The Long Emergency - Skeptics?

[BMG580]

I've read most of TLE now (I skipped around) and while I think Kunstler has valid points about our current American lifestyle being unsustainable, I think he is almost gleeful in his view of what the future will be like for many Americans who live in a way in which he doesn't agree. And he states a few times in the end portion of the book that traditional farming and homesteading practices are pretty much lost, which I don't agree with at all. I am 30 years old, grew up in a very rural area in which everyone had a home garden, canned, had some animals (I grew up drinking raw milk, for instance), etc. There are some people who still have the knowledge and can be resourceful. Sure, I haven't flexed those homesteading muscles since I was a young teen but I don't think it is impossible to be fairly self-sustaining in a smallish area (suburban yard for instance). The Path To Freedom folks are doing pretty amazing things in their small space. My point here is that while I think things are going to change I do not see the government falling apart or mass starvation in the USA. Humans have been resourceful in the past and will continue to be so in the future. Just my $.02.

[CatsCradle]

Charbeau, I agree with your points to an extent...but growing up on the east coast where there are high, high concentrations of people depending on resources from elsewhere, I think that although a return to the homesteading lifestyle is possible, there will have to be an extreme shift not only in population, but in attitude. Millions and millions of people from high population areas would have to be relocated to a land-based economy. I think this is less likely to happen then the formation of a system whereby the cities continue to play an important function and we return to a lifestyle that is less reliant on outside or international sources to supply our basic needs.

I like the idea of the city that can support itself: people live in the city center which doesn't require a reliance on the car, and the city itself is sustained through surrounding farming communities. It still blows my mind that a lot of the food available to us (at least where I live) comes from other countries. Not everyone can be a farmer or a homesteader, but I would like to see us return to a more local system. Sometimes I pay more for locally grown food because I don't want to see those resources disappear.

Between, I haven't read TLE but I'll check it out.

[jentilla]

I just did the same thing and while I think things "could" go VERY bad, I tend to think we have enough time to prepare. Kunstler seems to think we won't. I have to be positive, but also really worry about what my family needs to accomplish in the next 5-10 yrs. Prices WILL cause demand to go down which will lengthen the end of oil. Also, we have to keep in mind that things have advanced some in the fours years since he wrote the book, regarding alternative energy R & D. My biggest peeve is with his sloppy assentments of regions. I live in the SE and it is filled with transplants and not prone to all the violence and racial discord he talks about.

[JamieCatheryn]

For many, many people, from average to more consumerist than average, homesteading, living on less, doing it yourself, and that sort of thing would be a HUGE shift. Sure it's possible, usually if it happens at all it's a gradual personal thing though. If so many are forced to jump in head first very quickly there will be some who suffer. I had been starting to think that self-sufficiency and anti consumerism was becoming a mainstream trend, but then we went and visited our in-laws. My MIL considers herself a bit crunchy in some areas but my goodness, the belief in products and the wastefulness that's an normal thing to them astounded me.

PTF is inspiring me though since I checked in out about a week back. We can grow for ourselves even in our small city plot too, we won't be in big trouble if the economy gets rough before we have our country homestead.

[GoddessKristie]

IF things get to the point were we can not afford to keep driving everywhere, there are other solutions. Kunstler addresses trains and I live near a track that get a lot of use, the trains seem to be getting longer and longer which I think is because it's so much cheaper to ship by train than to hire drivers and use trucks these days. I think there will be a gradual shift to the old ways if things start getting really hairy. I just read an article recently (maybe linked on PTF?) about farmers who've gone back to using donkeys instead of tractors.
I don't think people are as dumb as Kunstler points out and there will have to be a shift back to everyone growing some of their own food, but I don't think it we will be seeing war and bombing of the capital over it.
IF it happens, I think things will gradually fall away and people will be employing more of the old timey ways.
In the mean time I'll try to convince DH that we need a horse and buggy!

[cappuccinosmom]

My point here is that while I think things are going to change I do not see the government falling apart or mass starvation in the USA. Humans have been resourceful in the past and will continue to be so in the future. Just my $.02.

I tend to agree with this generally.

I do see how TLE *could* happen. But I don't think it's necessarily going to happen, or going to happen the way people think it might. It's one of many possibly avenues the future may take, kwim?

I do believe humans are resourceful and can adapt to incredibly huge changes in lifestyle. At the same time, I'm sure that if disaster really does strike, a pretty large majority of the US citizenry is going to be stunned and have a very, very rough time coping at the beginning. I don't know many people who have *any* clue how to live without their flatscreen tv, microwave, and airconditioning. Seriously. My parents had many patients who's food preparation knowledge was limited to picking up a package in the grocery store and nuking it in the microwave. That's really and truly the extent of their ability to feed themselves.

[Free Thinker]

I didnt' read the book, but that thread IMO was a bunch of hype/overzealous/fearmongering. I'm sure there IS going to be a big shift in the upcoming years toward alternative fuels, but I just cannot see our world crashing down upon us. I think we will all make moves to be more self sufficient (small gardens, lumping trips together, ect.) and start buying less. What 2 year old needs 5 pr. of shoes, or 30 outfits (and that is conservative, most have mroe than that)? Right now we are buying things w/ the intent of tossing them after a year or so of use, I see this changing and buying more quality peices/brands over cheapie junk that will tear up. I also hope that Americans (espeically the younger generation) will realize how important savings IS. For years there have been reports that Americans are saving less than ever before, and spending more on credit than ever before. THis has to stop and maybe this will be the wake-up call we need to get our priorities right.

As for the gov. crashing, I don't see this happening. I do see a need to reighn in gov. spending, including welfare programs, some road maint., summer school, not that these programs are not GOOD, but just like any family on a budget, you have to pick and choose where you make cuts. I'd personally want the local police forces to still be maintained, as well as the local schools (may go back to less consolidated/smaller schools/fewer school days, ect., but still be there, KWIM?), major highways (probably not smaller state roads as much, already our county is mowing the ride-of-ways less often this summer and I noticed the parks were not mowed as often this last week either) and just basic infrastructure. I'm not against social welfare, but in desprate time I really think we will HAVE to stop/reduce this. Instead I'd support the money going to seeds instead, maybe more localized help for those in need! I don't see National healthcare as a good choice AT THIS TIME (sorry Barrack and Hillary). It's a good idea, but not in a time of recession. Keep in mind that as the ecomony shrinks, fewer money generated means less taxes, so with increaseing costs due to fuel, you also have decreasing funds due to fewer sales.

[gentlemango]

My dh thinks that the u.s. will shift from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, as france has done, and that will be that. No long emergency needed.

[zersha]

Originally Posted by gentlemango

My dh thinks that the u.s. will shift from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, as france has done, and that will be that. No long emergency needed.

Nuclear cars? I sure don't want to be one of the first to test them out.

But I totally see the reasoning in what your dh thinks. Makes sense to me.

[riverscout]

Originally Posted by zersha

Nuclear cars? I sure don't want to be one of the first to test them out.

Maybe a 100% electric car like the Tesla would work better. That way you could plug it in to the nuclear power grid to charge it and not need to worry about having any of that pesky plutonium under the hood.

I think nuclear energy is an interesting idea, but unfortunately it takes quite a few decades to plan and build each nuclear power plant, and we would need a lot of them. We are a lot bigger than France and Japan, so it wouldn't be quite so easy for us. Not to mention the huge cost of building all those reactors and the major opposition to nuclear power in this country. I think the transition, if it were to ever happen, would be very long and bumpy.

[Belleweather]

I agree about nuclear power.

I think my biggeswt beef with Kunstler's book (although I agree with everything the OP said, especially about his "glee" at thinking about things going badly) is that he goes over all the kinds of renewable and alternative energy that are available and discusses why none of them can step in as a perfect silver bullet alternative to oil... but he never considers the idea of combining several different ways of generating energy. It's like it's got to be one thing that is going to save us, it can't be a gradual change to a combination of things.

[Violet2]

There are issues with the PO dogma. My fave logical fallacy is that PO is the end of the world, yet in the same breathe PO says there will always be some measure of oil.

Not to mention ethanol can be made out of almost any biomass.

So, worst case scenario, we could cobble together enough energy to keep food growing, distribute it, and build alternative energy products, that once in use, don't rely on any oil input.

And PO forgets that while govt may have its head in the sand, science does not. Scientists are well aware of the needs for alt. energy and are working on it. Alt. energy is going to be the next big economic boom.

However, we are not prepared for any type of transition or shock to the system. The govt isn't prepared. We are not a culture that believes in planning for lean times. I do agree with Kunstler's blog that the MW floods are this generation's wet version of the Dust Bowl. When a huge segment of your agriculture is wiped out in a time when fuel prices are at record levels in a weak economy, that is a recipe for bad ju-ju.

At this point, with the way oil futures are going and the US' warmongering, I think we are going to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with PO. It's going to feel like PO even if we actually still have oil to burn.

And even if PO is a bunch of fearmongering, the current mortgage crisis has nothing to do with it (even though PO proponents try to claim it does) and is currently one of the biggest problems our economy faces. I am much more concerned about the coming recession and what some are saying will be a Depression. My DH's employer claimed a loss for the first time in 30 years. Second quarter doesn't look any better. We suspect layoffs will start sometime in 2009 unless the economy turns around.

V

[madskye]

I think we'll definitely see some changes in our lifetime, but I don't anticipate catastrophe unless government and business both refuse to think forward.

I think imported luxury items will be harder to come by. The lobsters being flown around the country that Kunstler discusses might be out of the ordinary person's budget. I think people who live in inaccessible areas might have to change the way they shop to conserve gas, and also that trucking companies might not be as willing to make the trip to places off the beaten path in the future. I think that it might not be as easy and financially do-able to pick up and fly to Europe or Asia as it is now--we might have lived through a golden age of personal travel.

I do think that businesses should start bringing manufacturing back here, so that everything is not being done overseas. The company I work for now solicits US bids instead of automatically going to Hong Kong for everything. With the fuel prices, it's suddenly much more competitive.

I watched a video about a trucker protest in Albany last week, and one guy was carrying a sign that said "Everything You Own Came On A Truck!" and that is kind of chilling if you think about it.

But lastly, I am skeptical because Kunstler, in TLE, says that other than choosing a geographically desirable area, he isn't doing anything extreme to prepare. He makes a joke about not hoarding wheatberries on page 305. I would think if anyone were going to "walk the walk" it would be him, you know? So I think it's fascinating, there are changes I am going to make that are sensible for me anyway, and I think the book might inform some of our investments for the future. But I am not expecting the dramatic end of the world as we know it to come during my lifetime.

[IntuitiveJamie]

I don't have a lot of fear about any of it, however I do find myself learning new ways to be sustainable. I think it's good sense to have some skills, like growing your own food or sewing or some carpentry skills etc. Then I think it's smart to know who's around you and have ppl on your side that do other stuff, like ranching, canning etc. And if disaster strikes, everyone can help each other out. So part of me is naturally doing these things but I'm not really scared. I feel like I just want to shift how I do things and whom I rely on (meaning local vs. overseas). I want to do this for the earth, for my town, for my family, for myself. I'm not stockpiling or anything though, but I'm listening and watching and I'm aware. That's about all.

[mightymoo]

I haven't read it either, but I'm also not panicked. We change and adapt. We will find a new way of living without fossil fuels one way or another. When things you depend on go away suddenly, then you have a problem, when they gradually go away by becoming more scarce and more expensive, you find other ways of doing without them. Sure, not everything we have now will survive, but that's the way it works.

[p.s]

Usually extremist views, the sky is falling rants don't hold much appeal to me, so I avoid them, but enough has been mentioned of TLE and Kunstler that made me curious to check out his website, and read every blog post or article that he has linked. After having read all that, I may or may not read TLE, as I'll explain below.

Firstly, anytime I hear an opinion, I evaluate with what authority the voice speaks. So looking at Kunstler, I see a man who has made a career of selling his opinions to the masses, either via mass marketed books or articles in mags like the Rolling Stone. This part is key. B/c he has to write in such a way that is distinct and different enough to get people to fork over money, so he can go on living in his Saratoga Springs home, writing opinion, supporting his dog ( a bourgeois habit for a suburb), and painting nice pictures of Americana. So I'm more inclined to closely listen to someone like George Soros or Faith Popcorn (persons who have track record of accurate forecast).

The second thing to evaluate is... how the opinion is reflected in the living. And from what I read here and on his website, it looks like he himself isn't too frantic about TLE. Doesn't look like Kunstler is too worried. The guy lives in a cute rented Victorian, writes books, and paints pics. PAINTS PICTURES! So I interpret his strategy as, socking away as much money as possible, remaining mobile (renting, NOTE HE DOES NOT OWN A PLOT OF FARMLAND), and staying in as nice and homogenous an area as possible.
i.e. --> Little chance of race riots where he lives. And hence his myopic view of the South.
BTW, I have lived in the SE area of the US, and while I would definitely agree that it is still race centered/ racist/ race divided/ etc, nevertheless, the sense of community far surpasses anything I've expereinced in any other part of the US (esp. the NE). Much more than the Midwest.

And (not having read TLE) my guess is he's saving stuff for the next book,.... or he doesn't know. He is though, preceptive, and that combined with a brilliant ability to articulate his views makes him fun to read, when you get beyond the snuffling, blustery polemics.

Originally Posted by Charbeau

I think he is almost gleeful in his view of what the future will be like for many Americans who live in a way in which he doesn't agree.

agree, b/c like many pp on this thread, I think he believes that "we" collectively as humanity will figure a way out. Suggestions will be in the next book, once he is done doing his collecting/ reporting. Again, he is not a visionary nor futurist (IMHO), so look to other sources for that.

Originally Posted by jentilla

I live in the SE and it is filled with transplants and not prone to all the violence and racial discord he talks about.

having lived in the SE, I think it could be prone. But same as everywhere else that there is a disparity of income/ or assets, not necessarily race. In the South, the racial correlation with income and assets just happens to be more obvious.

Originally Posted by Belleweather

I agree about nuclear power.

agree.

Originally Posted by madskye

But lastly, I am skeptical because Kunstler, in TLE, says that other than choosing a geographically desirable area, he isn't doing anything extreme to prepare. ... But I am not expecting the dramatic end of the world as we know it to come during my lifetime.

agree, and I think neither does Kunstler expect to see it.

I kind of am excited, no? When we moved back from Europe, i was disgusted by all the SUV's. Yahoo, I would be happy to see their permanent demise. yadda, yadda...

[ShaggyDaddy]

The main thing that is lost in the whole homesteading, "simple" living approach is that most people turn a blind eye to the fact that it is NOT sustainable at a large scale, even less so than some of the horrible things we are already doing. I understand that you can do a lot with a small space, but if everyone lived on a sustainable farm, we would need significantly fewer people on this Earth, you still pretty much need the current infrastructure to "get started" even if you don't need it to perpetuate.

I am very much a strange blend of environmentalist and techno-utopianist. I know the science and believe in the technology that can and will continue to help us sustain ourselves. It is ironic that we use dirtier, more "lossey" technology in many instances because people are afraid of change or because governments don't make technology a priority. It is my strong belief that we could sustain a planet that was 100% city (hopefully we would not start with a green planet like earth), however we are pretty far from that. The truth is most cities have lower environmental impact per person than most homesteads. Not the ones who are extremely conscientiousness, but still it is worth mentioning. City life is more sustainable, because adding more people mostly just utilizes the infrastructure more. It is like carpooling your life.

The "horrible" truth is that it is very provable that technology will be able to restore our lifestyle after just a few years. We can generate electricity and we can power transportation in many other ways. China has more coal than they know what to do with... If oil costs rise too high, coal power plants and electric vehicles would be very very cheap in china, and we would all feel the trickle down effect... Hopefully in the form of mass produced more efficient battery cells. With existing technology you can build a car at comperable costs to gas cars that has a long range and a longer life, but it would take SOMEONE ordering 10-20 million lithium ion batteries from china so they can get their production costs and unit prices down. Electric power is not as portable as gas, true, but we are working on that and the time will come eventually. Electric motors are actually ideal for farming equipment as well, because they are high torque and low maintenence... not only that, but they are significantly smaller, and can be attached to smaller equipment instead of using the multipurpose tractor with a drive shaft for accessories.

The 5 minute 200 mile charge is already solved, it is just not as efficient as it could be... and requires the batteries to have their own cooling system.

There are just too many of us to successfully and ethically turn a blind eye to technology in favor of "old world" ways. If a few billion starve beforehand, maybe... but to feed everyone, we need to get closer together, not further apart. Of course, I will admit my first priority is my family, I am very aware of that fact.

I am a big fan of isolated and more "natural" living, but I recognize that it is NOT necessarily the environmental or sustainable choice. The truth is that a few large farms providing food for the masses IS the most sustainable and scalable solution, it is just a shame that it has taken the shape that it has.

The privileged few drive their ferraris and live in their 8000sq foot palaces in the hills, generating enough waste for 100 people. But the privelaged few also live in strawbale farms, raising enough goats and using enough land for 100 people. It is a different sense of entitlement, but it is still there.

I am no saint, I am a selfish suburbanite, I am not trying to pass judgement, we all do what we can, but it seems like the grass is always a little greener in the other lifestyle

[CarrieMF]

I think nuclear energy is an interesting idea, but unfortunately it takes quite a few decades to plan and build each nuclear power plant,

They are reviewing whether the city I live in is a good spot for a nuclear plant. It would feed 2 provinces(as I live in a city in 2 provinces). If they decide it is a favourable place it will be built by 2020.

I think people are overreacting to TLE, it is just the latest thing.

If every big thing they say is going to happen we won't have to worry too much as the next big flu pandemic/birth flu that's been coming for how many years now will kill out enough population that there'll be plenty of room for people to grow thier gardens & raise their cattle.

[riverscout]

Originally Posted by CarrieMF

They are reviewing whether the city I live in is a good spot for a nuclear plant. It would feed 2 provinces(as I live in a city in 2 provinces). If they decide it is a favourable place it will be built by 2020.

It took well over 20 years to get the one here planned and built. It only ended up being 1/4 of the size originally planned (got scaled back from 4 reactors to 2 then from 2 reactors to 1). However, there was massive opposition to it and there was, of course, cost overruns. I suppose its quite possible opposition to nuclear power may fade a bit as people realize fossil fuel will not last forever, which may help move things along a bit.

[Synchro246]

I am skeptical of Kunsler's presentation of the wake of peak oil. He's not psychic, he's just presenting some possibilities of what might happen in the wake of peak oil--interesting ones that are apparently a good read so he can make money.

I am not really a peak oil skeptic. I do believe that the human, especially American, way of life will change dramatically over time (just like it always does). I do think that non-oil related energies will be employed to a greater degree than they are now (duh) and I do belive that they won't be able to maintain our staus quo.

Originally Posted by Violet2

There are issues with the PO dogma. My fave logical fallacy is that PO is the end of the world, yet in the same breathe PO says there will always be some measure of oil.
V

I don't really see a logical fallacy in those two statements. Besides the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that PO is going to result in "the end of the world" (what does that even mean?) I don't think all the oil needs to be gone to drastically affect the economy.
I thought the whole premise of peak oil was that decreased production + increased (or even level) demand = increased prices that eventually result in economic depression. There's nothing in there about the end of the world or the fact that "there will always be some oil left".
BUT I will concede that you have read far more than I have on this subject and you have been exposed to more PO crazies than I have.

Originally Posted by p.s

may or may not read TLE, as I'll explain below.
. . .. . .He is though, preceptive, and that combined with a brilliant ability to articulate his views makes him fun to read, when you get beyond the snuffling, blustery polemics.

Yeah, I've read enough about it that I'm not really interested in reading it myself. I'd much rather speculate and think outside the box with other people in an active sort of way than passively read one person's ideas. JMO.