Sat

Jul 16
2005

Tim O'Reilly

Tim O'Reilly

The Long Emergency

Hot on the heels of last night's Jared Diamond talk, a link to this Rolling Stone article by James Howard Kunstler showed up on Dave Farber's IP list. Entitled The Long Emergency, it makes the argument that world oil production is very close to peaking, and what the consequences of that will be for modern civilization. Unfortunately, the picture Kunstler paints is bleak.
 

While the dire conditions foretold in the article may be overdrawn, it is thought-provoking in the context of the many collapses of civilization that Diamond documents in his book. A large proportion were triggered by environmental factors. In the dinner conversation for the sponsors after the talk, Diamond said that he believed that there were any of a dozen environmental changes, from oil or water shortages to global warming, that could lead to a potential collapse of modern civilization. But Diamond ended on a positive note: there are cases, also documented in his book, where a civilization was able to foresee and reverse a possible decline. Easter Islanders cut down their last tree in 1650, entering a downward spiral of civil war and cannibalism, but about the same time, the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan, faced with precipitous deforestation, restricted the use of wood, and started an aggressive reforestation program, entering a long period of peace and prosperity

All of this points up the importance of "the long view", which is, of course, the focus of the Long Now Foundation. Understanding consequences, and taking action, can make a difference. Whether you're an environmental Cassandra or believe that technology can solve all our problems, it's folly to believe that things will always go on just as they are. Live like a surfer: watch the patterns, and be ready to ride the next big wave.

tags:   | comments: 7   | Sphere It
submit:

 
Previous  |  Next

0 TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4182

Comments: 7

  Mike Perry [07.16.05 11:05 AM]

Alas, when many people get a "big idea" they try to make it too big and all encompassing. They SHOUT TOO LOUD. This guy does that. He tries to make a reasonably good point, that global oil production may soon begin to fall, more important than it actually is.

There's good reason why the rise in oil prices hasn't triggered inflation. Since the oil crisis of the 70s, the more developed societies have become increasingly energy efficient. Kunstler may think (or at least say because he is writing for Rolling Stone) that "recorded music" is dependent on vast quantities of "cheap oil," but it isn't. It wasn't even in the age of vinyl records, much less in this age of electronic distribution and iPods. Given the value of the product, the cost of the physical medium is trivial.

That's true in other areas too. Recently, I spent time with a friend who's a paper company executive. He explained that the cost of distributing paper is now so low, thanks to the efficiency of ocean transport, that no country has a domestic supply advantage. South America can compete in forest-rich Canada. Doubling or tripling a trivial cost won't make something that wrecks world economies. World trade will go on, perhaps to an even greater extent.

Those who warn that the "sky is falling," or in this case the "oil is running out," also forget that with a rapidly improving technology comes enormous flexibility. More choices mean more energy efficient choices. Right now LED lighting is expensive. If declining oil supplies raise the cost of electricity, it will make far more sense, reducing demand and air conditioning costs. The same is true of PCs and a thousand other products. (My Mac mini uses about 1/5 the power of the tower it replaced and is several times faster.) The average home or office could easily half its energy consumption, with no change in productivity or life style.

And yes, we do waste oil commuting to work and vacationing far away. But the first could be replaced with telecomuting or, more practically, having many small offices nearby rather than one giant headquarters downtown. And there's no reason why a vacation close to home can't be as enjoyable as one far away--and more relaxing.

These are not "daunting and even dreadful prospects," nor do we face "a tremendous trauma for the human race." The "Mountain States and Great Plains" will not "fall into lawlessness, anarchy or despotism." That sort of language may sell books, but it doesn't lead to constructive solutions.

We don't have the rigidity of Mayan society or the limited resources of an Easter Island. We're as capable of solving our problems as we were two centuries ago when another hysteric, Thomas Malthus, warned that the laws of population condemned us to perpetual hunger.

In fact, the greatest mistake we can make is to take these people too seriously. The "birth dearth" that threatens those who will soon retire, particularly in Europe and Japan, is in part a result of bad choices made during the "population explosion" hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle


Author: Untangling Tolkien

  Tim O'Reilly [07.16.05 12:47 PM]

Mike --

I certainly agree that there are many reasons for optimism, and that the environmental doomsayers will be proven wrong. I also agree that the "population explosion" hysteria did indeed appear to be wrong, but I disagree that it's to blame for the demographic imbalances of the western world. Reduced family size tends to go hand in hand with affluence, as well as the "live for the present" values of western society. The one country that made "one child" an economic policy is China, and it's hard to argue that they were wrong.

My main point is that we need to engage with these issues, and in particular, that we need to understand when the consequences of being wrong are most significant and irreversible. Take global warming. If the naysayers are right, and we've invested in alternative technology, we'll still likely reap many economic benefits from the innovation. If the doomsayers are wrong, and we ignore them, we have a real problem on our hands.

  chuq Von Rospach [07.16.05 10:00 PM]

One problem with the argument that "we're running out of oil" (in it's various guises) is that it ignores technology improvements that bring new reserves into play. Similar dire predictions were made years ago, but improvements in off-shore drilling (opening up the North Sea fields, for instance, and more deep water drilling).

And now, we're seeing oil shale come into play -- Canada (in Alberta, primarily) has larger reserves than Saudi, only its in oil shale, which has been too expensive to deal with to date. But with the changing economics and improved technology (for easier/cleaner extraction) -- it's all starting to come on line.

There's also a lot of work going on to mine and bring into produciton methane out of the permafrost, and ultimately, out of sub-sea deposits, which will (if it works) bring a reserve significantly larger than the world's known reserves of natural gas.

So production as its currently defined is peaking -- but that merely means new incentive to bring new reserves into play that didn't before make sense to go after.

Which doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with these issues, but we've been "about to run out of oil" since the 70's, and it ends up sounding a lot like "Apple is dead, this time for sure!" after a while.

  adamsj [07.17.05 05:34 AM]

A little quote from the e-mail summary Tim posted:

Diamond reported that his students at UCLA tried to imagine how the guy who cut down the LAST tree in 1680 justified his actions. What did he say? Their candidate quotes: "Fear not. Our advancing technology will solve this problem." "This is MY tree, MY property! I can do what I want with it." "Your environmentalist concerns are exaggerated. We need more research." "Just have faith. God will provide."

I've only heard one of those four quotes in this thread. I suppose that's progress.

  Sean Tierney [07.18.05 09:35 AM]

this is a must-see movie on this very subject->
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

Sean

  alton williams II [10.03.06 10:48 AM]

I find it hard not to weigh in the fact that all international affairs currency, trade, politics, and war are all based on the allocation of resources and that all the leading nations understand that with
increasingly growing populations there is an inevitable decreasing availability in resources! I agree with Diamond and Kunstler in that historically every civilization has reached a point to where resources and the ability to either retain defensivley or acquire more through conquest or otherwise determines the long term success of a given civilization. I dont think there is much to be done to stop the inevitable witch is that European culture or civilization will be the conqouring force in witch the world resources will belong and if history is and predictor of the future Hitler was no more than a practice run run for a potential worldwide blitzburg in witch the stratigic European colonies around the world finally close into a fist and successfully graduate from world domination to conquest! If resources are becoming less and less available it is hard to assume that this is a surprise! Civilization as we know it has always dealt with this ongoing problem of population vs resources and it is hard to believe that the Europeans are going to be the ones going without in a world they have so successfully dominated

  dave [05.16.07 11:05 AM]

chuq,

I'm not sure how much technology has advanced in terms of extracting oil shale in the time since JHK's book was written, but he makes the argument that the energy required to extract the oil is greater than the energy returned. Let's suppose, for a moment, that the technology somehow now allows for a greater energy return from extracting oil from shale -- demand for oil will continue to increase and we will have only succeeded in delaying the inevitable.
Like you said: "doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with these issues" -- the sooner the better.

Post A Comment:

 (please be patient, comments may take awhile to post)






Type the characters you see in the picture above.