"To sum up, if global energy behavior continues along its current trajectory, the risk of crisis, economic trauma, and conflict on a staggering scale will increase....Averting catastrophe requires efforts to demilitarize energy procurement policies and radically speed the development of climate-friendly alternatives." That sounds quite serious, but he does not develop the ideas much further than that, and in a sense is somewhat contradictory of himself. Along with the possibility of a new Cold War, or even a new hot one (bigger or expanding if Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran are considered in the equation), Klare foresees "a global expansion of the power of the state...to the detriment of democracy; severe economic trauma; and the acceleration of global climate change with its attendant disasters." Democracy is already being severely limited in many areas, including the changes to power by the neocon Bush executive that is unlikely to change under the next government, and the revival of Russian power under Alexander Putin. Global climate disasters are underway and severe economic trauma appears to also be underway (it has certainly been underway for the majority of the world as the wealth of western society is strongly based on the extraction of resources from other areas). Klare's main fear is the destruction of globalization, and the decrease in American supremacy. He talks of swinging "the balance of power back in their [energy-poor states e.g. the U.S.] favor." Globalization in his terms means the survival of the corporation in its current form as a means of extracting wealth. That extraction, in the Thomas Friedman School of Economics thought, is protected by the 'hidden fist' of the military. He is afraid "The adoption of statist measures...will occur at the expense of both corporate and societal autonomy." To many, that would be the good news: corporate autonomy is what has brought us to this state in the first place and corporations and their superstructures (the WTO, World Bank, OECD, IMF) are far from democratic; and societal autonomy could be considered a euphemism to allow the continued willful ignoring of humanity's responsibilities to other humans through social services (medical care, worker protection, retirement benefits, women's rights, education) and to the environment in which they live. Most catastrophically to his argument (while speaking about catastrophes) is his final answer that incredibly continues to argue for growth. Michael, if you have not noticed yet for all your academic arguments and intelligence, we live on a finite world with finite resources and far too many people wanting to use them. Klare sees the "process of collaboration" with China as "spurring long-term economic growth." He had better get started on that immediately as China is currently allowing the U.S. a soft economic landing as it learns how to deal with all the American debt it owns. He continues with the idea of a "new industrial paradigm" that somehow will "consume fewer resources while stimulating economic growth." Changing industry is one thing, but that new paradigm seems to ignore the actual economic pattern of the U.S., that of debt laden consumption. It will not be possible to keep the "Chinese and American economies humming" as you wish. Klare then sees the world not quite as fraught with change as other authors do. His is an examination of current events and what might transpire within the next five to ten years in geopolitical terms, but not to the average citizen. It maintains the status quo of American supremacy, corporate control, a growing still consuming economy, backed by the military's still powerful but perhaps more discreet 'hidden fist'. In a sense, Klare is concerned about his survival and his class survival more than that of the common citizen or the environment. His arguments become self-contradictory when what is needed is a truly larger paradigm change, either by our choice (not likely) or by the course of events caused by increasingly more expensive and difficult to obtain oil (more than likely). The Long Emergency The other books that provided my summer holiday entertainment (as in reading the script of a horror movie) are much more strident, much more hard-hitting, much more pessimistic than Klare's Pollyannish work. Their central theme, reiterated frequently, emphasizes how serious this change could be if positive action is not started now. Cheap fuel is over and we had better become used to a more minimalist agrarian style of existence without the luxuries of today's consumptive super-fest. The hardest and most direct of the works is James Kunstler's The Long Emergency. His statements on the seriousness of our future are very direct: "The long emergency is going to be a tremendous trauma for the human race."
"...a lot is at stake and the prospects are rather dark...the Long Emergency will be well under way and the United States itself may be in a state of political turmoil."
"It ought to be pretty obvious that the social systems, subsystems, and institutions necessary to run advanced societies would be weakened, perhaps beyond repair, by the multiple calamities of the Long Emergency."
"The moment that the world recognizes the passing of the oil production peak as a reality, globalism will be dead both in theory and practice. [if Kunstler means Washington consensus globalism, then, hey, there is some good news among all this]"
"In the Long Emergency, all large-scale enterprises will have trouble operating in virtually every sphere of activity." The cause of all this is of course the loss of cheap oil, the energy source that has fuelled everything that we take for granted today as being the normal course of life, life as it should be, life as it will always be at least in its opulent, ever increasing wealth, superficial lifestyle sense. Much is being said of alternate sources of energy, but Kunstler develops two main ideas that limit their ability to replace the era of cheap oil. First is that to build the infrastructures for all or any of these alternates will take more time than we have until the effects of expensive/limited/no oil are already considerable. Concurrent with that idea is that the methods available to make all those alternates happen manufacturing, transport, maintenance are all based on the declining oil economy. That dependence on the oil economy is an overall feature of any alternate energy sources. The infrastructure required to build the windmills, the batteries, the coal plant, the water generator, the solar panels are all currently dependent on oil based manufacturing processes, from the acquisition of raw materials through to the delivery of the final product. Essentially our whole lifestyle is dependent on oil, "Everything characteristic about the condition we call modern life has been a direct result of our access to abundant supplies of cheap fossil fuels. The age of fossil fuels is about to end. There is no replacement for them at hand." The problems with large-scale alternate energies are well presented by Kunstler. It is not that they will not be available, but that they will be difficult to construct and operate, and even if fully successful, will not replace the mass transportation and mass agricultural production that cheap oil has built. As an example of his arguments, the idea of a hydrogen based fuel economy is filled with problems. First, the procedure for using hydrogen as a basis for synthesizing fuel would "take more energy than the resulting compound would produce." Pure hydrogen continues other problems. Because hydrogen is a low-density fuel it requires much greater storage capacity to contain the same level of energy as oil. In order to make that space smaller it would have to be stored under ultrahigh pressure, which could self ignite if leakage occurred (the heat of decompression see your own air conditioner for the reality of this idea). Other problems are that it will leak "due to its extremely low atomic weight." If it did not leak, it is "also extremely corrosive. It likes to combine with other elements and compounds." In addition the infrastructure required to make, transport, and store hydrogen does not exist and would have to replace the current systems used for gasoline. If it is a viable alternative, the development of that infrastructure should already have started as it is dependent on the oil economy in order to do so. The future viewed by Kunstler is not pretty. Lifestyles will be of a more rural, small town, agrarian existence. Cities will fall into disrepair, suburbs will be vacated, and "industrial farming, dependent on massive oil and gas 'inputs' at gigantic scales of operation, can no longer be carried economically." Economic growth will not even be a consideration. Life spans will become shorter. A grim picture without recourse.
III Ships of state running on empty Peak Everything Similar warnings as Kunstler's, just as forcefully stated, just as strident, are found in Richard Heinberg's Peak Everything:
"...the recent fossil fuel era has seen so much growth of population and consumption that there is an overwhelming likelihood of a crash of titanic proportions. This should be glaringly obvious to everyone."
"Realistically I think we can expect to see some of the worst excesses of human history...."
"The next few decades will be traumatic. The slow squeeze of economic contraction will probably be punctuated by dramatic weather-related catastrophes, resource wars, and regional instances of social collapse."
"[For global warming and carbon equilibrium in the atmosphere] if that [carbon reduction] translated to a 60 per cent reduction in energy consumption, it could mean anything but economic ruin for the world." Enough doom and gloom. Heinberg is at least slightly more positive in his presentation but in the end asks if he thinks a transition can be made successfully. His answer, after much thoughtful reasoning (in comparison to Kunstler's much more dramatic presentation of future scenarios) is "Frankly, it's not likely. Is it possible? Yes, just barely." Just barely does not leave much space or time for action. Heinberg's writing is more readily accessible than the first two works. The book is a collection of essays, each with their own theme - rather than chapters progressing through a theme - sometimes bringing in some quirky ideas (Urinetown?) that in hindsight actually make the work more 'readable'. He is capable of very clear and concise summaries of the background material he needs to work with, from his history of farming, to the adaptations made by the neocons to Straussian philosophy, or to a summation of the ideas of Malthus. There is an underlying voice that says we can survive this, if we act now, if we are prepared to make a paradigm change. Unfortunately he sees that happening only if there is a mass mobilization of thought "based on empirically verifiable, survival-based necessity" otherwise it would amount to "crass manipulation worthy of a Karl Rove or an Edward Bernays." He believes that "we can shift behaviors in a matter of months or years" but with a large caveat in the idea that "such an effort would require an enthusiastic participation of the advertising, public relations, and entertainment industries, as well as organized religions and all major political parties." Oh great. Many religious institutions are not noted for forward looking thinking, and those on the apocalyptic right are no doubt welcoming the hard times ahead as a sign of the coming 'rapture'. Public relations and entertainment are in the hands of big corporations, and combined with our political institutions and their various entanglements are all what created the mess in the first place. Not very reassuring. Crossing the Rubicon The final work in this series of horror stories is a rather large tome on the theme of what really transpired with 9/11, not just the event of the attack on the towers, but all the manipulations that preceded it, and all the manipulations that followed. In short Michael Ruppert's theme is that either there were thousands of 'coincidences' within the people and groups concerned, or there has been and is a much larger plan:
"Although the apparent crisis is about terrorism, the real one is about energy scarcity....an incisive account of the energy issue also explains the real functioning of the world's economy and who controls it, and how this shapes so much of our daily lives." Knowing the history of Bush and Cheney in entering into the war in Iraq, Ruppert states "no one can rationally say that the Bush administration is incapable of lying." From that he asks "can we afford to not question the multitude of contradictions, lies, falsehoods, and cover-ups surrounding the events of 9/11?" Good question and the writing that follows from it is well documented and covers most topics about 9/11 with equally discriminating questions. What is significant for my perspective here is his starting position on "limits on the one resource that has propelled the human race to over expand and upon which the species is now dependent: hydrocarbon energy....an increasingly rapid stream of data and experience is ushering in what may be the most significant event in human history; the end of the age of oil." He touches on the topic of economic growth within the capitalist system "which is really something else...predicated on debt" and other poorly understood financial systems, requiring that "there must be limitless growth into infinity for it to survive. Growth is not possible without energy....There is nothing on our horizon other than wishful thinking that can completely replace hydrocarbon energy." He touches upon common themes on oil supply, that "if demand remains unchanged...the world will run out of conventional oil within thirty-five years." Given that demand is increasing, "conventional oil is limited to perhaps 20 years." His statements are succinct:
"Oil pervades our civilization; it is all around you."
"Oil is critical for our food supply."
"...currently committed to endless growth...One way or another, the have-nots must become customers [consumers]."
"Peak Oil will likely turn human civilization inside out long before global warming does..."
"The catastrophe made inevitable by these limits is beginning now."