Thursday, September 29, 2005
Does Peak Oil Spell Death for the Suburbs?
In The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler argues that "peak oil" will soon lead to apocalyptically high energy prices that will destroy the suburbs and put Wal-Mart out of business. "Finally!" says one anti-auto group, cheerfully.
Kunstler's peak-oil theory may be no more than wishful thinking. His case critically depends on four strong assumptions:
Kunstler's peak-oil theory may be no more than wishful thinking. His case critically depends on four strong assumptions:
- We are running out of oil;
- There are no substitutes for oil;
- Higher prices will lead people to drive less; and
- Less driving will force people to return to the cities.
- While extraction costs may moderately increase fuel prices, the world has sufficient known reserves to last for many decades.
- Substitutes include solar, nuclear, and coal, but the first "substitute" will be the use of more fuel-efficient cars.
- Americans will respond to sustained higher fuel costs more by cutting back on other transport costs, such as by keeping their cars a little longer or buying less luxurious cars, than by driving less.
- To the extent that people do drive less, they could actually accelerate the suburbanization and exurbanization trends that the New Urbanists oppose.
Comments:
"One group?"
Randal, "Culture Change" is hardly typical of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. If anything, Mr. Lundberg has "gone off the deep end" as many in these movements would readily agree.
Randal, "Culture Change" is hardly typical of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. If anything, Mr. Lundberg has "gone off the deep end" as many in these movements would readily agree.
"One group?"
Randal, "Culture Change" is hardly typical of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. If anything, Mr. Lundberg has "gone off the deep end" as many in these movements would readily agree.
Randal, "Culture Change" is hardly typical of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. If anything, Mr. Lundberg has "gone off the deep end" as many in these movements would readily agree.
It would be nice if the Saudis, and other major oil produceers, would answer Matt Simmons' challenge to provide transparent, auditable production figures.
I emphatically do not agree that Simmons, Deffeyes, and many other oil geologists who believe there is a peak oil problem are in the same "out there" league as Jan Lundberg and Mr. Kunstler. One interesting thing is that with few exceptions, those disputing the "peak oil" theory are economists.
Since a few smart people have pointed out that "social science" is still in its alchemy phase compared to the physical sciences. A lot that is posted against (and for) transit, New Urbanism, urban planning, and so forth are mainly rhetorical arguments; thus I must agree with this point. Given this status for social science INCLUDING economics, I'm therefore NOT reassured on the peak oil topic by the contrariness of Lynch, Yergin, etc. Too much of the peak oil skepticism ALSO smacks of religious-style rhetoric from "free enterprise" true believers.
I emphatically do not agree that Simmons, Deffeyes, and many other oil geologists who believe there is a peak oil problem are in the same "out there" league as Jan Lundberg and Mr. Kunstler. One interesting thing is that with few exceptions, those disputing the "peak oil" theory are economists.
Since a few smart people have pointed out that "social science" is still in its alchemy phase compared to the physical sciences. A lot that is posted against (and for) transit, New Urbanism, urban planning, and so forth are mainly rhetorical arguments; thus I must agree with this point. Given this status for social science INCLUDING economics, I'm therefore NOT reassured on the peak oil topic by the contrariness of Lynch, Yergin, etc. Too much of the peak oil skepticism ALSO smacks of religious-style rhetoric from "free enterprise" true believers.
>>>>While extraction costs may moderately increase fuel prices, the world has sufficient known reserves to last for many decades.<<<<<
Extraction costs may moderately increase fuel prices?? The recent increases in fuel prices this past summer have been more than moderate as the price of gasoline doubled in the past 3 years. While it is true the nation has reserves that will last for many decades, we must seek alternatives to oil now or it could send the country into a deep recession.
>>>>>>>Substitutes include solar, nuclear, and coal, but the first "substitute" will be the use of more fuel-efficient cars.<<<<<
Where are these cars? In case you haven't noticed, only a handful of manufacturers are producing economy cars and this will not be enough. Since Washington didn't madate fuel economy on SUV's, it's unlikly any conservation will take place until the price of gas reaches $10.00 a gallon. Is that what you want?
The current energy bill did not address nuclear or solar power and only gave tax breaks to the coal industry.
>>>>>>>Americans will respond to sustained higher fuel costs more by cutting back on other transport costs, such as by keeping their cars a little longer or buying less luxurious cars, than by driving less.<<<<<<
Should gas double again next year, even those auto less luxurious will be costly to own. Should consumers "keep their car a little longer", it will send the nation into a recession because this economy is based on consumption and speculative real estate buying.
>>>>>>To the extent that people do drive less, they could actually accelerate the suburbanization and exurbanization trends that the New Urbanists oppose.<<<<<<<<
Good one. We are seeing a rebirth of cities as new development is taking place in slums and underdeveloped land. You may be right in that surburbanization might accelerate providing corporate America decides to relcate to office parks in the middle of nowhere.
Post a Comment
Extraction costs may moderately increase fuel prices?? The recent increases in fuel prices this past summer have been more than moderate as the price of gasoline doubled in the past 3 years. While it is true the nation has reserves that will last for many decades, we must seek alternatives to oil now or it could send the country into a deep recession.
>>>>>>>Substitutes include solar, nuclear, and coal, but the first "substitute" will be the use of more fuel-efficient cars.<<<<<
Where are these cars? In case you haven't noticed, only a handful of manufacturers are producing economy cars and this will not be enough. Since Washington didn't madate fuel economy on SUV's, it's unlikly any conservation will take place until the price of gas reaches $10.00 a gallon. Is that what you want?
The current energy bill did not address nuclear or solar power and only gave tax breaks to the coal industry.
>>>>>>>Americans will respond to sustained higher fuel costs more by cutting back on other transport costs, such as by keeping their cars a little longer or buying less luxurious cars, than by driving less.<<<<<<
Should gas double again next year, even those auto less luxurious will be costly to own. Should consumers "keep their car a little longer", it will send the nation into a recession because this economy is based on consumption and speculative real estate buying.
>>>>>>To the extent that people do drive less, they could actually accelerate the suburbanization and exurbanization trends that the New Urbanists oppose.<<<<<<<<
Good one. We are seeing a rebirth of cities as new development is taking place in slums and underdeveloped land. You may be right in that surburbanization might accelerate providing corporate America decides to relcate to office parks in the middle of nowhere.
