The Long Emergency

Last month, I had the pleasure of listening to a presentation by James Howard Kunstler, author of the recently published book The Long Emergency: Surviving The Converging Catastrophes Of The Twenty-first Century. The book's basic hypothesis is that the United States' dependency on oil will lead to a long, slow decline in the standard of living. It may not be a dramatic collapse, he argues, but it is inevitable. The USA's economy, layout and whole way of life is based on the premise of cheap, limitless oil. The problem, of course, is that oil is a finite resource. The faster we use it, the faster we run out.

Some mistakenly (or in some cases, self-servingly) contend that those who point out this reality are arguing for the return to a pre-industrial society when we all use scythes to clear fields by hand. I like my computer, satellite radio and refrigerator as much as the next guy. And I'd like to keep them. That, not a desire to return to some agrarian lifestyle, is why the prospect of a Long Emergency concerns me.

The challenge is that even if we wanted to reduce oil consumption, the very layout of our country makes this extremely difficult.

Though I'm not normally an alarmist, some things have made me sit up and take note. One could argue that you're already starting to see signs of the slow crisis predicted by Kunstler.

First, you had near hysteria when Hurricane Katrina and dubious pricing practices caused gas prices to increase by $1 or more per gallon in a few days. If an expected hurricane could cause such economic chaos, imagine would what happen if there were something like a terrorist attack or oil embargo.

Then, the Republican governor of Georgia decided to deal with a feared oil shortage by shutting down the state's schools for two days. I suppose this show's the governor's priorities: when there's the possibility of a crisis, the first thing to be sacrificed is education. Naturally, President Bush praised the governor for having "showed some leadership." People with normal priorities beg to disagree.

The president himself, the old oil man, has issued a call for less driving as a way to conserve energy. (Ironic since Bush's own vice-president only a few years ago said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy," while his spokesman added that wasteful energy use was "an American way of life.")

The recently passed energy bill offered huge tax breaks and subsidies to big energy companies. If the administration really wanted to encourage energy conservation, it could've offered tax breaks instead to people who carpool to work or to those who walk, bike and/or use public transportation. They might have even given a decent amount of funding to public transportation instead of trying to shut down Amtrak (even as the passenger rail remains popular). They're calling for conservation precisely as they're making conservation more difficult.

As Kunstler alluded to in his Geography Of Nowhere : The Rise And Decline Of America's Man-made Landscape, even if people wanted to drive less, sprawl (and people's choice to embrace it) makes this extremely difficult.

As regular readers will know, I do not drive. Since I live about 2 miles away from my employer in a city that's somewhat amenable to pedestrians and bicylists , I bike or walk or take the bus to work, the soccer fields or wherever else I go.

This has disadvantages, as friends and colleagues often remind me. I can not simply jump in the car and go camping or take a road trip. It can be a pain when I'm in a hurry. Not having a car can be significantly unpleasant when it's raining or snowing.

It also has advantages. It keeps me in decent shape; I bike 1500-2000 miles a year and that's almost entirely in my city or neighboring towns. I do not have to fret over parking spaces (even if bike racks are rare). My lifestyle doesn't radically change when gas goes from $2 to $3.50 a gallon or if insurance rates going through the roof. Frankly, I find biking to be a good stress reliever.

Because I choose to live in this city, I have the choice to not own a car. My colleague lives about 30 miles away in a suburb. As a result, walking to work is a less pragamatic option for her.

I don't damn her choice of residency, but she must live with the consequences of her choices. I take the cons with the pros with my choices but others must do the same with theirs.

Nevertheless, a lot of people I know or work with who COULD forego their car to get to their jobs. They live close to their place of employment. They either don't have kids or have kids who are old enough to ferry themselves to their different afterschool activities. But they choose to drive anyways (all while complaining about high gas prices and lack of parking spots).

Rather than subsidizing big energy, the administration (as well as state and local officials) could offer tax breaks to those people who get to work via carpool, foot, bike or public transportation. Those of us who do those things are reducing our burden on public services by causing less wear and tear on the roads and contributing less air pollution.

The company I work for has made the alleged lack of parking spots downtown one of its top priorities in finding a new home. It is strongly encouraging workers not to take a parking tag if they don't need it. But why don't they offer some kind of incentive for that, such as a few extra vacation days? If the company derives economic benefit by paying less in their lease for parking, then why don't they share some of that benefit with employees who help achieve that benefit? Or, just as importantly, with employees who could help increase that collective benefit.

My city's government is being pressured by various parties to waste millions of dollars on a parking garage that would do nothing to address downtown's fundamental unfriendliness to pedestrians; pedestrians are what drivers become the instant they leave their cars.

If my city and others were to launch campaigns to encourage people to get to downtown on foot or on a bike, it would be a step in the right direction in reducing oil dependency... and there's that darn clean air again.

Interestingly, making a dent in demand for oil would trigger a decrease in the cost of that commodity.

This wouldn't completely solve the problem of dependence on oil (and thus higher oil and gas costs), but it would be a step in the right direction both symbolic and important in its own right. This needs to be followed by steps to make the choice to forego use of automobiles a viable choice for more people. There are no magic bullets.

I'm not a big fan of government regulation in this domain. I'd much rather a carrot be used than a stick. As long as its the right carrot. Instead, the New York State Senate is trying to slash gasoline taxes to allow people to waste gas more easily. Even though it is far more sensible to use that revenue to institute tax breaks like those I've mentioned above to reward efficient choices.

People are free to make wasteful choices so long as they bear the economic burden of those choices. If we want to avoid the Long Emergency, we should reward efficiency, rather than subsidizing wastefulness.