Customer Reviews

The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Proponents of the "Peak Oil" theory argue that global oil production will "peak" (meaning that one half of all known reserves will have been recovered) at some point between 2000 and 2010, and afterwards production will irrevocably decline, never to rise again. However, the demand for oil will continue to rise and the spread between falling supply and rising demand will rapidly grow, as no adequate alternative energy source will be available to cover the shortfall. Doomsday will then be at hand. The price of petroleum, and petroleum-related products (i.e., just about everything) will skyrocket; transportation, communications, agriculture, indeed, every major industry in the world, will sputter to a standstill; the world economy will stagger and collapse; civil authority will dissolve; and the noisy, messy experiment that was industrial civilization will expire in a world-wide bloodbath, or "die-off," that will reduce the human population by 90 percent, or more, and will leave the planet devastated, ruined, and, quite possibly, dead.

It would be easy to dismiss this apocalyptic vision as alarmist nonsense if only the "Peak Oil" proponents weren't so bloody convincing. By and large, they are a sensible, reasonable-sounding group of Cassandras, who dispense their grim forecasts as soberly as the subject allows. Virtually all of them rely upon the pioneering work M. King Hubbert, a research geophysicist who, in the mid-1950s, created a model to estimate the productive life of energy reserves. In 1956 Hubbert used his model to predict that oil production in the continental United States would peak sometime between 1966 and 1972. U.S. oil production did , in fact, peak in 1970 (and has declined by 50 percent since), and Hubbert and his forecasting model, dubbed "Hubbert's Peak," passed into the arcane lore of petroleum geologists. Other petroleum scientists have refined Hubbert's model and have applied it to global petroleum reserves. Although results differ depending upon the variables used by different researchers, the consensus is that the "Hubbert Peak" of worldwide oil reserves will occur sometime between 2004 and 2007. In other words, as I sit at my keyboard writing this review the high noon of petroleum-based industrial civilization may have come and gone, and the whole human enterprise may be inexorably descending into twilight and darkness. Sic transit gloria mundi - with a bullet.

If the Cassandras are right, and the end of the world is imminent, it has received remarkably little coverage in the conventional media, although the internet hosts many excellent websites that the curious or concerned citizen may consult to learn as much as he or she would like about the post-petroleum world to come. Recently this state of affairs has started to change, and several good books have been published on "Peak Oil" and its consequences. First among these, is Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over," a sober, detailed contribution to the literature, which clearly and fluently describes the fossil fuel bender the industrial world has been on for the past 100 years, and what we can expect to follow from it. Although Heinberg does his best not to induce white-knuckled panic in his reader, the picture that emerges from his book is absolutely frightening, particularly the notion that, at this late date, we can do nothing to prevent the catastrophe from occurring. At best - that is, if the entire human race sets aside all its disputes and immediately mobilizes its combined efforts to solve this one problem - the scale of the catastrophe might be reduced. At worst, in 50 to 100 years time, the greatest disaster in human history will have taken place, and the relatively few survivors of this disaster will dwell in a stateless, Hobbesian world that will make present-day Liberia look like Shangri-La.

Or so the argument runs. Perhaps Heinberg and the other "Peak Oil" prophets are wrong. Perhaps Hubbert's model is defective and world oil production will not peak tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Perhaps the USGS's estimate of world oil reserves is correct and the peak of production will not occur until 2020. Perhaps a previously overlooked, gigantic new field, the equivalent of three or four Saudi Arabias, will be discovered and delay the peak until the early years of the 22nd century. Perhaps. But the point is, Heinberg et al. will inevitably be right someday. Someday, worldwide production of cheap, high-grade crude oil will peak, and the longer that peak is delayed, the more horrific the following decline will be, unless the nations of the world take immediate action to prevent the disaster. This preventive action will entail much more than just developing an adequate replacement for cheap petroleum; although, as Heinberg makes clear, no alternative currently on the drawing board appears to be sufficient. Rather, if we are to avoid the catastrophic consequences of "Peak Oil" we will have to drastically rearrange our affairs - politically, economically, socially. Or, to be blunt, capitalism, certainly as it is currently practiced, will simply have to go. Unfortunately, it is difficult to conceive of a socio-economic system less capable of dealing with the coming crisis than neo-liberal capitalism. But there it is.

Of course, if Heinberg and the other proponents of Peak Oil are right, time has already run out for Petroleum Man, and there is little that can be done to avert doomsday. We shall see. This morning (March 5, 2004) the front page of USA Today warns that record gasoline prices will continue to rise, and there is a likelihood of gas shortages this summer. The "Nation's Newspaper" also reports that the loss of 2.1 million jobs in the USA during the last three years appears to be permanent. Both of these developments fit neatly into the predictions of "Peak Oil." One thing is certain: we live in interesting times. Anyone who wants to learn just how interesting these times are is well advised to read and ponder "The Party's Over." We've been warned. Will we act?

This volume begins with a discussion of what energy is and how it has been used to develop our industrial way of life. Brief histories of wood, coal, and oil use are also included. Much of this book centers around the amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas remaining to be harnessed in the future, with several experts giving their predictions for the peak production of the world production of oil, not far away by most accounts. The United States had it's oil production peak in 1970 (predicted in 1956 by M. King Hubbert) and has been in decline since, with a slight temporary increase in the 1980's due to Alaskan oil.

As Richard Heinberg emphasizes continually in this book, the decline in world oil production seems imminent, along with the ensuing decline in national industrial economies which rely on oil, the United States being by far the biggest example. Per capita energy use by Americans is five times the world average, Heinberg writes, and he makes it abundantly clear that this waste and extravagance cannot continue much longer, and no number of Iraqi type excursions will make a difference. Heinberg writes that this decline of energy availability and use can be achieved peacefully with individual countries cooperating with each other, or violently with nations squabbling over the remaining oil. However, one thing stands out very clearly now, back in the 1970's during the initial problems with energy shortages due to the Arab oil embargo, it should have been a wake-up call to our leaders to develop sustainable energy sources then, it was not done, our short-sighted leaders failed us. But as Heinberg says, corporate leaders are also at fault, with their massive self-interest at risk, they could make less money if the country shifted more to alternate energy sources, and their lobby is very strong on Capital Hill in Washinton, D.C.. If that alternate energy program was began on a massive scale in the 1970's we would probably be in much better shape now, in terms of our energy future, but as Heinberg states in this book, at this late stage our options are limited. The massive industrial military machine the United States has is given attention here also, as Heinberg writes, this massive allocation of resources can and should be directed to more pressing concerns, the citizens of the United States do not need a military budget that equals the rest of the world combined (we are'nt going to fight the Soviets, that is now clear).

This volume also covers alternate energy sources today, and what they can do to help us in the future, again, as Heinberg says, we have began with too little and too late to prevent a collapse of our industrial way of life. How large of a collapse will it be? No one is certain. Heinberg also touches on the subject of overpopulation and immigration. Did you know that approximately 90% of the population growth in the United States over the next 50 years will be due to immigration? This is an area that has been neglected, and as Heinberg says, it is politically sensitive and politicians rarely stick their necks out in areas such as this. Also, in terms of overpopulation, have we, due to the use of oil in creating a large world food supply, exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet? This is another area Heinberg writes much about.

Heinberg envisions, after the world oil supply peaks and begins it's inevitable decline, a slower paced, more idyllic lifestyle, and as he says, probably a more agreeable one, at that, to most people.

...to get a little tilling done before someone steals and eats her.

I chose this book for my second read on this subject because it has the highest ratings (on subject) on Amazon. Heinberg has done a thorough job of discussing every aspect of the coming problems to society due to a lack of petroleum - most of which I had never considered. Literature about this are from the point of view of either the politician, the economist, or the geologist. He takes the view of the geologist and the future does not look good.

I hold a more positive view: that human ingenuity will prevail - but I could easily be wrong. In any case, this is a worthwhile read for anyone. Of particular interest is the chapter that deals with alternate energy sources. The next time you read about an alternate energy source in the news, you'll remember the real pro's and con's from an expert.

Quick synopsis of 41 page alternative fuel chapter from "Party's Over:"

Natural Gas: Cannot be shipped from overseas easily like oil - is more difficult to extract economically every year - is being depleted like oil. In view of the precarious status of North American gas supplies, any attempt to shift to NG as an intermediate fuel would waste time and capital in the enlargement of an infrastructure that will soon be obsolete.

Coal: Shortage not so much a problem, however, its EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) and pollution are a problem. As the richer seams are exhausted, it may cease to be a useful energy source within only 2-3 decades.

Nuclear: Electricity from existing nuclear plants is inexpensive, but only if direct costs are considered. When adding in plant construction, safety, reactor decommissioning, and waste storage - nuclear power is very expensive indeed. There are currently 442 reactors operating worldwide. France in the only country in Europe still building them. Only Asia expects to expand significantly. Only a few of the highly touted fast breeder reactors have been built, and they have proven to be prohibitively expensive. The US currently processes enough uranium to fuel existing US reactors for the next 40 years. The mining process is wasteful, polluting, and dangerous. When all things are considered, the EROEI on nuclear energy is fairly low and there is significant intangible downside.

Wind: Of all renewables (not depletable), wind power usage on a global scale is being developed the fastest. Technology has advanced - it no longer kills birds because it uses slower fan speeds and the fans are mounted on a vertical axis. It can operate in more variable wind speeds and the cost is declining rapidly. Soon your own equipment could be bought and used on your own property. Wind has the best EROEI and Germany leads the world in its usage. On a large scale, wind power would require vastly new infrastructure, but it is the most practical alternative so far.
Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.

Solar: Technology advancing rapidly, photovoltaic the best so far. Research is advancing into diverse methods of collection, including such easy methods of application as solar buckyball collectors incorporated into house paint. Tremendous potential, would need new infrastructure.
Problem: cannot easily be converted to fuel transportation and agricultural needs.

Hydrogen: For now, the process of hydrogen production always uses more energy than the resulting hydrogen will yield. For one thing, hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy carrier. It's production depends on continued usage of the dwindling supply of natural gas. There is new technology, however, and reason to be optimistic. As with wind and solar, a whole new infrastructure, requiring time and investments of huge amounts of money and energy technology are necessary. Like wind and solar, hydrogen fuel cells should be central features of our plans to phase out petroleum. We should be dramatically increasing these investments.

Hydroelectric: In many regions of the world - and especially in the US - it is already thoroughly exploited.

Geothermal power, tides, and waves: limited application in limited regions of the world.

Biomass: wood burning - pollution and limited resources in a world with 6 billion people - imagine the world being one big Easter Island.

Ethanol: costs more energy to produce than it eventually delivers to society. Brazil is the poster child, but is burning down rain forests to grow sugar cane.

Cold-Fusion: pseudoscience

Conservation - Efficiency and Curtailment: Will be crucial in cushioning impacts from the depletion of oil. But it is not a panacea - even when you ignore cheaters (individuals and countries).

Saudi saying: My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly a jet airplane. My grandson will ride a camel.

Richard Heinberg has done a tremendous service for all of us in America and the industrial world. Most Americans have known for years of risks associated with dependence on "foreign oil", but few Americans know that the critical point in human use of oil as an energy source is upon us. Few Americans ever heard of Hubbert's Peak in terms of American oil production, much less world oil production. Thus, industry and government have been able to use aspects of the truth (there is still one trillion barrels of recoverable oil underground) to obfuscate a critical fact -- the end of the entire age of oil as a primary fuel for human industry is within sight.

This fact has enormous (world altering) ramifications, as Heinberg demonstrates in his well-researched book. Foreign policy, domestic policy, ecology, wildlife conservation, and the entire American "way of life" are at issue. The information offered in this book is certainly known by government officials and undoubtedly has a direct influence, a primary influence, on the War on Terrorism, the War on Iraq, the U.S. Stock Market, and, increasingly on public debate in the U.S.

The fact that the U.S. Government, under administrations of either party, have not provided knowledge of the issues discussed in this book speaks poorly of the future of American democracy, and the absolute, dire need for American to educate themselves by reading this book and others like it.

To his credit, Heinberg explores opposing and alternate views of the data that support his conclusions. Rather than deny or ignore the alternate views, Heinberg explains them and persuades the reader by virtue of superior argumentation. This adds to his credibility, while diminishing the credibility of the doubters of his arguments.

In the current War on Iraq and War on Terrorism, many Americans and other citizens of the world found governmental explanations for precipitate U.S. military actions to be of doubtful authenticity and perhaps indicative of some hidden agenda. Heinberg's book helps understand what the basis of this hidden agenda is, and his book underscores the fact that this is not a temporary situation, but tied to the ultimate depletion of oil as a usable resource for the "energizing" of human industry and societies.

This book will be a bellweather book for the understanding of America's place in the world, and humanity's prospects for continued prosperity on a rapidly changing planet. It would be impossible to overemphasize the importance of this book.

This is one of the best books on peak oil and the consequences to come that I have read. Heinberg goes into considerable detail not only delineating the rise of industrial societies based on fossil fuel riches (the "treasure found in the basement," is how he phrases it), but on what is going to happen when the oil is gone. A couple of other good books are Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak (2005) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes and The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century (2005) by James Howard Kunstler. Kunstler in particular is in close agreement with Heinberg. For a different point of view--and an amazingly pollyannaish one in my opinion--see The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005) by Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills.

When the party animals go out at night they think not of the morrow or of the headache to come. This is Heinberg's analogy except the consequences of the binge will be quite a bit worse than a headache. Note well the subtitle: "the Fate of Industrial Societies."

Heinberg hints at some possible political consequences as the oil patch begins to run dry. He notes that young people "will see evidence of the extravagant party their elders have thrown, while for themselves there will be only dregs left over." (p. 209) They may take a sharp turn to the left (as historically happens during times of stress or deprivation), and "in wealthier countries (such as the US) may be branded as traitors to the cause of maintaining their nation's unequal control of global resources." (p. 207) I believe there is already evidence of this as Bush tries to discredit his critics.

But can it really happen that industrial society will collapse when the oil is gone? Can it really be the case that there will be horrific wars over the remaining oil in the ground? Is it true that there is no substitute for the black gold, no energy source that comes close to replacing it?

These are questions that Heinberg addresses and addresses well. His conclusions are largely pessimistic, but I am not sure he is right. The slide down from Hubbert's peak may be gradual and give us time to make the switch from oil to something else. But what might that something else be? Heinberg, as other authors have done, goes through the list of possible alternatives--coal, natural gas, hydrogen, nuclear, renewables like wind, solar and biomass, etc., and comes to the dreary conclusion that economically-speaking, nothing can come close to replacing oil.

One of the chilling ideas he expresses is that the current "Industrial Age" or "Petroleum Era," now little more than two centuries old, is really just an "Industrial Bubble"; and as soon as the cheap energy is gone, humankind will revert to a pre-industrial way of life. Without the treasure trove of oil and all that it provides--not just fuel, but plastics and fertilizers, paved roads, and a myriad of other products--the planet will no longer be able to support the present population of six billion plus. Heinberg believes that a sustainable human population without oil will be closer to two billion.

The least that will happen is that we will undergo a reduction in our standard of living based on the fact that whatever replaces oil will be more expensive. Conservation on a level currently unthinkable will also be required. We can all kiss our SUVs goodbye, and ask ourselves the really relevant question: how do you spell b-i-c-y-c-l-e?

The point I want to make is that we can spell bicycle, and indeed it is not necessarily true that we clever humans are going to stand by and let our societies collapse and inflict a lot of pain on ourselves. My belief is that the transition to a planet on which there are fewer people living in a less energy-intensive way than is currently the case, especially in the United States, can be relatively painless and actually something to look forward to. Heinberg makes a similar point about the human value of returning to a more agrarian, less competitive way of life. But a smooth transition will require a complete re-education of society, especially of those in positions of power, corporate heads and government leaders. A public works project greater than any the world has ever seen will be required. Conservation and the use of a variety of energy sources will be required. Careful planning and cooperation will be necessary. Finally, we who have been taught to conspicuously consume will have to change our ways. Heinberg observes that "people currently have to be coaxed and cajoled from cradle to grave by expensive advertising to consume... If the message of this incessant propaganda stream were simply reversed, people could probably be persuaded to happily make do with less." (p. 182)

Right now our government is intent on securing access to what remains of the world's oil instead of working toward the inevitable time of no oil. This short-sightedness is dangerous and if we don't elect leaders who will address the problem and work toward solutions, the dire consequences spun out by Heinberg, Kunstler and others will surely come to pass. Every day that goes by with us mired in this Neanderthal mind-set increases the probability of famine, war, pestilence and brutal poverty for our children and grandchildren. If we don't act now, our legacy may very well be a return to something resembling the Stone Age.

By the way, be sure to get this, the 2nd Edition of "The Party's Over" from 2005, and not the first edition from 2003. Heinberg has revised and updated the book to take into account the invasion of Iraq and other recent developments.

The Party's Over is a good book to start with if you want a basic understanding about the Peak Oil energy discussion. It provides an holistic overview of the situation, how we got to it, and what some of the possible solutions are and possible scenarios that may result from it. I would recommend reading Hubbert's Peak before you read this book. I would also recommend you read Mr. Heinberg's follow up book: Power Down after you read The Party's Over. Also, if you are serious about informing yourself, read everything you can about Peak Oil before making up your mind about anything.

If you are an experienced reader you will understand that Mr. Heinberg, like all authors, is not immune to having his own biases or personal political slants. And like all authors he can't eliminate it all from his writing. But that job of sifting and sorting has always really been that of the reader. So, ignore the critics who criticize this book because of political slants, etc. Whatever his political views are they do not detract from his basic arguments. His arguments are well-supported. He has extensive note and references. Also, ignore the critics who say the book is boring. The organization is clear and quite linear making it possible to grasp the basic concepts of a very complex and multi-dimensional subject.

On average I read about 6-7 serious non-fiction books a month and in my opinion The Party's Over is the most important book I have read in some time. I think every person on the planet, but especially Americans should read this book if they want to understand the world situation and why it is the way it is. Whether or not you like what he has to say, whether or not you agree with what he has to say, whether or not you believe what he has to say is not the point. The point is that he has some very thought provoking analysis that if nothing else will make you think. And in my experience thinking rationally and analytically never hurt anyone.

This is the most elegant book yet written to summarize work by others on the upcoming powerdown as the peak rate of oil depletion is reached. With impressive economy, the author summarizes: ecological insights into overshoot of carrying capacity (mostly from Catton's Overshoot), the collapse of complex societies (Tainter), the important observation that the constraints leading to peak extraction result from the decreasing "energy profit" of this futile treadmill (mostly from Gever et al's Beyond Oil), and that US natural gas extraction is probably at peak now with acute shortages and price jumps just ahead (see High Noon for Natural Gas). The author looks at other energy sources, noting e.g. the low profit of US coal, waste issues with nuclear power, and the controversial energy profit ratio of solar PV. He is rightly dismissive that most of these can be scaled to replace the many uses of declining oil, but his points are often superficial and easily rebutted by expert proponents of technical fixes (e.g. Megawatts & Magatons for nuclear fission). He is very good on the comprehensive impact of oil depletion. His discussion of fusion is outdated: Inertial Fusion Energy may be poised for a breakthrough in the next decade. He finishes with a watered down list of "things you can do" to prepare your community and your family for powerdown (he expands on these in his newer book Powerdown). Based on energy consumption, the best bet is to live where a car is unnecessary. He says "learn to grow your own food", but you'll need to read elsewhere how hard that is. There is nothing on energy efficiency and passive solar housing. This last section is written with more optimism than the rest of the book, much as Deffeyes did in his Hubbert's Peak. Presumably, this is to avoid a "survivalist" viewpoint. Overall, this book is not going to change skeptical minds because it is devoid of numerical arguments that, e.g. would show how small the over-hyped "hydrogen economy" will be. But it will get people to think and to explore online where the supporting evidence is overwhelming. I doubt that powerdown can be adopted as a successful political agenda; too many blowhards. There has to be a grass-roots shift off the consumer treadmill to crash the unsustainable, "limitless" global economy. The author echoes Klare's Resource Wars, making it clear that the sooner we recognize the resource basis for global turmoil, the better the slim odds that we won't pursue endless wars against "terrorists" who just happen to live atop the fuels we crave.

Once upon a time there was an oil crisis. That was the 1970s. Then oil prices went down, availability seemed assured, and so it was thought the crisis was solved. But of course oil is non-renewable, so this was just wishful thinking -- whistling in the dark. Now 9/11 has woken some of us back up to the reality of our situation -- metaphorically hurtling toward a cliff at an accelerating velocity.

The guts of Heinberg's presentation is a summary of the projections of the oil geologists. Following Hubbert, they use the best information on reserves to estimate the global peak for oil some time in the next few years, probably by 2010. Some see this as alarmist (see my review of Vaitheeswaran's Power to the People), but the mainstream estimate is only a decade further off, at 2020. The world is going to become an uglier place than it already is after Hubbert's Peak -- prices will go up, and wars for control of oil and gas (ie, Afghanistan, Iraq) will certainly intensify as the demand is still increasing exponentially both in the rich countries and the industrializing countries such as China and India.

So what do we do? Heinberg does not flinch from a hard-headed examination of the limited options. He applies a physics analysis of EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) to such possibilities as solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, nuclear and others. His conclusion is that there is currently nothing that is likely to make energy available at nearly the same EROEI as oil and gas once they run out. A tragic "what might have been" is his observation that if we had taken concerted action beginning in the 1970s, we might have had time to use the remaining fossul fuels to fuel the building of a renewable solar/hydrogen infrastructure that would have made possible in principle a long, prosperous, ecologically sustainable, civilized planet. It may well be too late.

This is no reason not to try, though. In the best-case scenario, there's no collapse and we minimize global warming by shifting to renewable energy. And better than the worst-case crash scenario is to urgently develop renewable energy, thus providing some cushioning for the crash that will come as we run out of oil. Reducing the size of a huge neomalthusian catastrophe (measured in millions or hundreds of millions of people dead, and ecosystems and species lost) may not seem like much of a choice, but it may be all we've got. CARPE DIEM!

See my list THE CLEAN/RENEWABLE ENERGY REVOLUTION for much more on the issues of oil and energy. Political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon's THE UPSIDE OF DOWN: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization is a superb update on Heinberg's analysis.

Of the five "Peak Oil" genre books I've read so far, this one is the best. The author considers various consequences and scenarios for the post "Peak Oil" world, and does a thoughtful and sobering job of it. He flirts a bit with the "die-off" school of thought, which suggests that the world's population is going to be drastically reduced after peak oil has hit. (Let's pray that it isn't.) Whether or not you agree with Mr. Heinberg, this book will help you think through the implications of the down-side of Hubbert's curve, and make you ponder dozens of actions you might take to prepare for it. By the way, there's a really fantastic, hard to get, DVD called, the "End of Suburbia" that some Canadians put together that has some spine-tingling interviews with numerous "Peak Oil" authors (including this one) that you should buy if you're interested in the subject.

Notice how almost all of the criticism of the book is not directed at what is said in the book but at some doomsayers from 30 or so years ago. Since the 1970's technology has given us a much better handle on what we have in the ground. We know from such innovations as 3-D seismic mapping that only 40% of the world's land and oceans have any potential for oil discovery and that there is a 50% chance that less than 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil are in this 40%. This is something we had no clue about before the 1990's. As technology has enabled us to become more efficient at extracting the oil we know we have, it has ominously showed us how little is actually left. Heinberg's greatest success is in showing how the energy returned must exceed the energy spent when analyzing a source of energy. Hence it does not matter how cheap all these renewables get. Since oil is needed to build solar panels and ethanol plants and nuclear plants, we will not have enough cheap oil to upgrade the infrastructure in time to prevent a collapse.