From Gary Peters, more food for thoughts:
Americans are clueless, and most politicians prefer to keep them that way. James Kunstler put it more flamboyantly a short time ago, saying that “The fog of cluelessness that hangs over North America about the gathering global oil crisis and its ramifications seems to thicken by the hour.” Not long ago I saw a bumper sticker that said, “Why is Our Oil under Their Soil?” Though it cannot be found in our constitution, Americans assume that the right to cheap gasoline is one of those “unalienable rights” that they’ve read about but can’t quite remember where or when.
One question I like to ask Americans when they talk about oil is this: When do you think oil production in the U.S. will reach a peak? Most everyone guesses many years into the future, with five years from now being about the lowest figure that I’ve gotten in reply. When you tell them it peaked in 1970 they are generally dumbfounded or think you are just kidding.
If you want to carry this a step farther, ask them what they think the population of the U.S. was in 1970–they probably won’t have a clue, but it allows you to point out to them that even though oil production peaked in the U.S. in 1970 and has declined ever since, we have subsequently added another 100 million people to the nation, which is one of the reasons that we so desperately need to import oil in huge quantities, no matter what. In 2007 the U.S. consumed an average of 20,697,540 barrels of crude oil per day, but produced only 8,487,080–an average shortfall of more than 12 million barrels per day, which had to be imported.
When Senator McCain tells you that he wants the nation to be energy-independent, make sure that he can tell you how he is going to do that. If we could double our production of crude oil, a physical impossibility no matter what stories you hear about ANWR or the California coast, we still would be far from oil independence. Where is the straight talk?
Americans think of themselves as a fair people, but seem unbothered by the notion that though we have just under five percent of the world’s population, we consume about 25 percent of the world’s crude oil. Even President Bush admitted that we were addicted to oil, though he never followed up on that statement or tried to cure us or at least to get us into rehab.
When George W. Bush was sworn in as our 43rd President, on January 19, 2001, Brent crude was selling for $26.23 per barrel; this morning it was selling for $134.64. As Robert Scheer recently noted, “No President has been more brilliant in destabilizing the politics of oil-producing countries from Venezuela to Russia and on to the key oil lakes of Iraq and Iran.”
With the price of gas now above $4.00 across the U.S., people are finally beginning to feel the heat–we are not only a nation addicted to gas, we are a nation so dependent on it that we have seldom stopped to think about it. Worse yet, it comes at a time when house prices are falling thanks to a pathetic runaway abuse of subprime mortgages and other unreal fiscal irregularities, which created first an amazing housing bubble and now a drastic removal of air from it.
With respect to the intertwined problems of global warming and our profligate use of fossil fuels, neither presidential candidate has stood up and told Americans the truth: The lifestyle that we have today is not sustainable. Energy expert Vaclav Smil noted recently that “Today there is no readily available non-fossil energy source that is large enough to be exploited on the requisite scale.” Richard Heinberg recently wrote that “Addressing the core of the problem means letting go of growth; in fact, it means engaging in a period of controlled societal contraction characterized by a stable or declining population consuming at a per-capita level far lower than is currently taken for granted in the industrialized world.” This message may be much closer to the truth than anything current politicians are saying, but we can’t remain in denial. In 1949 Aldous Huxley wrote that “The human race is passing through a time of crisis, and that crisis exists, so to speak, on two levels–an upper level of political and economic crisis and a lower level crisis in population and world resources.” Almost sixty years later his words still ring true, and we are still living in denial.
I think it’s worth putting the oil consumption per person in there for some perspective.
In the US, there are consumed about 25 barrels of oil per person annually.
In France, Germany, Italy, Australia and similarly “Western” countries, about 15bbl.
In Croatia and other formerly communist countries, about 7bbl.
Third World countries use about 2-7, and impoverished countries 0-2bbl.
So if the US used oil like France and Germany do, 300 million people using 15bbl each, this would be 12 million barrels a day – the US could reduce its imports from 12Mbbl/day to 4Mbbl/day. At current oil prices, this would save the US $1 billion a day. Not bad – it’s about what the US spends on Medicare, more than it spends on unemployment and other welfare, and more than it spends on interest on public debts. It would also reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tonnes a day, or 1.5 billion tonnes, about 18% of the US or 3% of the world total.
If the US used oil like Croatia, 300 million people using 7bbl each, that’d be 6 million barrels a day – and the US could be an oil exporter, or could just produce less and keep some for the future. And the savings would then be $1.5 billion a day, as much as spent on the Defense Department without accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greenhouse reduction would be 7Mt daily, 2.5Gt, about 30% of the US or 5% of the world total.
But obviously Americans couldn’t bear to live like those poor Germans or French, still less the poor Croats. You can’t expect a civilised person to live in such savagery!
I watched “Who Killed the Electric Car?” tonight, so this is fresh on my mind. The movie ended with an encouraging nod toward plug-in hybrid electric cars. So I did a little web research. Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4215489.html) said that 110-volt-powered vehicles could be on dealers’ lots in 2010. They can be charged from a home outlet and then driven for up to 40 miles on electricity before the gas engine ever turns on.
I can’t wait.
Interesting maths, Kyle! What strikes me with those numbers however, is how much further, still we would have to go in reductions, to start making a dent in the big world pile. Back to your one-ton carbon lifestyle!
Dave, thanks for visiting. Great example of technology. What we don’t have to wait for are change in our habits, towards using less resources, and be more efficient in how we use those resources.
Kyle, you know the really ironic thing about your calculations is that by many measures, the lower carbon lifestyle in Europe is far superior, providing happier and healthier people. The problem is that too many people just equate happiness with resource consumption.
We should be careful, because the ultra low resource consumption in some countries doesn’t make for a happy life either. But in Europe there is much we can do to improve even further.
Thanks again for doing the maths!
Yes, it’s called finding a happy middle . . .
I don’t necessarily want to be the hysteric fatalist but it is this unfortunate myopia of Americans c which makes the ‘Peak Oil’ scenario so believable. Yes, I know it is science fiction but I wonder if the authors of the games and novels and films are too far off about the speculations about the barbaric Mad Max/Water World Dark Age that will follow the end of petroleum.
your favorite survivalist 😛
-kN
Thanks for stopping by, Thomas – kidneutrino –
I do hope that reality will not catch up with science fiction . . . We only have so much time.
I simply meant to show that while many people think their particular lifestyle is the only possible one, and thus their particular level of consumption and waste of this or that resource is the only possible one, there are many others possible.
You can be frugal and miserable, frugal and happy, wasteful and miserable, wasteful and happy. And between frugal and wasteful there are different styles of consumption. The slash-and-burn farmer in the Amazon will as an individual produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as the fat guy in his SUV idling at the burger drive-thru along the Mississippi. Maybe more. But one has a miserable lifestyle, and the other a comfortable one.
People often say that I = PAT, the environmental impact (I) of a society is equal to its population (P) times its affluence (A) times its technology (T). However, unless we are to suppose that France, Germany or even Australia have higher technology than the United States, we must imagine that burning 25bbl of oil each is more affluent than burning 15bbl for the same results. It’s not. Affluence and waste are different things.
And as Mark notes, many people feel Western Europe’s lifestyles are superior to the American, on average. His mention of the “ultra low resource consumption” countries reminds me of a further distinction: as well as distinguishing between affluence and waste, we can distinguish between consumption and waste. Most of the truly impoverished places on Earth are either very wasteful (eg the Amazon slash-and-burn farmer) or have been in the past (eg Haitians cutting down all their forests). Waste creates poverty.
But let’s come at it the other way. Instead of talking about waste and technology and trying to decide what gives us a good quality of life, let’s look at places with a good quality of life and see what they have in common.
I think we can fairly objectively measure the quality of life by a simple measure: tourism. If lots of people want to visit and holiday there, it must be pretty nice. And where do people go on holiday? Well, some go on holiday to high consumption, high waste places – five star hotels. But most prefer places like Venice, Paris, Tahiti… and what do these places have in common? They have relatively low consumption of resources, high consumption of services, and low waste, and relatively few cars.
So that tells us that people regard a good quality of life as one with low waste and consumption of resources, but high consumption of services, and less cars. It’s nice to travel, but why not try to create that kind of place at home?
So really, whichever way we come at these things – quality of life, depleting resources, climate change, balance of trade – it all brings us to the same place, a city more like Paris or Venice or Zagreb, and less like Detroit or LA, and also a place with a strong rural society. Florence is nice, but it’s even nicer surrounded by the hills of Tuscany.
Great insight, Kyle – the part about tourism as indicator of happy places, etc . . .
I love this thread… and the idea about less consumption making happier places that people like to visit… camping and more natural places as well… but as an Angeleno… I believe our number one industry is tourism. But keep working on that, b/c like I said I love it! 😉
[…] to Gary Peters for tipping me on this paper. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Sex Does Work Every […]