Last fall, I asked environmentalist writer Paul Hawken (coauthor, most recently, of Natural Capitalism) what he thought of the doomsday post-peak oil scenarios painted by James Howard Kunstler in his book The Long Emergency. Hawken, who has a deep understanding of our global predicament, replied that Kunstler’s underlying premise is “people are punks.” His distaste for that point of view was palpable.
On Wednesday, I had the chance to speak with Kunstler one-on-one for 45 minutes, and then listened to his keynote address at the regional Living Future conference in Seattle, an “unconference” for “deep green professionals” put on by the U.S. Green Building Council. In conversation, Kunstler was toned down, but his talk, much like his book, was dominated by brutally depressing descriptions of—to put it succinctly—how completely fucked we are.
Hanging with James Howard Kunstler in the Westin lobby
Kunstler is often criticized for being too pessimistic, but I find myself going back and forth on that. The case he makes is strong and the evidence is piling up all around us, yet it is still hard for me to get my head around the idea that the big changes he predicts are imminent. For example, Kunstler “categorically” predicts that the airline industry will fall apart within five years, flying will become an elite activity, and the days of visiting granny in Arizona for the holidays will be over. Five years from now?
Regardless of where you stand regarding Kunstler’s bleak prognosis, his ideas tend to be mind-bending. Here are some choice samples, paraphrased from my notes of our conversation.
Skyscrapers will become obsolete because they will be too expensive to renovate.
We need to focus on fixing what’s out there rusting in the rain, such as abandoned railroads.
The green metropolis concept is a contradiction in terms, because mega-cities like New York are hypertrophic—they have become too big to operate efficiently in a post-carbon world.
The action will move to small cities, because the have appropriately scaled infrastructure waiting to be re-activated.
The demise of “happy motoring” is inevitable not only because of dwindling oil, but also because loans to purchase cars will become unavailable to all but the wealthy, and because governments won’t have enough money to maintain the road network.
Oil production infrastructure is crumbling and the $1 trillion investment needed to fix it won’t be justifiable given the diminishing returns.
Waterfronts directly adjacent to population centers (like Seattle’s) will become increasingly valuable as we begin to rely more on smaller-scale, shorter haul shipping.
People don’t know the difference between energy and technology, that is, technology cannot be substituted for energy.
The eco-elites jabbering about running all our cars on some other energy source are in denial.
Over the past two or three decades, ours has not been a post-industrial economy or an information economy, but a suburb-building economy.
The project of the American suburbs is the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.
Our dominant national personality has evolved into a toxic combination of the worship of something for nothing, and the belief that we can get whatever we want by wishing on a star.
James Howard Kunstler chatting with Mayor Mike McGinn
Before Kunstler’s talk, Mayor Mike McGinn spoke briefly to the room of about 1,000, most of whom, it could be safely assumed, were “his people.” McGinn didn’t hesitate to get right into it regarding the deep-bore tunnel and the cost overrun issue, no coincidence given that earlier that day he had vowed to veto forthcoming tunnel legislation. Asserting that the people are out ahead of their leaders on progressive urbanism, McGinn encouraged the locals in the audience to contact their city council members if they don’t think the tunnel is a smart investment in the future.
McGinn couldn’t have asked for a better followup to support his anti-tunnel position than what Kunstler delivered. In fact, Kunstler specifically called out the “$4 billion tunnel” as an example of an investment that will have little future value (that may have had something to do with the pre-keynote conversation pictured above).
As Kunstler’s talk neared its end, I was waiting for him to get to the hopeful part, especially given that he was speaking to a conference founded on the idea that “creating a living future is an act of faith, an act of hope.”
But it never came. Kunstler merely told us that there we have a whole lot of work to do, and we better get to it fast, and even if we do that, we can expect to be dealing with some painful changes.
Everyone says that people won’t be motivated by a negative story. But I submit that Kunstler’s story must be heard nonetheless. As Kunstler said, at some point we have to grow up, accept what the planet is telling us and act, no matter how overwhelming it may seem.
Tweet
I find this to be over the top gloomy, but its the over the top stuff that gets us to think and make some kind of changes, albeit small ones. I think an equally doomsdayish speech could be written about making worldwide abrupt and drastic changes in behavior because of a doomsday speech. Let's just say that he is correct on five of the points outlined above, that still leaves a huge amount of waste and unintended consequences 'fixing' the other five issues that he was wrong on. We must change our behaviors, but too quick of changes on huge issues are not good either.
We could, with not that much effort, build enough nuclear reactors to provide all the energy we need. With that energy we could make oil from any number of things with coal and crops being among the easiest. Plus between shale, deep sea, and other environmental destructive sources, we have plenty of oil to get.
We can't count on Peak Oil to get us out of climate change.
The problem is not that we will run out of oil, but that we won't.
Things are never as bad as they seem — until they are.
It seems like the lesson from James Kunstler's talk is to enjoy life while you can. It doesn't matter if you have a Hummer or a bicycle, it doesn't matter if you own a 23,000 sf mansion or a 200 sf studio, we're all doomed.
Does this guy back up his predictions with any evidence? There was nothing of the sort in this article.
He sounds like a kook. This sort of people have been with us forever, predicting the end of the world.
Peak oil, whenever it occurs, willl be a non-event. We are using vastly more oil than we need to use. We can cut back significantly on our oil consumption with little impact on our standard of living.
For example: if most people start car-pooling and van-pooling instead of commuting alone, that would have a large impact on oil consumption while having little impact on the economy. Telecommuting, 4-day workweeks, private bus systems like Microsoft's Connector, all reduce oil consumption with little impact on people's lives, and, in some cases, positive impacts on peoples' lives.
His prediction that people will not be able to buy cars is just flat-out stupid. That alone basically destroys any credibility he might otherwise have.
And the airline industry falling apart in five years? lol
The bored tunnel is a waste of money — we should just rebuild the viaduct. But the tunnel for light rail to U.W. is just as big and stupid a waste of money. What is the point of that? If we won't have the money to maintain our highway systems, why are we wasting huge sums of money on light rail lines, which carry such a small number of people? Transit systems are a colossal black hole for tax revenues. Most transit systems are close to bankruptcy. Transit is going to get a whole lot more expensive for passengers, that is for sure.
And where is any comment on overpopulation? I read nothing about population control.
So, I would say that this guy is just another kook. Good for a few laughs, and nothing more.
It's popular to complain that something is “doomsday” or “that's too gloomy”. As if something that's too depressing can't be true? Or perhaps it's too depressing to continue reading? Me, I want to know the information, whatever it is, so I can prepare accordingly. We can handle this shift but not if we're unprepared. Recommend joining the Transition initiative in your town and get busy!
Dan, we went off on this Kunstler tangent on hugeasscity or maybe linked through the seattletransitblog last year, didn't we? He has a point of view, YES, and since much of our public discussion can sound pretty superficial, I'll give him some public space/attention for what I think is also an essentially mile-wide-inch-deep take on the future. His post-modernism is pretty unattractive and essentially nihilistic. I'd prefer to keep trying for a brighter future … even if it does mean that one of these days we will have to talk about some topics that no one ever wants to talk about … like population and the reality (not romanticism) of sustainability.
The people dismissing Kunstler as a kook are looking like idiots.
Try reading his book, “The Long Emergency”. I dare you to read it without first looking at the publication date. When you are finished reading what sounds like a history lesson, THEN read the publication date. It isn't history. He called the financial meltdown, he called the failure of climate legislation, he called the ecological disaster now occurring in the Gulf.
The idea of just enjoying life while you can is an easy one to get behind if you don't have kids in your life. If you do have kids in your life and you say that, then you're just a completely narcissistic asshole.
Seems like reengineering our economy in a manner consistent with scientific and economic realities is the very best way to try for a brighter future.
Yes, Nostradamus, Kunstler prophesies … and so do you and the Mayans. Now, what exactly would you have us do with that information? According to Kunstler, you should be in a small town some where learning to do subsistence gardening or hanging out with someone who does. You should not be wasting your time on Publicola, for God's sake.
In any event, life will go on.
I always think it's funny how people predict disaster for life on Earth, but the thing is just disaster for the staut quo. That may be true, but evolution doesn't work that way.
It's just change, not good or bad. Life will go on with or without us.
We aren't the chosen organisms we think we are.
What future? What the Kunstler offer besides doom and gloom not more than five years out? I could avoid taking a trip to New York this year to see grandma and grandpa and save the environmental impact of greenhouse gases and depleting our oil reserves, but in five years I may never be able to afford a trip to New York.
Add to that my sacrifice will have no impact to my kids. My sacrifices to save the world will do nothing to change the future. If Kunstler is correct we will have no choice, but to walk or bike.
Unfortunately his bleak future likely assures another world war as the world powers fight over the diminishing natural resources.
The other side is that we've always predicted gloom, and always been just fine in the end. We will this time, too.
And the next time, and the next.
“For example: if most people start car-pooling and van-pooling”
I must have been wrong about you, Grover. (last week (or two)).
I apologize for my bullshit.
Predictions of economic trouble, oil spills, and ineffective government are almost certain to come true at some point. Its like saying there will be an earthquake or hurricane at some point.
Thats amateur hour prognosticating.
Car-pooling will not get us out of this mess, nor will criticizing Kunstler for being “post-modern.” Melting ice caps and constant weather disaster don't care about our little details of daily life or how we deny the truth. The earth and the atmosphere are changing. We won't be able to live the same way we did in the 20th century, nor will as many of us be able to live where past generations lived, nor will as many of us as are now on earth be able to live in the places that will be left. This isn't evolution; its degradation of living environment for humans and animals. The earth itself, as barleywine said, will be fine.
His predictions may not come to pass as soon as he suggests – and it really is hard to predict the future – but the trends that he identifies are a definite problem that do threaten our existence and that of our children and descendants. I am still amazed at the mindset of even some ” green professionals,” who motor between locations in the city that are actually very accessible on foot or by public transportation. Kunstler talked about changing the mindset that is causing these problems and, even if perhaps exaggerated (or not), unfortunately, I think he may be on the mark.
“This isn't evolution; its degradation of living environment for humans and animals”
I agree, but in another sense it's just change. In the same way that the eruption of St. Helens was environmentally destructive for the plants and animals living there, but opened up possibilities for other plants and animals. If we decide we want salmon, we can do that. If we don't, then things that can live in the cesspools we make will be very happy to take over. We do have lots of power & choice over that.
If one sees humans as special beings that have been given stewardship of the Earth, then we aren't doing a very good job. But if we're animals then whatever we do is perfectly natural, whether that's good for us or bad. And when it's bad enough we'll do something different.
Right now not enough people think it's bad enough to change, but we're getting there.
This has been true of the last few hundred years, but only because of our exponentially increasing use of natural resources and growth in population. We are finally reaching limits to the carrying capacity of our world, and that is a new situation.
Other people, in other times, have not been “just fine” when they reached the carrying capacity of their areas. History is replete with examples of societal collapse due to over-extension and resource depletion.
By no means is this, “the end of the world,” but it is the end of a period of limitless expansion and boundless prospects. Many people will not accept this gracefully, so this is “the end of the world as we know it.” Nevertheless, this may be a good thing if it prompts people to learn to live more gracefully, sustainably, and modestly in the world.
I agree with everything you said.
My “just fine” wasn't meant to say that I think we're on the right course, but just as with any population when we get to our limits then we're done expanding. And if those resouces that had us at one population level dry up: “societal collapse due to over-extension and resource depletion” will put things back in balance again.
I personally would rather not go down that road, and I think we can avoid it.
We may have to get a bigger taste of it to really make those changes, but I have much confidence in our species and think we'll be just fine.
The fact that we're having this conversation before the colapse is a pretty good sign.
seems to me that the problem with Kunstler for the HAC world-view is the scale of our communities and what we do.
- on the one hand we have a scaled down, simpler life, in a smaller tight knit communities that live and operate sustainably within their realm.
- on the other we have a vision of dense cities where people do the same things we do today but are just whisked around by pretty trains or on bike paths checking in on our iPads.
to me the latter seems utopian and unsustainable in the long term (though generating another small building boom in the near term), and the former will not be possible here in Seattle unless we accept the limits we are faced with and begin developing our neighborhoods as sustainable urban villages.
while our electeds seem to generally espouse the rhetoric of sustainable urban villages, they are driven to unbridled and unsustainable growth for political expediency. this bi-polar approach is just 'fiddling'…
If one has a selfish outlook, you're probably right. But I think most of us would rather help change our society to avoid a hard landing. Advocating for not adding more lanes on 520, as one example of many, will make our region a little bit better after the collapse.
I personally think this change is going to be much more gradual than Kunstler does. But I don't see any scenario that allows us to feel like we made good decisions about road building when we look back 30 years from now.
I've met Mr. Kunstler in the past and followed his writings over the past few years, including his books The Long Emergency and World Made By Hand. I think that it is important to be aware of some of the history of what he says.
Earlier in life, Kunstler wrote the book Geography of Nowhere, a scathing critique of the suburbs. This was before he became aware of issues of energy depletion; he criticized the suburbs on aesthetic and social grounds, arguing that they had a dehumanizing nature and were destructive of our culture.
An uncharitable view of Kunstler's discovery and usage of energy depletion issues is meant to justify his critique of the suburbs, not the other way around. A more charitable (and I think more accurate view) is that he has built a comprehensive argument against suburbanization with energy depletion in the center. I do think that there is some danger in this approach, as it will create a sort of energy and environmental policy that is wrapped up in lifestyle choices and cultural criticisms, which will prevent those policies from having a broad base of support.
Also, in the years that Mr. Kunstler has been writing, he has left a significant paper trail of predictions which, it must be noted, have often not come true. His writings and talks have shown a systemic bias toward being more dire than the evidence warrants. There are many specific predictions that have turned out wrong. This is not concern if and of itself, but there seems to be little evidence that he has learned from those mistakes; the speeches he gives now are the same as those from five years ago (complete with the five year timeline).
Jim Kunstler has no formal expertise in petroleum geology, climate, or economic issues. His area of expertise is in urban design, and he has also proven to be a very keen observer of culture, if his presentation of it can be a bit jarring. For the energy matters, he relies on experts such as Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell, and many others. These two men have enormous expertise from their work in the oil industry, though they also come with their agendas and history of mistakes.
Selfish? Not getting that part.
I'm just saying if your attitude tends toward self interest, moving to a moderate climate with natural resources and buying a few guns might be the best strategy if you believe all of Kunstler's theory. But for those that would like to work toward society's interests, you might want to spend your time trying to change society instead.
Oh, and in reply to: “you should be in a small town some where learning to do subsistence gardening”
There are large groups of people already doing this. I see this like the Y2K bug. There are a bunch of “crazy” people running around saying the world is going to end and hiding in caves with MRE's. There are a bunch of other people trying to fix the problem, or at least make it not as devistating. The difference is that Y2K turned out to be a joke (maybe thanks to people in the later category?), but there's no possibility of peak oil not affecting society in substancial ways.
As someone who worked in the information technology industry in the late 90's, I can tell you the reason why there was not a Y2K meltdown was because businesses spent BILLIONS of dollars trying to fix the “joke”.
Sadly we do not see such a response to our CO2 problem because there is not an immediately looming deadline to solve this by. Even 350 is an amorphous beast to most.
I do not see the need to aggressively restructure our communities around sustainable living – eg local agriculture and other sustainable living practices as crazy.
But somehow thinking that all we have to do is build more buildings and add some light rail or streetcars is.