I'm sure many of you are familiar with James Howard Kunstler's books:

 

The Geography of Nowhere

Home From Nowhere

The City in the Mind

The Long Emergency

Maggie Darling (and eight other fiction books no one has actually read)

 

What do you think?  is he a quack when it comes to doomsday predictions? (I remember he said something similar about Y2k) or does he want America to return to a more traditional living arrangement and sees peak oil as some sort of Deus ex Machina that will if not empower his cause, discomfit the current forces driving (no pun intended) sprawl?

 

I think he is a very engaging writer whose books are hard to put down and I love his ideas for more transit and walkable communities.  He just paints a very negative picture for the future.  I realize peak oil isn't a cult or religion it is actually going to happen like peak gold or peak any finite commodity, but I don't see neo-feudalism being the result. 

 

Then again I would love to see $5 a gallon gas by the end of the year.

I've read his articles and here's an interview with him on his book "The Long Emergency" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4878856748297910182&q=james+kunstler

 

Yes, he did fall for the Y2K hype, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he's correct in his assessment of peak oil. If anyone is going to attack his positions on peak oil then they should do just that instead of attacking his views on Y2K. That won't stop people from doing it of course.

 

Just look at how slow things are changing in this state alone, you can't help not to have a negative outlook. Like with all things, prevention is always better than finding a cure and right now people are much too comfortable to think about putting any serious effort forth in changing how and where they live.

I have read all the books listed above, except the Long Emergency.  I thoroughly enjoyed Maggie Darling.  Very entertaining fiction.  He is an astute critic of contemporary suburban/southern culture. 

 

I start to lose him when he begins predicting the future. I don't see for example how the increase in the cost of oil will lead to the revival of the small town, or more water borne transportation.  Gas prices could triple, and people will not significantly change their living patterns.  As oil gets more and more expensive people will gradually adjust to vehicles with higher MPG, but for many commuters the cost of the car and insurance far outweighs the price of fuel. 

 

Free markets have a way of self correcting.  If there is a sudden increase in oil costs, then the economy will slow, and consumption will decrease.

 

 

 

 

I have the movie, "End of Suburbia" where he is featured numerous times.  He does have a doomsday view of the world but I also find him entertaining.

 

My favorite quote of his from the movie can be found in this preview:

 

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/preview1.htm

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/

 

I don't always agree, but he does bring a new perspective to the table. He's thoughtful about the big picture, and when you thinking that big, it's easy to get little stuff wrong.

 

Plus, he uses words like legerdemain.

I read Kunstler for a planning class. He does a good job detailing the history and mistakes America has made in its growth over the course of its history but never is able to really get into any deep analytical solutions. The ideas he does present are just ones that he is passing along to the lay non-planning educated person.

 

Kunstler's work, if nothing else though, provides for some serious shock value and a serious wake-up call, again to non-planning people, regarding the state of things. Its over the top and a bit cynical and exaggerated at times but the first step in fixing the sprawling of America first is going to be convincing the population that there really is a problem. Awareness is key and that is where Kunstler fits into the scheme of planning literature, IMHO.

 

Well-stated, j3shafer.

 

Another plus for Kunstler is that his writing style is readable and engaging. He refers to other writers and books on the topic, making his books a good starting place for anyone who is just discovering an interest in the topic.

Free markets have a way of self correcting.  If there is a sudden increase in oil costs, then the economy will slow, and consumption will decrease.

 

If that's a prediction of life in the post-peak world, then it doesn't wash. Having more cars get better MPG only slows the descent down other side of the peak -- and doesn't slow it very much. We consume so much oil that it would take revolutionary changes in land use, building design, and major shifts in market share to walking, biking, transit and high-speed rail. Could we afford to make such revolutionary changes with the economy in disarray?

 

Think of it this way: America is the largest consumer of oil, followed by the European Union, China, Japan.... We would have cut our oil consumption in half to equal the combined consumption of the six largest nations of Europe (having the same total population as America). To accomplish that, American cities and transportation systems would have become more like Europe's. That's pretty revolutionary. Can you imagine how much that would cost? And that's assuming Americans can admit to being in denial about the extent of their predicament and start making the hard choices about being more responsible.

.. American cities and transportation systems would have become more like Europe's. That's pretty revolutionary. Can you imagine how much that would cost?

So much has been invested in our current development pattern that I am convinced that americans will pay whatever the costs to keep it going.  The cheap oil may be running out, but there is lots of fuel if you are willing to pay $6 per gallon for it.

I find him extremely negative. I tried to read Geography of Nowhere, but had to put it down. I think about the time he was ripping of home improvement projects in general - my memory can be lax of what he was actually writing about.

 

While I like to see/hear/read all viewpoints - being so pessimistic and negative can hamper one's objectivity

I find him extremely negative. I tried to read Geography of Nowhere, but had to put it down. I think about the time he was ripping of home improvement projects in general - my memory can be lax of what he was actually writing about.

 

While I like to see/hear/read all viewpoints - being so pessimistic and negative can hamper one's objectivity

 

If I wanted to write something positive and optimistic about the current and possible future state of our society and our economy, I don't know how I'd go about it and keep my integrity.

I find him extremely negative. I tried to read Geography of Nowhere, but had to put it down. I think about the time he was ripping of home improvement projects in general - my memory can be lax of what he was actually writing about.

 

While I like to see/hear/read all viewpoints - being so pessimistic and negative can hamper one's objectivity

 

If I wanted to write something positive and optimistic about the current and possible future state of our society and our economy, I don't know how I'd go about it and keep my integrity.

 

then you can't be objective about it -- you say there is NOTHING positive about today's society and future society (being able to predict everything that will happen with certainty).

 

then you can't be objective about it -- you say there is NOTHING positive about today's society and future society (being able to predict everything that will happen with certainty).

 

If you had ever met me, you'd know that's a bit of an overreaction. :wink:

 

There are many wonderful people in the world; among the thousands I've met over the years, there have been very few inexcusable bastards.

 

I should have qualified my comment by saying that it applies to the subject matter of Geography of Nowhere. Our bad habits of land and energy use sometimes seem to be a runaway train, and there can be no good outcome unless things change markedly, and soon.

 

I take heart in the fact that there are writers like Kunstler who have the vision to see the problems in our behavior and the possible consequences and who have the talent to communicate their vision and raise people's awareness, and the balls to do so.  I'm also encouraged by the increasing numbers of people around the world who are beginning to pay attention.

 

then you can't be objective about it -- you say there is NOTHING positive about today's society and future society (being able to predict everything that will happen with certainty).

 

If you had ever met me, you'd know that's a bit of an overreaction. :wink:

 

 

Yeah I know dat...was going to qualify my post w/ saying something like -- didn't notice anything like that in yr psots (In fact I enjoy yours a lot)

 

You are right, its a heated subject (land use) - but I don't buy into the fact that its a runaway train...Its not the best, I agree, I just don't buy the doomsday scenarios (mind you I am not validating our current practices)...

 

Seemed like Kunstler was just SOOOO negative and  'holier than thou' , IMHO, and that would turn off those on the fence, limiting his audience to those who already will agree with him anyway.

there is lots of fuel if you are willing to pay $6 per gallon for it.

 

Doesn't that get to the heart of how markets work, though?  How many people will be willing and more importantly able to pay $6 a gallon?  That will certainly knock some people nearly or even completely out of the "motoring" population.  Most people will cut back at least.  And then what about $10 a gallon, etc?  The question isn't will we eventually reduce oil consumption, the question is how.

 

Assuming people stick with buying expensive oil until it gets too expensive, what then? Are all of our sprawling suburbs going to immediately magically transform into new-urbanist communites with excellent mass transit at that point? It's going to take lots of planning and action among a good chuck of the American populace to lessen the blow of peak oil.

^no, sprawling suburbs can't transform, the amount of retrofitting it would take would be cost prohibitive.  They will likely just become slums.

Well, the poor can't afford expensive gas, so how will they be able to live out there?  Frankly, I don't have a plausible idea for what will happen to the suburbs if oil gets super expensive and we don't find an alternative source.

farming the quarter acre lots.  I'll be honest, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

The question isn't will we eventually reduce oil consumption, the question is how.

 

My greatest concern is that it will happen with a major downshift in the economy. True, that will reduce consumption, but once you're past the peak in oil production, there's no second peak. We might be able to plateau supply/demand for a while, but that only makes the eventual decline in production steeper. After all, you can't produce more oil than you've discovered, and the discovery peak was more than 40 years ago and has diminished to virtually nil today.

 

The point is, with the economy hurt, there is less money for research and innovation for finding alternatives that have something even remotely close to the energy density of oil. There is also less capital funding available (both public and private) for redeveloping communities in more pedestrian friendly ways, for expanding mass transit and for building high-speed rail.

 

We're getting a preview of that right now -- look at the budgets of state transportation departments. The cost of oil is causing the price of asphalt, steel and fuel for construction vehicles to skyrocket, forcing the scaling back, postponement or cancellation of some highway projects. And, in case you haven't already heard, the federal highway trust fund is facing bankruptcy by 2009 unless more revenue sources are found so it can meet an already staggering backlog of projects to funds have been obligated.

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html

 

April 2007 Eyesore....is why I think he's a pompus ass, how come they can't put bunnies in the windows -- who doesn't smile when they see stuffed Easter Bunnies(errr Spring Bunnies)

I'm not sure of his reasoning on that one either, I think what he was going for was asking why we put up plastic rabbits and chickens to celebrate the life of a man (or son of god) who was committed to making the world more socially just and improving the lives of the poorest.

^ Without reading the article...I think he just ripped off last week's episode of South Park!

i agree

I remain an ardent fan of Kunstler's writing. He's a master of the eloquent tirade, and his writing conveys passion. Sometimes I think he's on the verge of being swept away by the surging tide of his own vitriol, but that's a large part of what draws me to him.

 

Ever read Philip Wylie's Generation of Vipers or Mark Twain's Pen Warmed Up In Hell? Good stuff, and as relevant now as it was sixty or a hundred years ago.

"I have to ask myself: does this make the world a better place? "

 

Well, I'd say that it makes a statement that the people living in that house care enough about the people passing by to make a colorful little display to brighten their day.  So yeah, in its own little way it makes the world a better place.  Does Kunstler's little rant?

 

I agree, this month's eyesore was a stretch, but generally they're on point.  You don't have to go any further than the previous one (http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200702.html) to see this.

Agree or disagree with his beliefs/viewpoints, his ability to rant is truly awesome. And this is one of his better rants....

 

http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/08/the-afta-act-of-2012.html

 

[glow=red,2,300]The AFTA Act of 2012!![/glow]

The guy is awesome and I love his writing style. His writing is partially what got me interested in sprawl issues.

I find his gallows humor hilarious.

He does have a touch of homophobia...

 

"A perverse residue of those Civil Rights years lingers on today in the campaign for gay marriage, which affects to be identical in substance, and which is now, ironically, the only vector of action in Democratic politics inviting male valor - while it is also a huge distraction from many far more pressing tribulations we face, from resource scarcity to the well-being of the only planetary ecosystem we call home. I say, ironically, because gay marriage represents an existential endeavor that seeks to escape or nullify the fundamental tensions of the two-sexed human race. Like all things fashion-oriented, its essence is novelty, and the essence of novelty is that its charms wear off.  Sooner or later, the charm of being not quite a man and not quite a woman will seem less than compelling to those not directly preoccupied by it. I bring it up because the Democrats have (foolishly) made it the public's business to the exclusion of other things. So, for Democrats, the last remaining imaginable act of male valor in the arena of politics is to come out of the closet."

 

...which you'd expect from him given his anti-modern POV.  Edward Abbey (who had a similar riff) was homophobic too, though that came more in his last, posthomous novel.