got a copy of Matt Simmons' Twilight in the Desert
In JHK's latest book – World Made by Hand
The book is set in upstate New York (JHK's home state) in the fictional town of Union Grove. In this world, life is very hard. There are no cars, electricity is rarely on, wars have wiped out major U.S. cities (Washington D.C. was wiped out on my birthday, 12/21), religion has made a resurgence, warlords carve out territory, and lawlessness is rampant. But communities are much tighter, the food is healthier, neighbors lend a helping hand, and people have to be a lot more self sufficient. I believe these latter aspects of the future world represents a future that JHK would like to see.
As with his previous book, this one caused me to think about possibilities I had not previously considered. I spent a lot of my time pausing to evaluate whether I felt like a particular scenario was likely. I think if you accept the key premise – that no more oil is available – then the future he envisions is probably pretty close to the mark. Oil provides all kinds of conveniences that we take for granted, and I doubt the average person realizes how different their world would be if the taps dried up. Yet that is the world that JHK has produced in this novel.
But that's not the way I think things will play out. If you read between the lines, the book is set no more than 15 years into the future. The date is never given, but there is a mention of a woman in her 90's who was a nurse in WWII. Assuming 20 as a minimum age, then the setting of the book is some time between now and maybe 2025 at the latest. I simply don't believe we will lose our mechanized transport options in that time frame.
On my recent trip to India, I saw a lot of people who were using very little fuel, but were still getting around by motorized transport. We have such a tremendous amount of fat that we can cut from our fuel consumption. It may be that by 2020 we do have a lot less oil available, but oil will still be available. And some countries – Brazil for instance – are not likely to run into supply issues for many years. It is hard to envision a world in which the U.S. has no more access to oil, but Brazil is motoring happily along. Even though there isn't much mention about the rest of the world in the book – mainly because there is little communication with the rest of the world – I couldn't help but imagine that in JHK's world there were a lot of countries that would have been able to maintain their fuel supplies.
The book touched upon a lot of themes that I have thought about over the years. Long before I was involved in writing about energy, I was a student of evolutionary biology. One of the things that my studies made me appreciate is that modern medicine has allowed many genes to persist in the gene pool that centuries ago would have been cruelly weeded out by evolution. What that means is that most of us are carrying around genes that are only mildly deleterious in the age of modern medicine, but could quickly shorten our life spans without modern medicine. And in this book, JHK pulled modern medicine out from under the population. The result is as I would expect – vast numbers of people died out. I have speculated before that without modern medicine, more than 90% of the population would likely be dead within 10 years from conditions that today don't trouble us too much.
Consider your own health. Have you been hospitalized for appendicitis? How many times have you required antibiotics to treat something common like strep throat? Have you required surgery? These are all things that can kill without modern medicine. So I have a great appreciation for modern medicine. When I go to a developing country like India that's one of the first things I think about: Do the people have access to modern medicine? Without modern mecicine, I shudder to think about having a serious, painful injury or illness.
Another theme that I have thought a lot about – and that JHK tackled in the book – was mining of the municipal dumps. I have often thought about the amount of metals, useful plastics, and just various odds and ends that would be of enormous benefit in a resource-depleted world. I have no doubt that regardless of how the future plays out, there will come a time that we are mining the dumps regularly.
One thing that I haven't discussed yet is the story itself. I really didn't expect much from the story. The real story for me was what a world without oil might look like. But the underlying story was actually pretty good. The characters are really interesting, he makes the relationships interesting, and he throws a few surprises into the mix. I have to hand it to JHK – he tells a good tale. Some of the characters (and names) seemed a bit over the top, but otherwise I found myself wanting to know what was going to happen next. So I got a bonus in that aspect.
If you are like me, and you enjoy thinking about possibilities (good or bad), then this book is definitely food for thought. If you want to remain oblivious to the threat of peak oil, or are otherwise convinced that technology will enable the status quo to remain, then you probably won't care for it (although again the book is worth a read for the story itself).
Footnote: JHK responded to this review via e-mail. He thanked me for the review, said he felt that it was "goldurn fair", and added "Of course any thinking person can come up with alternate valid scenarios that differ from mine in particulars (of what the future may actually be like). I took some 'literary liberties'... Mainly I compressed the time scale of 'Long Emergency' conditions gaining traction....
In some sense, any projection into the future is a form of fiction, so this book seems like a useful exercise and one that could be usefully replicated by others.
We need to imagine a future without oil or at least one with considerably less oil so that we can also imagine a way to construct a viable world that is beset by scarcity.
Instead, most of us, including our politicians, are imagining, if they imagine at all, a world unconstrained by what will actually occur. Imagining this future that does not require real change will significantly increase the probability of disaster, hardship,misery, and pain. It is that shock, that unexpected blow to the head, coming out of left field, that will kill you.
While imaginings of a future world are useful, Kunstler's dark jeremiad is too pessimistic to help the cause of changing minds. People are repulsed at his insistence that we shall all be forced back into a world where central governments do not function at all, skyscrapers are abandoned, people flee cities and suburbs become derelict wastelands. Kunstler is a misanthropic curmudgeon whose bile has colored everything he writes. His education extends to an Arts degree in Drama, and boy, does he know how to be melodramatic! I've communicated privately with him about various issues, but stopped when he had a knee-jerk negative reaction to any possibility that technology would survive "the change" and that humanity would retain some post-medieval advantages. In many circles he is simply a laughing stock. Even his wife left him.
If an accurately imagined future is sought, the book "When Technology fails" (reviewed here by Richard Heinberg recently) is the book you want:
Thanks for the reference, Mamba.
It's been mentioned here before, but I'll mention it again: World Without Oil is a near-future look at the first shock of the arriving future. Eerily plausible...
Hi Robert. I read the book a couple months ago. I thought it was a good background of what we can expect, not it 15 years, but maybe 100 years, or 50 at best. I think we are going to be in a chaotic state for decades. I was also a bit put off by the supernatural suggestions, but that's just me.
I have something else you may be interested in if you like his book. Can you email me off list please? jrwakefield@mcswiz.com
A book published in 1982, Seven Tomorrows; Seven Scenarios For The Eighties And Nineties, written by Paul Hawken, James Ogilvy and Peter Schwartz is an admirable work in that it laid out a quarter of a century ago what our options were and the consequences of decisions deliberately made. Every few years I go back and reread it around Earth Day.
The Authors may have missed the timing by a decade but so much of what they wrote at that time is unfolding now. It feels to me like we are on the bubble with three of their potential scenarios as paths for the future; Apocalyptic Transformation; Beginnings of Sorrow; or Living Within Our Means.
It sounds like a World Made By Hand would be at home in Living Within Our Means. Apocalyptic Transformation (gets us to same place but with much greater friction) and Beginnings of Sorrow is not at all a future I would want for (if I had them) my grandchildren.
I am afraid we are, at this point whistling past the graveyard. Choices made 50 years ago have unwittingly created the future we will live/survive in for the next 50 years.
The headlines and underreported stories of the last five years (and in the last year particularly) continue the drumbeat of a world moving in the wrong direction on so many fronts it is difficult to be rational and optimistic at the same time.
My take on "Seven Tomorrows":
During the Carter administration, the US had started down the "Mature Calm" pathway.
"Apocalyptic Transformation" was kind of thrown in largely on the strength of the Evangelical revival then underway. In retrospect, it largely describes a path not taken, as that movement largely got captured and subverted by extreme right-wing elements. The evangelical movement was largely seduced into serving Mammon rather than God. This resulted in the evangelical movement being largely marginalized rather than being transformative, and thus reduced to not much more than a historical footnote.
With the Reagan, there was a very conscious and deliberate effort to move the US back on to the "Official Future" pathway.
We stayed on the "Official Future" pathway for about two decades. Then the Bush II administration came along, and 9/11, and the whole world started coming apart and becoming more dangerous. Welcome to "The Center Holds". This perfectly describes Dick Cheney's USA.
The center isn't going to hold, of course, we all know that. Even as I write, it is quite obvious now that we are moving rapidly into "Chronic Breakdown".
The next few years are going to be a massive struggle to try to at least keep it at the "Chronic Breakdown" stage, or maybe even turn things around. Sadly, "The Beginnings of Sorrow" describes what actually may be a slightly optimistic vision of our likely future.
The other path we won't be taking would have lead us to "Living within our means". That is the scenario that I suspect that a lot of us are hoping for. Unfortunately, I doubt that you can get there from here. If we had kept on the "Mature Calm" pathway, then "Living within our means" would have been the logical next step (assuming that "Apocalypic Transformation" was improbable). Since we reversed course and turned our backs on "Mature Calm", though, the preconditions have not been created that would be necessary for an evolution into "Living within our means".
Thus, "Chronic Breakdown" describes our immediate future about as well as any 25+ year old scenario could, and "Beginnings of Sorrow" comes close to describing what we have to look forward to in another decade or two.
Pretty bleak thought, I'm afraid.
There seems that there are quite a few who have looked at the same issue as JK with very interesting insights. I find JK's writing is hilarious though. Have you ever heard of the Plan B series?:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm
Yes, I have PB 2.0 in my shelf. I like it in that it presents somewhat realistic plans for solving many large-scale environmental problems, at a quite modest cost, especially comparing the cost of "saving the world" with the mind-boggling amounts the world spends on weaponry is an eye-opener.
OTOH the message of the book is quite depressing; even though the book itself is quite positive you just have to open the telly and look at what our great leaders are saying to realize that very little or none of the proposals in the books will be taken seriously until it's too late.
I was lucky enough to stumbel across Lester Brown's site about the time PB 3.0 was releasing and you could - then - download a pdf copy. Does not seem to be the case now.
I thought a review/post was going to be done on this book here at TOD.
If a TOD contributor/editor needs the pdf for this purpose ONLY then please email me at ptoemmes at bellsouth dot net
Pete
Edit: Looks like you can still download it. About 3MB
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm
Teoc - Thank-you for the referral for Seven Tomorrows. That is now on my reading list.
I have tried to consider life as I have observed it in America from a personal perspective. Growing up in the 60's and 70's in a nation dominated by "car culture". I remember being a child seeing orchards and large open areas around LA that are now paved over as far as the eye can see. Until you witness the I-10 and I-405 Interchange at 4 p.m. on a Friday (24 lanes of traffic that have stopped moving) you can't fathom despair!
I think the notion of the U.S.A. getting a Marshall Plan together to herald our national might to the challenge is niave. When the Marshall Plan was put in place there were a fraction of the world's population and we were climbing up the Big Rock Candy Mountain (Peak Oil). The "Psycology of Previous Investment" will prevent us from acting either in a timely or effective fashion. As a society we are now so fragmented that consensus on anything is impossible. By the time the population at large "get it" I think it will be far too late and Kunstlers' notion of "The Long Emergency" will be playing out in a thousand different ways simultaneously.
I have experienced the 405—405 from 101 interchange and Sepulveda Pass south bound to LAX/Playa del Rey, three hours to go roughly 18 miles is common anytime after 3 p.m. and surface streets after you get through the pass into Santa Monica offers a 90 minute to 2 hour alternative.
Not a surprise. What is a surprise is that so many endure it day in and day out and think it—normal, tolerable, an endurable nuisance, just another day in the big city, fun, an adventure, good excuse for being late for a meeting—and not straight up insanity.
Insanity, now there is a word that, along with normalcy, has lost all meaning.
What we see unfolding was foretold—not in a oracle of delphi way, but in a Stanford Research Institute way—forty years ago in Seven Tomorrows. (come to think of it what was the Stanford Research Institute might very well have been a doppelganger for the oracle of delphi).
Half a century later and we are still in the same place confronting the same issues only now they are exponentially more urgent.
After all that we have seen and experienced denial trumps reality and we fill it up one more time cause you know it can't stay at $0.75; $1.22; $2.35; $3.43; $4.17; $5.85; $6.66 (a nod to Lucifer who makes an appearance further on in this thread) and I need the room for the kids, the dogs, the dirt bikes, the snowmobiles, the personal watercrafts, and the cases of food and paper products from Costco/Sam's Club.
And who are we to say the residents of the rest of the planet can't enjoy what we consider our birthright?
Besides science, technology and the free market will find a way through. I mean they have done such a bang up job to this point.
Orion Magazine reviewed "World Made by Hand" an issue or two back...
For post-meltdown scenarios a classic is "Lucifer's Hammer;" the Hammer being a bolide strike. Despite its Heinlein-esque Libby & technocopian nonsense, it's pretty exciting. The trebuchets firing mason jars filled with chemical munitions at the attacking Cannibal Army is exciting/hilarious, for instance.
Given that the Club of Rome gets some mention in "Lucifer's Hammer" (the technofairy is the key refutation to the COR thesis), I'm sometimes inclined to think of the story as a metaphor for the deleterious effects of fossil fuel scarcity. Just for the sake of literary exercise. :o)
After all, in "Lucifer's Hammer," people were aware of the approaching comet. There was plenty of disbelief in the possibility of a collision even up to the last moments before impact. And the available technology (even with people in orbit watching events unfold) was insufficient to prevent the outcome. Indeed, with a nuclear gift-exchange between China and the Soviet Union post-impact, certain kinds of technology made the situation worse. These details kind of mirror certain fears with regards to Peak Oil.
And thanks to Robert for the insightful review. I will pick up a copy of "World Made by Hand" and give the book a read.
-best,
Wolf in YVR BC
Lucifer's Hammer has provided a background of thinking for all these years. Of course events can never occur as foretold, but we can have a degree of certainty in the trends and behaviors. I recommended the book to the Vancouver Peak Oil Executive (VPOE) as a "backgrounder".
The most important lesson I got from the book, and one probably every TODer here knows, is don't count on your day job for survival and our technological society can be fleeting. Should things go bad rapidly (like RR, I don't think it will but its worth the mental exercise) we might find a way to maintain some form of our civilization. We will have a body of knowledge we can redeploy rapidly. Better or worse, who knows?
Why people feel obliged to slam a person because they had a disagreement is unprofessional and just plain rude. Denigrating because of one's education is also petty - after all, Toffler is just a journalist but he seemed to get a lot right. Besides, I like JHK. To steal a line from one of my favorite movies Tombstone, "I like Doc (JHK), he makes me laugh."
Hello
I have had some "World Made by Hand" moments in my life recently.
1. My sink was blocked up and I delayed calling a plummer (example of dependency on modern conveniences and professional services?).
2. I stopped shaving to keep it from getting worse (still drained a bit).
3. I started working on the farm more frequently (spring time) and thought hair would be a good protection of my skin (last year my face took a beating from exposure).
4. So I kept letting the hair grow and developed a beard for the first time in my life.
5. My wife stopped kissing me as much as I'd like because of the prickles so I shaved the parts around my mouth (my wife likes it now).
6. I now have an Abe Lincoln/Amish look about me and go by the moniker "Brother Jobe" which is ironic since in World Made by Hand Brother Jobe is a preacher character who brings shaving back to Union Grove where all the men have beards.
My copy is held up at Amazon waiting for another book I ordered. I'm looking forward to it.
I would just point out that if major cities were destroyed by war, it wouldn't be such a stretch to think that oil would not be as widely available as it is today. Wars require a great deal of fossil fuel and fuel supply lines are always among the first targets. JHK is simply putting together the ideas that we are already fighting wars over oil, if oil becomes less available we are likely to fight even more over it, and after such a war access won't be as great for the winners as it was when things were peaceful and plentiful. Presumably the US didn't win the war in the novel, so oil is even less available for the losing countries like the US.
John Michael Greer discusses linear thinking in his essay today. The idea that we'll progress smoothly from peak production to 10-15 years after peak is a form of linear thinking. It's much more likely that things will be fairly chaotic, and war is certainly a possibility. Given that we're already securing democracy in Iraq, it's a little hard to imagine there won't be more military adventures.
I tend to agree with JMG's catabolic collapse concept too. It matches what I see of reality, where I often notice that events seem to move both very rapidly and excruciatingly slow. So it makes sense that there will be step changes and times of relative calm. Some of those steps might be pretty big though.
My biggest reservation with the idea of catabolic collapse is that the use of fossil fuels has allowed us build up a much bigger population very rapidly, and that may mean the downside will also be more extreme. Especially when combined with the confluence of issues at hand.
Oh, and I would have died at 2wks of age, my teeth would be crooked (that is if I lived, which I wouldn't have), and my eyesight might have been a problem. I often wonder about eyesight - would it have been better without all the close up work? Is people's vision worse now than it was a couple of hundred years ago, or did they just deal with it? If I were an optometrist, I would learn how to grind lenses.
Conventional wars may require lots of oil, but nuclear war just requires someone to push the big red button. Perhaps in the oil wars of the future, if there is a serious shortage of oil for the military it would be tempting to use nukes to soften the opposition thus saving a lot of the oil used for conventional warfare.
I agree that your's is a fair review of the book. I was originally disappointed in the loosely-developed plot of the novel, but upon consideration realized that Kunstler's real effort was to use episodes to illustrate some of the possibilities that may arise in a post-oil, post-war future. I was left wanting more information about Brother Jobe and the queen bee woman, I was not sold on the state in which Albany was portrayed, and found it hard to agree with the regression of women's roles. But overall the book was entertaining and, certainly, thought-provoking.
Do you have any thoughts on the four main factions-- town/community, "practical" religious sect, trailer park-dwelling wolfpack, and plantation barony?
Do you have any thoughts on the four main factions-- town/community, "practical" religious sect, trailer park-dwelling wolfpack, and plantation barony?
I think if you accept the premise, then all of those factions are probable. People turn to religion in times of uncertainty. There are lots of warlords out there even today, and I think we would see this sort of thing spring up without modern law enforcement. Towns and communities would definitely have to pull together as depicted in the book.
And the plantation barony? Lord, I am counting on that. Otherwise, how will I take care of my plantation. :-)
TONIGHT on the Colbert Report: James Kunstler, author of World Made By Hand
Comedy Channel, 11:30 pm eastern, 10:30 pm central
I will definitely check that out. Hopefully he is familiar with Colbert. I have seen more than one guest caught off guard by Colbert's style.
James Kunstler seemed a little caught off guard by the Cobert's snark about his Y2K predictions.
Maybe Kunstler missed an opportunity to reel in his Y2K statements.
But mostly he did well, said things that needed to said, and was funny too.
Comedy Channel? so PO is just a joke after all then so i can relax and go buy a gas guzzler.
Yeah, it is the Comedy channel, but it isn't that kind of show. Colbert and Stewart are really doing political satire. Colbert's persona is a parody of a conservative blowhard, but for things like the Kunstler interview he dials it back a bit. Both shows get a lot of book authors, political figures, and media (particularly political media) types coming through as guests.
I think it's important for readers unfamiliar with Kunstler's approach to realize that 1) Kunstler knows very little about alternatives to oil in particular or fossil fuels in general, and just assumes that they are inadequate (which they aren't), 2) Kunstler is an urban planner who decided that suburbs were terrible long before he know about peak oil, and the demise of suburbs due to peak oil is wishful thinking on his part, and 3) Kunstler always assumes the worst, as demonstrated by his unequivocal, unqualified predictions of disaster from Y2K.
Sure, it's conceivable that resource wars will devastate civilization. OTOH, it's worth noting that the US government had to lie shamelessly, to hide this aspect of the war, to get the permission of the US people to go to war. It's quite clear that resource wars would be stupid and destructive to all concerned. The Iraq war does demonstrate that it's possible, OTOH it's lessons have made additional such wars much less likely.
Sure, we're going to have a painful transition to alternatives to oil in particular or fossil fuels in general. The political resistance to change from people who would be hurt (and they are real people, and their pain does deserve compassion) is our main problem. If we had started 30 years ago we'd be in great shape. Now, we're going to have some real pain - we're likely to have substantial recession or stagnation, and the US is likely to go deeply in debt to exporting nations.
But, should we ever decide to get moving the technical solutions are straightforward. For instance, carpooling could reduce overall US oil consumption by 25+% in 6 months (almost 50% of US oil consumption is light vehicles, with an average occupancy of only 1.15 people per vehicle), with little disruption to the economy (people would get to work). Hybrids like the Prius reduce fuel consumption by 50% over the average US vehicle, and plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt reduce consumption by 80-99%. Cars less than 6 years old account for 50% of miles driven, so a transition would take less than Hirsch assumed. The current grid (with no expansion) could power enough EV's and plug-ins to replace 85% of light vehicle miles driven. Renewable electricity (not bio-fuels) have high E-ROI (as we saw in a recent post), are scalable, and are technically feasible and practical.
Can you explain how this "solves" the problem of peak oil? In other words, are you suggesting that these measures would somehow mean that the rate of oil production would not ever peak? Or is that you think we can reduce our consumption fast enough that it won't matter?
Note: you added to your comment before my response.
"are you suggesting that these measures would somehow mean that the rate of oil production would not ever peak"
No. I think oil needs replacement, primarily through electrification of transportation - hybrids, plug-in hybrids, EV's, and mass transit.
"is that you think we can reduce our consumption fast enough that it won't matter?"
Technically, we could with relatively little disruption. Unfortunately, we're not moving quickly enough to prevent substantial pain in the transition, especially to developing countries.
After WWII started, Roosevelt called in the major car makers and told them roughly the following: "Yesterday you made cars. Today you make tanks.". We need something similar to deal with climate change, which is a worse problem than peak oil, but needs roughly the same solutions (with the exception of expanded coal useage, of course).
Yes, Twilight asks a valid question.
Precisely what are the "solutions" to declining oil in the timeframe we have available to us?
For instance, according to Hirsch the time required to turn over the fleet of passenger cars is 17 years during a robust economy. For heavy trucks and busses it's 28 years.
What would be useful is if you laid out what you propose along a timeline rather than just saying what could be done. In my experience speaking in public with people about peak oil, they have a vanishingly tenuous grasp of time when they come up with their proposals. It's always "just do this, this and this" with no appreciation for how long things take.
The other thing they almost always miss is the condition of the economy. Many people seem to expect the turnover time (if they think of it at all) as staying the same rather than increasing. I don't recall who mentioned it here, but a writer pointed out that during the Great Depression the mines were all intact, so were the factories and buildings and shops. But they were all idle because this nebulous thing called "the economy" had disappeared around them. Is there any reason to think we won't experience something similar, if not exactly that?
In my view, we are largely going to enter Energy Descent with the infrastructure we have now.
But I'm open to seeing you lay out a plan, with dates and milestones, that is grounded in reality and shows me what I could be missing. It wouldn't hurt to attach expected cost figures to each section of the plan, too, just as if you were running a project in a business.
Adding dates and costs makes for something that can be discussed. Otherwise, I think I am justified in thinking your ideas as fantasy.
Best,
Andre'
"Precisely what are the "solutions" to declining oil in the timeframe we have available to us?"
Well, I outlined some. If we're going to have that discussion (and it's a very, very long discussion) it would be helpful if you responded to the specifics I outlined. Now you did respond a little to what I said about cars, but I think you didn't really process it, because I already responded to Hirsch's estimates. Here's what I said: "Cars less than 6 years old account for 50% of miles driven, so a transition would take less than Hirsch assumed."
OTOH, that's not really necessary to my point, which is that Kunstler doesn't know about alternatives, and doesn't explore them in any way. He just assumes they're inadequate. Have you read what he says about alternatives in his books? I have, and it's clear he knows very, very little about them.
"What would be useful is if you laid out what you propose along a timeline rather than just saying what could be done." I did so, in a very, very preliminary and summarized way. What did you think of my specifics? The business proposal you request is a lot of work, and puts all of the burden of proof on me - are you ready to contribute to the effort of analyzing these questions? It seems to me that you should respond in at least as much detail as I did, and then we can go back and forth like that, if you want.
"The other thing they almost always miss is the condition of the economy. "
That's a problem, and it could be a long and useful discussion, but it's several steps later than the technical feasibility of alternatives, which is where Kunstler fails.
Nick: This talk about a successful transition toward renewable energy has been going on for approximately 30 years. You take great pains not to mention what % of North American energy is currently coming from fossil fuels (it is very similar to the % in 1978). There is no sense of urgency IMO because the persons that have the most influence do not feel there is a looming problem. Again IMO I think most Americans (like yourself) have no conception of how far down the hole the USA would have to slide until the persons with the most influence perceive a "problem". They are doing quite well thanks to Globalization and as long as they are doing well IMO very little will be done to secure the USA's energy future.
"I think most Americans (like yourself) have no conception of how far down the hole the USA would have to slide until the persons with the most influence perceive a "problem". "
Sadly, I'm very aware of how complacent many people are about PO. Carter dealt with energy pretty well, but resistance from oil, gas & car industries has been pretty relentless ever since. Fortunately, we seem to be somewhat better able to take action to deal with AGW - this seems fairly hopeful to me.
OTOH, I think you're underestimating people a bit. PO isn't an easy thing to analyze or predict, and it's been fairly clear for only a couple of years.
Nick, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I don't discredit your point of view as I have the same thoughts on optimistic days. I also don't think matters will go to hell in a hand basket unless the government does something really stupid to exacerbate the problem (i.e. Iran).
I believe your point is simple, (and I don't know why the others don't get it), is we can't do much about PO but we can certainly change our consumption patterns. The only Achilles heel in the plan is the idealism. Or, to put it another way, it just makes too much sense.
What will motivate the American public at large? I have one idea and I don't mind riling this beast. Make is unequivocally clear that the U.S. is beholden to Canada and them lousy Canucks are calling the tune. You would bring about the ire, pride and cooperative effort Americans have been known for at a grassroots level. Then we might see some WWII level of mobilization and industry.
Lets call it a kick in the pants.
Nick, I think the answer lies somewhere in between. I don't discredit your point of view as I have the same thoughts on optimistic days. I also don't think matters will go to hell in a hand basket unless the government does something really stupid to exacerbate the problem (i.e. Iran).
I believe your point is simple, (and I don't know why the others don't get it), is we can't do much about PO but we can certainly change our consumption patterns. The only Achilles heel in the plan is the idealism. Or, to put it another way, it just makes too much sense.
What will motivate the American public at large? I have one idea and I don't mind riling this beast. Make is unequivocally clear that the U.S. is beholden to Canada and them lousy Canucks are calling the tune. You would bring about the ire, pride and cooperative effort Americans have been known for at a grassroots level. Then we might see some WWII level of mobilization and industry.