Kunstler Discusses The World-wide Energy Crisis
James Howard Kustler offers his vision of the looming permanent world-wide energy crisis and its shocking implications at the PetroCollapse Conference in New York.
"We've entered a permanent world-wide energy crisis. The implications are enormous. It could put us out-of-business as a cohesive society.
We face a crisis in finance, which will be a consequence of the energy predicament as well as a broad and deep lapse in our standards, values, and behavior in financial affairs.
We face a crisis in practical living arrangements as the infrastructure of suburbia becomes hopelessly unaffordable to run. How will fill our gas tanks to make those long commutes? How will we heat the 3500 square foot homes that people are already in? How will we run the yellow school bus fleets? How will we heat the schools?
...Because the creation of suburbia was the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world, it has entailed a powerful psychology of previous investment - meaning, that we have put so much of our collective wealth into a particular infrastructure for daily life, that we can't imagine changing it, or reforming it, or letting go of it. The psychology of previous investment is exactly what makes this way of life non-negotiable."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Senate Approves Federal Funding for NJ Rail Tunnel - Nov 15, 2011
- Oil Bonanza In Western Hemisphere - Sep 27, 2011
- NYC Residents Suggesting Locations for New Bike Share Stations - Sep 16, 2011
- Melbourne Ranked as Most Livable City - Sep 02, 2011
- Putting Alternative Fuel Stations on the Map - Aug 05, 2011
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- Preparing Canada for "Peak People"
- How to Resuscitate a Foundering Transit System
- Are Smart Phones Spoiling Our Public Spaces
- The Great California Exodus? Not So!
- What Medellin Teaches Us About Design and Social Engagement
- After the Crash: How Will People Live and Spend in the New Economy?
- Shining a Light on an Architectural Innovator
- History Repeats Itself in California Infrastructure Debate
- How Design Professionals Can Affect Change on Capitol Hill
- Are Electric Cable Cars the Future of Trucking?
Make Plans For Upcoming Summer Seminars with UCLA Extension Public Policy
UCLA Extension
May 21, 2012
www.flickr.com
|
Suburban energy
Empirically, transit system ridership is rising right now all over the nation. Transit certainly still represents only a small proportion of trips, but the trend is upwards. Many auto industry folks said for a long time that $3 per gallon was the level at which people's behavior would start to change.
The impact of increased energy prices will not come merely in gas costs (and assuming that a suburban driver uses only 300 gallons of gas per year is unrealistically low). It will come in the form of higher heating costs, with natural gas expected to rise even more sharply in price than gasoline. The owners of large homes--generally in the suburbs--are going to be hit more severely than the owners of smaller homes, and better insulated homes.
In the Bay Area people are clamoring for homes near transit.
Emprically?
Why rely on -claims- of empirical data when measured evidence is in abundance? The APTA says ridership has been flat for 4 years in the face of increasing urbanism, increasing population and increasing boardings per trip. There is no "trend." Any "trend" is a reporting artifact due to the rapidly increasing boardings per one way trip trend.
Mr. Landau also says; "300 gallons of gas per year is unrealistically low" presumably in response to my "The difference between $3 and $5 gas is like $1200/year" comment. Do the math; $1200 at a $2/gallon -difference- is 600 gallons NOT 300 gallons. 600 gallons at last years' national average fuel economy (20.5) is 12,300 miles or the computed 2005 average vehicle mileage based on trends recorded by the 1995 NPTS, 2000 extended census and 2001 NHTS. It is wholly unprofessional for accurate, indeed generous, data to be attacked just because the attacker doesn't like the implications. I am sorry for the planetizen website that such vicious direct personal attacks unsupported by the accepted data are allowed to go without correction. I suggest the best way to retain commity is for someone, anyone to admit to the error identified above. Understand, either way my point is made. If someone can do the math they agree with me no matter how odious, If they disagree thay merely cement their reputationamongst people willing to eschew truth for correctness.
I am particularly amused by; "Bay Area people are clamoring for homes near transit" as divorced from "Bay Area people are clamoring for homes" of any type. Awaiting data is not my concern as I already know about both stated and revealed preferences in the Bay Area.
Truly pathetic that the best anyone can manage is some vague complaint based on bad math. Where are the people analyzing Kunstler?
High gas prices
Mr. Cote is partially right and partially wrong.
During the 1970s, gas prices rose- but transit ridership rose as well, and then tailed off after gas prices fell again. Between 1977 and 1983, transit ridership rose not only in absolute terms
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/polzin/index.shtml
but also as a percentage of all work trips.
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new.cfm
On the other hand, the 1970s were truly a disastrous decade for cities; even cities that have prospered recently (e.g. NYC, Atlanta) lost population in those years.
So the relationship between gas prices and suburbanization is a bit more ambiguous than either Cote or Kunstler suggests.
Art gets it
When Art (lewyn) says; "the relationship between gas prices and suburbanization is a bit more ambiguous than either Cote or Kunstler suggests" he is correct. The limitations of the format don't allow me the lattitude to do more than debunk Kunstler. Indeed, my point was that Kunstlers relationship was unprovable. I certainly cannot do more than show the past and show how it didn't disproportionately impact the now 90 year old trend of suburbanization. I cannot predict the future... Wait, I will not predict the future. That is what distinguishes me from James Howard Kunstler. And lest any misinterpret, I love his Eyesore of the Month features. With one notable exception he is usually spot on with his choices. Kunstler's preachings remind me of the evils prclaimed of Olde English wood burning doomsayers. They were correct, the use of wood was a finite activity and would lead to disaster. Then it was coal and then petroleum and then.... well you get the idea.
Mr. Cote's comment
"Return to the ghettos"?.....
Your fantasy world pretty much makes Kunstler's point.
"Return to the ghettos"?.....
Let's not get nasty here just because I adopted Kunstler's way of turning a phrase. It is a way of pointing out how his use of language is inflammatory. Your reply makes my point.
To the Ghettos?....
If you had predicated your statement by referencing "Kunstler's way of turning a phrase", I might buy your explanation. Instead, a clear reading of your comment shows that it is you, not Kunstler, that truely believes that $5 a gallon case will not send people back to the "ghetto" (I guess that is your description of urban markets). Lastly, Kunstler would never use such a phrase to describe the city. Please stay in your cul de sac and out of my vibrant, fulfulling, and economically successful urban "ghetto".
Knustler's Turn of the Phrase
Certainly Knustler would never use ghetto? Here's a few gems:
"[I]t is even more deplorable to isolate old people in an elder-ghetto two miles outside of town so that a car trip is mandatory for all the daily chores of life."
"Likewise, the spiffy-clean monoculture of the suburbs sends the message that there was no past here and will be no future here, according to Kunstler. This effects its inhabitants, just as living in Paris or living in a ghetto will affect a person."
"the tots will have to play extra-hard on the jungle gym to work off the calories from those super-sized Happy Meals they get off-site in the nearby fried food ghetto."
"the final tactical move of the womens' movement to keep bothersome men away from them generally and to get as many men as possible corralled into a gay ghetto with the priapic diversions of gay life."
"Back here in America, visit any blighted hillbilly trailer camp or black ghetto. They aren't hard to find, and they are usually next door to one another, if not in the same very area, and they take up gigantic swaths of our McNation."
"[Detroit] is dominated by the franchise ghetto and strip-mall type development."
What was that about your claim; " Kunstler would never use such a phrase?" No need to apologize, your post has given me a rare opportunity to educate and establish both the factual basis and civility of the respective sides of the "discussion." I will indeed return to my cul-de-sac (true) where there also exists vibrancy, diversity and culture. The difference of course being that while I am willing to believe your claims about your neighborhood my admisson that I live on an acre overlooking a protected stream and farmland adjacent to a private golf course at the end of a cul-de-sac precludes your believing me. Indeed you toss out stereotypes with no facts to back them up. Thus we return full circle to James Howard Kunstler and his tactics.
"To the Ghetto?'
Kunstler's statements don't approach your inference of urban as "ghetto". As I stated before, he would never use "ghetto" for urban which, of course, you did.
Your "ghetto" statement might have been made in a flip manner (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) however it was biased and inaccurate nevertheless. You should be embarrassed which is why you probably failed to address your prejudicial statement which started this discourse in the first place.
By the way, how does one find vibrancy, diversity and culture on a cul de sac? Must be a turn-around the size of a small town or village.
Yes, the Ghetto
You claim Kunstler "would never use "ghetto" for urban which, of course, you did." Tough, live with it. I provided QUOTES that prove exactly that. Those quotes were my direct and immediate response to you comments and belie your subsequent claim that I "failed to address [my] prejudicial statement." Your unwillingness to listen to his record does more to establish the relative standing of the two sides of the issue than anything I could put forth. You are not giving me any benefit of any doubt. You are offended and will not accept anything less than complete capitulation to your point of view. My ghetto statement was perfectly in context and appropriate in a response to Kunstler just like the my "smack us silly" comment which is equally conversational with Kunstler's style but to you and your ilk obviously betrays my tendency towards violence. The very fact that you finally come out and admit you consider my provocative use of a hot button word makes me prejudiced proves my point -about- Kunstler. Kunstler uses ghetto and is a visionary, I use ghetto and need to be embarrassed by my prejudice. The best part is your parting comment; "how does one find vibrancy, diversity and culture on a cul de sac? Must be a turn-around the size of a small town or village." That you don't know proves my other point. I understand the vitalizing components of urbanity AND Exurbanity but you don't even know where to begin. For one my cul-de-sac is large enough to allow room to change ones mind as opposed to the closed-in urban world you inhabit. Notice also the tendency in subsequent replies to avoid the original conent in favor of linguistic gymnastics. I've yet to hear anyone back off from the 600 gallons of gas errors.
On one thing we do agree, Kunstler's vitriol does not approach my level of sarcasm.
"Urbanity as Ghetto" is Humor!
So... only after being confronted with your biased remarks thru sets of replies, you now state that it is "sarcasm". As you now admit, "Urbanity as Ghetto " is your idea of sarcasm. I wonder how many others see this as humor. Boy, I can hardly wait to use that at my next ("closed-in urban")neighborhood association meeting. We'll have 'em rolling in aisles
What does living on a cul de sac have to do with changing one's mind?
Where did changing someone's mind enter into the discussion? Who's mind are you referring to? Mine, yours? I'm not trying to change your mind. Frankly, I don't want anything to do with your mind. I simply pointed out a prejudicial statement made by you that you thought to be funny. And my "closed-in urban world"? "Closed-in urban world" means what?
Are you sure you are at the right website (an example of harmless sarcasm)?
Deliberate Misreading
My comments regards Kunstler are in the spirit of Kunstler's expository style. My subsequent sarcasm is reserved for those too artless to respond articulately after numerous hints as to where the clues may be found. I have not been confronted on my biased remarks because that would presume a finding of bias. Poor debate technique is not excused by poor scholarship. I don't see many ghettos aned those I see are but artifacts of poor planning practices. Kunstler sees more than ever. Your attacks are misdirected. We two, you and I, are an interesting contrast in diversity and tolerance. I find culture and value in a wide range of built environments whilst you cannot find anything of cultural value outside the urban core.
I am sure Planetizen is the correct lions den within which to advocate a wider range of public planning policy views and to express a documented mistrust of Kunstler's prognistigations. Anyone who objects to using the word "ghetto' is welcome to ctiticize Kunstler directly. The FAct that some 11 posts later all we have is unretracted bad math (600 gallons) and personal atacks (prejudice) speaks volumes. This isn't about the FACts but religion. I didn't find the use of ghetto funny, I find the visceral reaction directed at the wrong target to be funny.
Kunstler the Hustler
Kunstler's one note blanket condemnation of the Grand Cotean Dystopia is getting boring. The prediction is always the same; some long ignored fatal flaw in the American Lifestyle is going to rise up and smack us silly. Which fatal flaw he picks depends arbitrarially on the time and place. Of course for a "petrocollapse" summit the flaw would be his claim of energy dependence of the suburbs. In the past decades it has been any number of other things and there's little doubt that if he were invited to a "finalcialcollapse" summit it would surely be the housing bubble that will bring us down.
Knustler viscerally hates many aspects of modern American development patterns but rather than discuss those characteristics he chooses instead to blanket attack the lifestyle choices of people who have been as uniformly correct all these years as he has been wrong. $5 gas isn't going to send the masses back to the ghettos. The difference between $3 and $5 gas is like $1200/year. Painful but still only the difference between an $1800 an $1920 mortgage. People do this housing math all the time and decide to locate away from the CBD where their $1800 gets more QoL than close in and a $1920 mortgage would buy. It isn't the -amount- of transportation or even just energy the suburbs consume but the total cost. Those costs are measured in money -and- BTUs -and- time. $5 gasoline will decimate transit and temporailly inhibit POV mobility. Transit use falls in tough economies and $5 gas will not help the economy.
Inflation especially hurts transit. As the costs of $5 gas as passed on this will disproportionately impact transit which typically has costs outpacing inflation by 3-4 times. Public funding will also dry up in a poor economic environment where people are unwilling to vote for more taxes. Over time $5 gas will shift POV choice to models that have lower operating costs and generate lower fuel taxes thus widening the gap beteen POVs and transit for those with a choice. Those with choice in transportation are the same who exercise choice in residence location. Those more efficient vehicles will still need the same infrastructure thus the smaller Highway Trust Fund money will increasingly go more to roads and less to transit subsidies. The consequences are obvious, $5 gasoline will decimate transit.
Oh, and an unobvious counterpoint; transit saw its' highest usage in 40 years at exactly the same time gasoline was at its' lowest inflation adjusted price ever. Real transit advocates should be pushing for cheap gas but their emotional desire to punish autos in a misguided belief in a zero sum game and will instead continue to shoot themselves in the foot. As to the housing bubble; The housing bubble is a good thing. It is a voluntary mechanism to raise municipal revenues and assures more efficient use of existing housing stock thus reducing sprawl and stimulating the economy. Besides regular people are not hurt when the bubble bursts, speculative investors and people who make poor housing decisions are hurt.
Take my county, May prices are only 16.8% year over year higher. Quite a "cooling" from the more recent 25% each of the previous 4 years. But that's only 900 (less than 1%) homes in the last year. All the rest of the homes are looking at being worth 40%-600% more than their purchase prices. A 20% even 30% pop only theoretically hurts a few hundred and only if they cannot wait before selling in the meantime they are supposedly enjoying a home they were happy to purchase for the same price so they are still whole. The people most at risk are ARMs holders and the public transportationreliant. These and other unusual and risky financial instruments are disproportionately being used in places with high costs and generally high congestion and transit use. Not a correlation or causation just an association.
When the ARMs start twisting it is the cenurbs that will see the greatest impact not the exurbs. Transit costs typically increase much faster than general inflation and marginal ridership decreases in poor economies. $5 gas is a triple hit to transit ridership; higher costs, higher marginal costs, fewer riders. What this means is that Kunstler has the entire end of suburbia as we know it exactly wrong. Higher energy prices will spur new energy efficient construction and demand for less congested (more) freeways and erode support for the cenurbs as jobs move to where the people live not vice versa.