I say good, I don't like paying higher fuel costs but it seems to be what is required for people to make wiser vehicle choices.

I'm glad Jim Kunsler is so far ahead of the market. He must be making a killing out there with this "inside information" that's not already built into oil futures pricing. Seriously, at least Matt Simmons has some credibility on this issue. Kunsler should stick to talking about urban planning.

I honestly don't understand what Kunstler adds to the peak oil discussion.

JHK doesn't add anything to the "Peak Oil" discussion. He knows little, but writes well. He's actually dead wrong on the "we're running out of oil" bullshit. I heard a lecture by Daniel Kamen, Dir. of Energy Efficiency (or some such) @ UC berkeley. He explained that while it is True that we're approaching "Peak Oil", that is only the peak of the oil that costs $1/barrel to get to market. There's 17-20 times the amount of that in the ground in oil that costs $15/barrel to get to market. In fact, there's more of this stuff in the ground in Canada, than oil left in Saudi Arabia. But this incorrect bullshit is being promulgated for political & other reasons. (Yes, I drive a hybrid, but that doesn't make JHK's hysteria scientifically based.)

btw, if you guys want to discuss peak oil with a bunch of people who (mostly) know what they are talking about, check out http://www.theoildrum.com/

So does that mean Matthew Simmons, who says much the same (see post further down) is a wackjob too?

Carl: No, actually, I think Simmons adds a great deal to the Peak Oil discussion. What bothers me about Kunstler is that his writing is typically NOT about peak oil at all--it's about hip hop and gluttony and McMansions and cultural phenomena he believes signify how things "ought not to be what they have become." I'm not saying that his perspectives aren't, to a certain degree, valid--just that I don't think his approach is ever going to lend credibility to the discussion. No one would ever accuse Simmons of sugar-coating, but Kunstler makes the Peak Oil pill incredibly hard to swallow. I wish he would focus his considerable writing and observational powers on articulating the problems, stating the research, and offering solutions (even if he thinks they aren't likely to "fix" things). We need to hear from visionaries, not snarky sideline commentators.

To Mer: when you talk about the "pill" that is hard to swallow, you remind me of a spoiled American housewife living in one of those McMansions, who is deciding which anti-migraine pill appeals more to tastes, whether she should swallow this one or that one, or perhaps none at all.
It's not a "pill" that you will have to swallow, Mer. The American Empire is very likely to undergo a dramatic structural change, whether some people like it, or not. Markets, as 1929 has shown can only deal with equilibrium states, and with smooth transitions. They are unable to deal with discontinuities. Oil is a finite resource, and whether Hubbert's or Simmons dates are accurate or not, it will happen, and the society will be of course unprepared.

I just jumped to this thread from a later entry and saw sutrostyle's reply to my comment. Although I doubt anyone will ever read this, I'd like to say that I think he completely missed my point. Sutrostyle, your comment about market behavior is well-taken, but what I'm trying to say is that Kunstler is not adding to the peak oil debate--NOT that peak oil doesn't exist. Peak oil is about hard science. It is about facts. Kunstler's writing is cultural criticism--and not even rigorously researched cultural criticism at that. He has opinions about what is and what "ought" to be (natural fallacy 101), and while he's entitled to them, I will never look to him for insight on peak oil issues. If you want to accuse me of being a migraine-prone suburban housewife, fine (it's a truly hilarious accusation), but at least respond to the comment I'm making instead of standing on your soapbox and spewing forth unmotivated nonsense.