Gather 'round the podcast, folks, and listen to some thoughts on peak oil and economy with James Howard Kunstler and Richard Heinberg. Photo: Originalbuzz.info
In addition to his many books on peak oil and the tragedy of urban sprawl, James Howard Kunstler has a weekly podcast with Duncan Crary called the KunstlerCast. The most recent episode recorded an interview with Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow-In-Residence at the Post Carbon Institute to discuss Richard’s new book The End of Growth.
The interview lasts almost an hour, with the first part available here.
What is progress?
Kunstler and Heinberg begin with the cultural notion of progress. The 20th century version of this narrative is the result of converting our limited supply of highly concentrated liquid fuels into measurable industrial output on a global scale. This is otherwise known as GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. To justify our waste-based lifestyle, we tainted the economics profession with a disdain for the The Limits To Growth and encouraged abstract financial engineering to assure us that all is well. Instead, Heinberg argues, we need our governments to create new metrics to measure social and environmental welfare.
But rather than implement large scale cultural reforms in the face of dwindling proven reserves, we’ve decided to twiddle our thumbs and wait for the technological fix which we imagine will surely come from somewhere. Kunstler describes this waiting for a “rescue remedy” as a cultural impediment to envisioning a more realistic future. Their conversation reminds us that alternative energy gadgets, such as wind turbines, photovoltaics and bio-fuels depend on an infrastructure of fossil fuels to put them in place. Even if we were successful at making such a cultural shift, the Post Carbon Institute’s own research shows that no combination of available energy sources will replace oil.
According to the authors, this leaves us in denial. Our politicians are trying to placate everyone with political promises rather than telling us the simple but ugly truth. When Kunstler asks Heinberg if President Obama is lying about our supply of domestic fossil fuels, Heinberg says yes, pretty much. He says it’s difficult to conceive how the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu who advises the President, could have missed such an obvious dilemma.
Managing contraction gracefully
A good portion of the interview deals with the consequences of one question: How will we manage a progressive contraction of the economy due to oil depletion and the corresponding strain on our financial model? Here Kunstler and Heinberg provide similar opinions on various questions. They wonder whether companies such as WalMart that depend on globalism and international finance will stay in business? Is the European Union monetary system doomed to failure? What happens to debt when confidence between lenders dissolves?
Heinberg believes the deflationary environment we find ourselves in will intensify. He goes on to reference a portion of his book where he describes three challenges we face: global climate change, Peak Oil, and the “ephemeral condition of too much debt.” His most immediate concern is the latter.
Kunstler agrees, describing it as a horse race between resource scarcity and shortages in capital and credit. Without access to capital markets, oil exploration and development in more remote areas simply cannot continue. In preparation, Heinberg comments on his own lifestyle changes over a ten year period, including adapting his home for lower energy and food production, a gird against coming shocks. Unfortunately he doesn’t think that younger generations have the luxury, time, and financial resources necessary to transition in a similar fashion.
Ultimately both thinkers see social chaos ensuing in the US, much like we’re witnessing abroad. When asked if he believes we’ll have a second American Civil War, Heinberg isn’t entirely convinced. Yet he admits that keeping “…a country together under those circumstances is really a puzzle.” Kunstler offers a more decisive and unforgiving vision. He sees American society unraveling in despair, which in some cases may spawn events that will be interpreted as terrorism.
Keep paying attention
Anyone familiar with Kunstler’s writings will recognize the discussion he frames with Heinberg around the fate of our urban fabric. Suburban communities linked to urban work centers will be left stranded or abandoned as oil depletion and economic contraction take center stage. The core issue here is food. Do Americans retain the cultural memory, social cohesion and more importantly, the skills needed to turn their front lawns into Victory Gardens? Can we solve our crisis by continuing to increase the speed or scale of resource extraction forever? Probably not, and therefore the cost of food is likely to increase as we replace farm equipment with human labor.
In a startling moment in part two of the interview, Heinberg offers his own vision of this post-consumer society: “In my darker moments,” Heinberg confesses, “I think of The Road.” He says he believes the future lies somewhere between this post-apocalyptic nightmare and the Transition Town movement as a more hopeful alternative.
And their time frame for this reconciliation between the waste-based economy and living within our natural resource base? Not decades according to Heinberg, more like months – as in this fall. In his opinion, the current global economic situation is “highly unpredictable, highly unstable” and ready for a “profound economic transformation.”
“Anyone who isn’t pessimistic right now isn’t paying attention” says Heinberg.
Can we be “pessimistic and cheerful at the same time?” quips Kunstler.
Ironically, Mr. Heinberg doesn’t consider himself a doomer at least not compared to others currently speaking out on such matters. Rather, he looks forward to seeing how we use our creativity to adapt to the challenges facing us with creativity. And maybe even a little homespun music.
This interview might be difficult for new observers of peak oil to follow and the interview does not cover Heinberg’s book cover to cover. However, you won’t be disappointed. Kunstler’s friendly banter offers relief to the difficult subject while eliciting very personal remarks from Heinberg. It’s a rare opportunity to listen to the inner thoughts of these two post-petroleum sherpas.
–Jeff Sties for Transition Voice
Wow, Jeff. What a nice overview of the conversation. You do both Richard and Jim a service with this. Transition Voice just gets better and better.
Thanks, Tod. Keep coming back!
“… the Post Carbon Institute’s own research shows that no combination of available energy sources will replace oil.” Scientifically, this statement could not possibly be true, since it’s unknown what the potential/total-est. IS, if the ‘available alt.-energies’ were fully employed (e.g. sea-based solar-, geo-thermal- (both land and sea), gravitational- (tidal, etc.), and atmospheric-dynamic- (wind and air-temperature) platforms of energy-collection). I suspect the models and math-algorith.s of the PCI and Transition may be in great error on this conclusion; on pure speculation: Replacing a ‘finite/non-renewable’ source of energy with known ‘infinite/renewable’ sources, would definitely result in MORE total energy. The question is: What will we do and how will we manage all of our other resources once ‘energy’ is nearly free.
LE Thompson: Perhaps I should clarify that alternative energies such as solar and wind won’t replace the highly concentrated form of liquid fuel we put in our petrol tanks. Can we switch from liquid fuel to a combination of electric and nat. gas? The political hurdles aside, on the downhill side of Hubbert, we would have to divert the supply of oil to the manufacturing, implementation and maintenance of such systems on a national, if not global scale. Where would we build the factories? Could we afford the labor rates? Labor rates would have to be sufficient for people to buy the new gadgets. How would the KSA and other OPEC members react? Would they turn off the tap until we got back in line with our empty tankers? They have their own domestic needs and social problems to contend with. If the US military were to switch to nat gas, would the the Chinese?
Modern civilization was built on oil, runs on oil, and is sustained on oil. We’re stuck. The alternative, as I see it, is to simply give up ‘modern’ and go for ‘humane.’ Thanks for your comments.
While I hardily agree with utilizing hydrogen energies, your statement has two, very grievous errors:
1. RE: Fossil-fuel reserves and use. You speak as if there is no tremendous, and quite frankly ‘End Game’ for our planet’s Rapid Climate Change, directly from their continued extraction and use; and
2. RE: No need for nations’ military-security/economic-shift. Especially with China’s military escalation of both naval and air, and now its ‘trade-deal scam’ with fossil-fuel CEOs: For the Earth’s currently, largest supply of fossil-fuels to stockpile for fueling China’s military: The Canadian TarGasland strip-mines; they are the size of England, visible from space, and with its USA-proposed, KXL pipeline for carbon-emissions/refine in TX before its export to China, (in partial-exchg. for THEIR banks’ debt-relief)- China primarily, in addition to many, politically-unstable nations on the rest of the Asian continent- including those in the mid-east belies your opinion of “no threat/enemy, therefore no need for investing in or strong national security,” both- military and especially, economic securities are sorely needed by our nation at this time!
JB,
Thanks for an excellent recap of the podcast. I hope some of your readers will check out the show. This week we have another guest, Jeff Goodell, who is the environmental writer for Rolling Stone and author of “How to Cool the Planet” and “Big Coal.”
To Manfred Zysk, M.E. your 10,500 word “comment” on this post is inappropriate. If this were my site I’d delete it.
I make my living as a publicist, by the way, and your insanely verbose “comment” is way too self-promoting even for a publicist to stomach.
If you want to direct traffic to your site, then post a brief, relevant comment in the blog. Then link to the full extremely long piece of writing you want people to read. Come on, man! This is a post about a conversation that Richard Heinberg and James Howard Kunstler had. Your “comment,” the way you’ve posted it, is very disrespectful to JB Sties, Transition Voice and the readers. I admonish you, publicly.
The Goodell Podcast is excellent. Highly recommended.
Nice job Duncan and Jim!
KK
Thanks for the summary. I hate listening to podcasts.
I think they may be premature in terms of the upcoming collapse being this fall. The PTB are adept and keeping the game going. But eventually, I believe, it will be a very long grim scenario in which most people on the planet will starve to death. No amount of “creativity” will solve the basic energy equation problem we face. The best we can hope is that collapse will come while Earth is still hospitable to homo sapiens’ existence.
People are nice as long as there’s a sufficiency of resources.