Latest Comments
|
5/24/2009 1:19:05 PM
Hirsch must be exaggerating in stating that every serious economist believes in the 'peak oil' premise. Resource scarcity has been a much discussed topic in economics from it's very beginning. Thomas Malthus theorized long ago that the world was heading to disaster because of a lack of resources. In the face of scarcity, through the substitution effect (ECON 101), the economy will find new and cheaper ways of doing the same old things. This might involved the development of new technology, or simply doing the same things in increasingly efficient ways.
How many times have we heard that "This time, it's different." What makes Hirsch and Rubin believe that, this time, it actually will be different? From my experience, when people start talking in this way, things are just about to revert to back to long term trends. | ||
|
5/23/2009 2:17:33 PM
Savaronola notwithstanding, the G&M on Friday printed a story stating that OPEC would be increasing its "oil production" and that, as a result, oil prices would be coming down "in the longer term." Fantasy, isn't it, as Hirsch suggests, for the G&M to still be saying that OPEC is "producing oil"? And what in the world can that phrase "the longer term" possibly mean?
| ||
|
5/23/2009 1:13:21 PM
Upon first read of this review I had decided that I wasn't going to waste my money just to read the last 56 pages. However, after a second read, I think the reviewer may not have said all that should be said and thus, perhaps, not read all that should be read.
First, 'peak oil' is most definitely not the end of cheap oil. It is the end of cheap, *abundant* energy which naturally implies its decline. This is a huge difference. In '07 & '08 we saw record high oil prices that were not due to a lack of supply. Peak Oil is the lack of our supply of energy. What this means is energy shortages forecast to hit in 2013, according to the International Energy Agency. Not a temporary hiccup, a la the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, but a permanent, worsening global condition. I don't agree that the quibble about the world getting smaller or bigger is a quibble. Peak Oil will change the way we view the world, and Canada, with her vast distances will become an even bigger country. As the shortages hit, the cost of transportating everything will quickly rise. That 15 minute bus ride will become a 45 minute walk as municipal transport authorities shut down routes in order to live within their budgets. Do you recall the headlines and details now? Everything was affected: jobs were lost, airlines cut routes, buses were packed, city governments did less as they switched to a 4 day week. The only benefit was cleaner air. I find it hard to be optimistic about the future that lies just over our too-near horizon. Wait till you see what happens this summer as record grain prices and poor harvests cause another round of food riots. What will the world be like 5 years from now when shortages undo the green revolution? All the innovation and paradigm shifting in the world won't change the hard, chemical fact that modern fertilizer requires vast quantities of ammonia which comes from fossil fuels. Less fertilizer in, less food out. It's a nightmarishly simple equation. | ||
|
5/23/2009 11:44:57 AM
Initially I gave Jeff Rubin's book a big yawn because the babble about "peak oil" and similar catastrophism - usually by environmental hysterics and gloomsters looking for attention - has been going on for years. Every generation spawns a new crop of Savonarola's trying to organize new bonfires of the vanities. Such talk is almost always overblown and ignores the remarkable human capacity for innovation and paradigm-shifting. Globalization is one example and it will not be killed off easily or quickly if ever.
Hirsch's review has piqued my interest enough that I'll give Rubin a read, with special attention to those 56 pages on the future of local economies. Thanks, Todd. | ||
|
5/23/2009 11:20:44 AM
This issue is the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the middle of the shiny new suburban "Great Rooms". Living locally is one thing, but living locally in a way that still uses huge amounts of energy will be unsustainable. too bad there is no mention of the fact that, particularly in the USA but here too, a large part of the economy was based on developing debt instruments to finance the construction of new suburban housing, then filling said homes with "stuff" made elsewhere. One could argue that basically what people do ... build a place to live then live there (ie buy stuff and use it.) but to what end? Sitting in front of the TV to watch the game? That summarizes the lives of many of us --- scurry around working at service industry jobs, racking up the Visa card on "toys" (basically home entertainment equipment) then using that all weekend, then repeating the cycle. We need to get out and create stuff and consume less. Creat more art, music, gatherings, live sports events, fairs, etc. Too many of us just sit there and let the world comet to us on a screen. Living locally will get us off of our butts. |

