Oh boy. Didn't these myths from the 70s get debunked in the 80s? I think I hear an echoboom ...

by Lance on Mar 26, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report

On a few things I think it is flat out wrong. And on some others, the point is wildly exaggerated or simplified such that the real circumstances and solutions are obscured. These problems are far more nuanced then the 300 seconds suggest.

I don't even know where to begin. But hey ... everyone needs their propaganda!

by Geof Gee on Mar 26, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

This looks attractive!

http://bit.ly/dW0TzL

If the American Dream is to live in a MoCo office park.

by Trulee Pist on Mar 26, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report

Some of the nuances of this video may be debatable, but common sense tells you that the jist of it rings true. Exponential global population growth can't just go on forever. We are starting to have water shortages worldwide--this is becoming a serious issue in the western USA already. We may not run out of oil for decades or even over a hundred years, but, it's going to become more and more expensive to find/drill for oil and those costs will be passed on until they reach prohibitive levels. You don't have to be Al Gore to realize the data shows that global warming has increased exponentially since our reliance on fossil fuels. Or you can believe that it's all a coincidence with natural earth warming cycles or solar cycles. And yes our "economy" relies way to much on worthless financial sector engineering to enrich a few, while our political system can't control costs or regulate properly because it was designed for a country that was exponentially smaller in 1776. I don't claim to be an expert of any sort, but I'm not living in a fairy tale world either.

by Geoff on Mar 26, 2011 5:02 pm • link • report

Let's not stop at the jist of it rings true. Let's assume that all your facts are accurate, some even an understatement of our jeopardy. All the more reason to present your preferred option as appealing, if for no other reason than the principles of effective propoganda.

Why would your utopia comprise bullet trains and 12-14-story buildings in corporate parks, as shown here?

Why not present a more appealing City of the Future for us to live in?

by Trulee Pist on Mar 26, 2011 5:54 pm • link • report

What liberal tripe propaganda. Drilling for oil is taking place offshore in deep water because US regulations/laws won't allow for drilling where it is convenient.

The only thing we can thank the liberal for in regards of population sustainability is their love of abortion, it works really well to keep that reproduction down.

The big lie the liberals push is that there is a free lunch somewhere to be found, that as we know is not the case. For now, even alternate sources of energy as nuclear, wind, solar, etc. will still require a trememndous amount of fossil fuel expenditures in order to build the infrastructure.

When the President is driving around in a hydrogen powered limousine, we will know there is some hope, if it is good enough for him, it will be good enough for the rest of the world.

by Anon on Mar 26, 2011 11:18 pm • link • report

"We may not run out of oil for decades or even over a hundred years, but, it's going to become more and more expensive to find/drill for oil and those costs will be passed on until they reach prohibitive levels."

An HSBC senior economist the other day said we'll run out of oil in less than 49 years, but that's if demand doesn't increase (so presumably we'll run out sooner, if India, China, etc. keep growing exponentially). I found this shocking since he said it in the context of his wall street job (obviously lots of smart environmentalists have been saying such things for years).

I don't think we're past the point of no return yet, but our lifetimes could become very very interesting (in a very very bad way) if this transition to sustainability doesn't pick up steam soon.

by jag on Mar 27, 2011 9:32 am • link • report

@jag 'An HSBC senior economist the other day said we'll run out of oil in less than 49 years

These urban myths have been around for decades. What they fail to mention is that it's based on known reserves and current technology. Compared to 20 or 30 or 50 years ago we use our oil reserves for more and more things ... because it just keeps getting relatively cheaper as we discover more and more of it and developer cheaper and more efficient means of accessing it. Next time you're watching a movie from 50 years ago (the '60s) take a look at all the things in there and note how many of those things have today been replaced with petroleum based products. Everything from the wooden (high end) or metal (regular) steering wheels of cars to glass baby bottles (not to mention soda bottles) has been replace by petroleum based products because of many factors include 'safer' (think what hitting a metal steering wheel in even a minor crash used to do) and easier to shape (allows more precise and flexible designs) and far easier to produce .... and then even reuse. I hear car bodies today are mainly made 4 different types of plastics ... so that when it comes time to 'junk' the car, most of its body can be melted down and reused. The cars may not look (or sound) as nice today as they did when they had chrome plated metal bumpers and other trim and a 455 cc, 8 cylinder engine under the hood that could squeal the wheels, but they are far more environmentally friendly. And we're no closer to the energy-deprived armagendon as described in this propanda film than we were before. I guess each generation will have its doomsday folks. It makes life interesting ...

by Lance on Mar 27, 2011 3:06 pm • link • report

*455 cubic inches

by Lance on Mar 27, 2011 3:08 pm • link • report

If you look at the UK, you can see our future: $7-10 for a gallon of gas.

What is the result?

1. Much less car ownership
2. People who have cars drive them about 9-10K miles a year
3. Much smaller cars

#3 is as much a result of tax disc policies on engine size.

$7 to $10 gas would easily halve US gasoline usage. Unknown what it would do to the trucking and logistics world.

by charlie on Mar 27, 2011 3:43 pm • link • report

@Charlie 'If you look at the UK, you can see our future: $7-10 for a gallon of gas.

The UK's (and most of Europe's) gas prices have always been at least that much higher than the US's .. and it has nothing to do with their somehow being ahead of us in running out of the global commodity. It's because petrol there is taxed a lot more than here ... with the aim of keeping the less wealthy from contributing to the need to build roads. (Ssort of what we're hearing here from the so-called smartgrowthers.) I.e., the difference in priice is due to nothing more than a difference in policies and priorities. In this country, it wouldn't be politically palpable to try to disenfranchise the less economically advantaged from full mobility. Unlike in countries where you can drive across them from north to south AND then from east to west in one day, in our country imagine the furor of telling the guy who lives in Casper and works at a ranch 100 miles away that some 'smart' person in Washington thinks he needs to learn how to take public transportation instead. LOL

by Lance on Mar 27, 2011 11:32 pm • link • report

@lance; I think you are missing my point.

We will get to gasoline at $7 a gallon. Not sure when, but it is coming.

My point is even at those prices, people value driving enough in the UK that they still, well, drive.

And frankly, people with 200 mile roundtrips out west need to adapt. Either buy a prius and blow 4 gallons of gas a day, or get another job. We used to get 100 acres for just moving out west, and the federal government isn't into the homesteading business anymore.

by charlie on Mar 28, 2011 7:59 am • link • report

It is a conservative myth that there are on-shore places that oil companies could drill, but where environmental regulations are somehow responsible for these resources not being developed.

Were there such on-shore oil, the oil companies would be lobbying hard to be allowed to drill there. But the only place that you ever hear about is ANWR, which doesn't even have all that much oil. The only reason that they are drilling off-shore in these deeper and deeper places is because the good on-shore stuff is long gone.

by JackRussell on Mar 28, 2011 8:02 am • link • report

@JackRussell; yes and no.

Remember, the US was the largest oil producer in the world until the 1970s. There are plenty of old wells which still produce oil -- but not at the rate that the majors want.

Those wells are either abandoned, sold to minor oil companies, or kept in production but not invested in.

At higher price points, it makes sense for smaller companies. We are talking 1-2 barrels a day of production, but in the aggregate there is a lot of oil left.

But for the majors, yes, there isn't much level to dig for.

by charlie on Mar 28, 2011 8:08 am • link • report

For me, more than the jist sounds right, but they can't present all of the evidence and reasoning behind the conclusions in a 5 minute video, so it probably seems pretty jarring to those who see this for the first time.

Richard Heinberg (the narrator) has a number of excellent books that are easy to read.

by JackRussell on Mar 28, 2011 8:21 am • link • report

We will never run out of oil, but we will very likely run out of oil as we know it - and we know it as relatively cheap to consume and easy to extract. Those days are long gone.

by Alex B. on Mar 28, 2011 9:15 am • link • report

We will run out of oil and coal. We're using it faster than the spaghetti monster can make it (and he really isn't making anymore). But the scary thing is that we won't run out of it fast enough.

We need to stop burning both of those things BEFORE we run out. We simply can not afford to pump all of that CO2 into the atmosphere.

The big lie the liberals push is that there is a free lunch somewhere to be found, that as we know is not the case.

So true. Unlike the conservatives who point out that we can grow the economy by cutting taxes. No free lunch there. Oh wait... And actually liberals don't pitch a free lunch. This animation makes the point that it will not be easy and that it will take work.

we're no closer to the energy-deprived armagendon as described in this propanda film than we were before.

Really? inflation adjusted oil prices have been going up quite rapidly since 1998, without some external impact to point to. There is no oil embargo. The world is relatively stable. Prices are going to keep going up. It won't be armageddon (and the video doesn't claim it will be) but we're in store for a rough transition.

It's because petrol there is taxed a lot more than here ...

Or because petrol is subsidized more here than there. And we force the negative externalities on to everyone else unlike they do there.

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 11:22 am • link • report

@charlie
Remember, the US was the largest oil producer in the world until the 1970s. There are plenty of old wells which still produce oil -- but not at the rate that the majors want.

Those wells are either abandoned, sold to minor oil companies, or kept in production but not invested in.

At higher price points, it makes sense for smaller companies. We are talking 1-2 barrels a day of production, but in the aggregate there is a lot of oil left.

Those wells are abandoned specifically because they do not meet our consumption needs at a price point that makes sense currently. Sure, someday oil prices may increase to the point where it makes sense to tap that trickle of oil (we use 21 million barrels a day) but guess what? At that point, using that oil will be unsustainable because nobody will be able to afford it. And that is exactly why it will NEVER make sense to use that oil, and why it shouldn't even be included in a count of "see how much oil is left? lots!"

by MLD on Mar 28, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

@MLD; at $200 a barrels, those wells make a lot of sense.

It is more a question of distribution. Let's say a well produces 2-3 barrels a day. In a field, with pipelines to take it, well, yes, you can still produce on that.

By itself, you have to drive out there once a week and unload it, well, maybe not.

There are a lot of wells like that. I'm sure we all know a Texan or two who gets $150 a month in royalty payments from some old well. Never been sure how EIA tracks those figures, or what that oil.

Oil is still cheap, given the bang you get. As I said, for automotive use I could see it being viable until the 15-20 dollars a gallon.

The problem is on the other side -- trucks and logistics. A lot of our economy really starts to fall apart quickly there. Amazon.com, for instance.

by charlie on Mar 28, 2011 11:46 am • link • report

charlie, I agree - and as a Texan I've met some of those people (I used to do sales and I went to a trailer thinking this woman couldn't afford what I was selling. She sensed that and said - you see that well out there? Everytime it goes up I make $2. Every time it goes down I make $2. And it runs 24-7).

I think the other side is the lowering costs of batteries. I think we'll see them drop some over the years and we'll see quality go up. And we'll see a secondary market for partially used batteries - ones that aren't suitable for cars/trucks - but work for backup power etc...

I think we'll see a lot of trucking move to rail, rail will start to electrify again and railroads will build track side solar and wind to move it all.

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

@David C ; well, I have to disagree with about the cost/capacity of batteries -- I don't see much development there. However, as we get used to the idea of hybrids the size of the battery might decrease. I don't need a 20 or 50 mile Chevy Volt -- but would love to have a 5-6 mile one.

Very off topic, but what do you think of electric bikes? I've been wondering if the bikeshare system could ever transition to an electric bike rental. Again, you have to keep range limited and battery size down, but an electric assist bike could really be big.

by charlie on Mar 28, 2011 12:06 pm • link • report

Charlie, the lithium batteries and computerized charging profiles are pretty recent developments, but I see the biggest improvements coming in economies of scale when production ramps up. And of course, once things start being produced and used a lot, that's when you see innovation take of.

I love electric bikes, though I've never been on one. I think they could emerge as game changes. If CaBi doesn't offer them - Maybe zipcar will. It would allow them to get into the point to point game.

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

@ David C ; I've read that something like 100 million electric bikes are sold in China. Have a hard time accepting that, although from what I can see there is a very active component market for the motors.

I can see why cabi would have issues; you do have to re-charge them, and w/solar power the current stations wouldn't cut it. That being said, I do think they are going to be an interesting future development.

by charlie on Mar 28, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report

@Jack Russell 8:21 am, I am sure Dr. Prof. Heinberg's books are accurate and compelling. The point of making an internet video Heinberg narrates, however, is to popularize his findings. This video fails to do so by making the Promised Land look so awful. Who would want to move to this "City of the Future"?

See the comments on this WaPo story to get the jist (I think the word is gist) of popular opinion about this kind of smart growth development.

http://wapo.st/dX8ahY

by Trulee Pist on Mar 28, 2011 3:56 pm • link • report

Trulee, what is wrong with the City of the Future shown here?

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 9:17 pm • link • report

You could not pay me to live in a high rise in a corporate park setting. I don't care how close it is to the high speed rail (although, like the new Metro stations around Tysons, it appears this urban planner forgot the part about getting passengers to the platform conveniently.)

I prefer my 'hood to look a little more authentic. To each his or her own, I guess.

It's a small point, but not insignificant. Enviros too often lecture people about what they ought to like and how and where they ought to live. That would be persuasive if it came with a promising-looking positive result. The drawing this video uses as shorthand for "City of the Future" is not promising-looking, to me.

by Trulee Pist on Mar 28, 2011 10:14 pm • link • report

So you don't like the single frame shot of a "city of the future" because it doesn't have a picture of the housing. Thanks for wasting my time.

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 10:18 pm • link • report

I thought this captured it in a pithy way at comment #3. I was even considerate enough to clip the video at the point in question.

This looks attractive!
http://bit.ly/dW0TzL

If the American Dream is to live in a MoCo office park.

If you don't get why a "single frame shot" undercuts much of the message, I can't explain it to you.

by Trulee Pist on Mar 28, 2011 11:03 pm • link • report

If you don't get why a "single frame shot" undercuts much of the message, I can't explain it to you.

If you can't explain it, then it must be a very strong position.

by David C on Mar 28, 2011 11:22 pm • link • report

No, the opposite. It's too high a barrier to overcome.

by Trulee Pist on Mar 28, 2011 11:44 pm • link • report

This video was dead on, office park illustration or not. Why so many feel put upon or patronized by facts and science is a product of the unrelenting propagandists hired by large corporations. Which btw, aren't evil, simply doing what they must, cashing in for share holders at every turn. Of course, the long term doesn't stand a chance in this paradigm, profits included, so we 'are' in for a wild ride...even though most people get it in their gut.

by Thayer-D on Mar 29, 2011 7:10 am • link • report

The video may be "dead on," but you have to jolly people along, not try to ram it down people's throats.

Here are two of the four things the video says "we have to do, fast":

1. Learn to live without fossil fuels, and 2. adapt to the end of economic growth as we've known it.

I understand how the two are linked to each other. I just don't see how they are appealing goals, without some promise that peoples' lives will improve as a result of following this policy of fast renunciation of fossil fuel use.

I am kidding and not kidding when I say the Promised Land illustration of "City of the Future" does not make this policy more appealing to me.

The illustration is a minutely small point; the inability to make the case for the short-term benefits of some of these policies is the big point.

I don't think the fossil fuel company advertising I've seen is "relentless," so much as it is, well, smart in terms of actually winning a debate that most public opinion analysts and almost all scientist thought the fossil fuels conglomerates had already lost, decisively, in 2007.

On our side in 2008, Al Gore and the Rockefeller children undertook a $100 million dollar "Reality" campaign to make the case for climate change and reducing use of fossil fuels.

Who won?

Since 2007, trends in public opinion have been in favor of the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity and toward growing skepticism about climate change(!?!). That failure to win the contest of public opinion, despite an enormous head start 4-5 years ago, should be what proponents of these policies focus on the most. This video, while an insignificant sideshow, demonstrates to me the weakness of the whole public opinion campaign on the side of reducing CO2 emissions and promoting greater use of alternatives to the automobile.

That then opens a whole 'nother can of worms about "smart growth," a movement that is being dumb by just repeating all the mistakes the "climate change" movement made over the past 4-5 years.

by Trulee Pist on Mar 29, 2011 10:54 am • link • report