Peak Oil Matters

{A reminder to my readers: I was down South recently to set up my daughter for her senior year of college, and next week we travel to New York for several days to set up our other daughter for her sophomore year. We’ll return at the end of next week just long enough to get ready for a ten day vacation, so it’s entirely possible that this will be my last post until after Labor Day. Thanks for your patience and continuing interest!}

I’ve written on several occasions (see this recent post, for example) about the difficulties we’ll face in transitioning from our fossil fuel-based way of life to “something else” … that something else not yet certain. To that end, some recent articles (links provided at the end of this post) address this same issue by pointing out some of the more precise difficulties we’ll be encountering as we attempt to transition away from our fossil fuel-dependent economic and personal lifestyles. As it stands now, there is no effective and clear-cut choice for Plan B, and thus the problem.

“The time for smooth, convenient solutions was decades ago, when scientists first began to raise the alarm about the greenhouse effect and peak oil, and the twin approaching disasters of a changing climate and an energy crunch. By now, the most we can do, and the least we have to, is to scramble however we can. Yes, even during a global recession, and even during the next ones. If you think upgrading the energy foundations of a planetary civilization is hard during an economic recession, imagine how hard it’ll be with a fraction of the energy available, and climate-related disruptions erupting everywhere.

“We need to make extraordinary advances in energy sources, and we have to do if fast, or, to put it simply, the 22nd century will look like the 17th. We need to constrain our use of fossil fuels as much as possible….We are in this fix because a few short decades ago we did nothing. If we do nothing, or even if we just don’t do enough, the fix we’re going to be a few short decades from now will be much, much worse.” [1]

Despite the occasional nincompoop who insists that our supply of oil is infinite, the truth is that oil is a geologically finite resource (as are the other fossil fuels), and increasingly harder to come by. I and many others have posted frequently explaining this basic fact which some still seem incapable of accepting.

(It doesn’t help when others offer truly fanciful assessments about the remaining reserves of oil and gas. Saudi Aramco President and CEO Khalid A. Al-Falih was recently quoted as having said that we can still expect to have available between 6 and 8 trillion barrels of conventional oil and natural gas liquids and about 7 trillion barrels of unconventional oil. [2] Not exactly the most objective source of information….I’m guessing that pixie dust is also in ample supply for those making such assessments.)

Just last week, Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency’s chief economist, once again expressed his concerns about the future availability of oil:

“The era of cheap oil is over. Each barrel oil that will come to market in the future will be much more difficult to produce and therefore more expensive. We all – governments, industry and consumers – should carefully choose the type of car we want to buy in the future and should be prepared for oil prices being much higher than several years ago.” [3]

In its simplest terms, this acknowledgement is a clear recognition that at some point in the not-too-distant future (and we’re past the point where it matters that that date may be next week, three years, or fifteen years from now; we’re too late to effect a painless transition away from oil), we are going to have to endure the disruptions, changes, and yes, the hardships of not having enough fossil fuels at the ready to meet our demands and expectations. We can hope that the changes in business practices, industrial production, and personal lifestyles will be effortless, but that will likely remain just that: a hope.

As the authors of the articles mentioned above explained, history is such that the transition from one dominant source/supply of energy to another is not a simple or easy process. It is a multi-decades long effort, as not only must the supporting infrastructure (transport modes, utilities, public services, etc.) be changed or adapted to new energy sources, so too must industry revise what goods and services it produces—and how. And then, the end users must be willing to accept what is then offered in the market place, necessitating that they in turn then adapt their own lifestyles to these “new” products and services. That’s going to take a good long while.

So too must we recognize the fact that effecting the transition from fossil fuels to whatever alternatives ultimately prove to be the most efficient and cost effective (we’re still waiting on that) will itself require massive amounts of fossil fuels in order to create, build, produce, and then supply into the marketplace the new infrastructure and products fashioned from some other energy source.

Perhaps the key stumbling block remains as yet unresolved: no alternative source of energy has yet proven to be as efficient, effective, readily available, or commercially viable as oil. Anything else will thus be … less, and more expensive.

So what’s the solution?

“Now, all sides are counting on a Green Economy: it seems that we all just have to firmly believe that researchers and engineers worldwide will develop alternative energies into marketable products that are similarly fungible as crude oil at precisely the right time; in this way people in the old industrialized countries would not have to abandon their lifestyles, and the middle classes in the newly industrializing countries would not have to give up their hope of comparable prosperity.” [4]

Good luck to all of us!

We may very well (and I hope we do) develop alternative sources of energy that prove to be perfectly capable of meeting our future demands, but those who are counting on that as a given are taking enormous chances.

Hoping is not the strategy we should be relying on.

Sources:

[1] http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi2010725 – Peak Oil and Climate Change: Between Too Soon and Not Soon Enough by Marcelo Rinesi
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/42230/20100810/petroleum-oil-energy-reserves-peak-oil-aramco-reserves-oil-futures.htm
[3] http://www.energybulletin.net/53805 – IEA: ‘Cheap oil is over’ as demand approaches new record by Matthew Wild
[4] http://peakoil.com/generalideas/peak-oil-yet-another-inconvenient-truth-2/ – Peak Oil – yet another Inconvenient Truth by Dr. Jürgen Wiemann

Links on energy transition referenced above:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/4964/Wood-to-Coal-to-Oil-to-Natural-Gas-and-Nuclear–The-Slow-Pace-of-Energy-Transitions – Wood to Coal to Oil to Natural Gas and Nuclear : The Slow Pace of Energy Transitions By Robert Bryce

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/329/5993/780 – Do We Have the Energy for the Next Transition? Richard A. Kerr

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6743#more – Lloyd’s ‘Sustainable Energy Security’ White Paper – Some hits; some misses by Gail the Actuary

“China is still going to run circles around us. Policymaking by the political process is no match for a command economy. To cite just a few examples: The U.S. has committed a total of $13 billion to rail development, while China is already building a $556 billion high speed rail system that will link all of their major cities in five years. The U.S. has no energy plan, while China is embarking on a $740 billion comprehensive energy plan to see them into the future, with vigorous support for renewables. China is on track to do more about its future emissions than the U.S., even while it has just surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest consumer of energy.

“It’s time to rethink our strategy. We would do well to follow China’s model. Instead of taking a political approach, circling the wagons around the eco-warrior camp and battling the fossil fuel industry, we should be developing a serious energy plan based on science, encompassing all forms of energy, to unite all parties in an unreserved commitment to the great task of energy transition. Because oil depletion is relentless, time is running out, competition for fuels is only increasing, and we’re the most vulnerable player at the table” [1]

I mentioned in my last post that we’re going to need an energy policy—courtesy of our federal government. That is not to say that business and industry has no role. Quite the opposite: once the policy and strategies are in place, business and industry will be the vital cogs in carrying out those plans. We will have no choice but to let loose the capabilities of the market to do all it can to effect change. This is definitely not an either-or situation.

But at the risk of stating the very obvious, with no national policy to guide us, we’re going to have 500 businesses and industries charging off in 500 different directions, each with their own notions and agendas. Pretty certain that that approach won’t work. Let’s be clear that this is going to be two-pronged approach (three if you count the fact that citizens everywhere will have a role to play and a responsibility to fulfill; we/they cannot be sitting on the sidelines waiting for others “out there” to do what’s necessary).

And if we are going to have a national policy, we’re going to have to have an activist government that speaks with one voice. That is going to take some doing! I’ve been following politics for more than three decades, and I have never seen it this polarized, nor have I seen so much nonsense masquerading as truth passed among us. That will have to change.

What this all means is that the strategy of “no” and denial no longer has a role to play in the dialogue. We’re getting too close to the point where changes are going to be imposed, and while we may very well still have 10, 15, 25 years of crude oil available to us, we also need 10, 15, 25, or more years to effect a transition away from fossil fuels into an economy and infrastructure dependent on something other than crude oil and fossil fuels. Even the most wildly optimistic among us recognize what a potential long shot we now face.

And if this is all seemingly impossible to implement, the bonus is that we’re going to be doing all of this with a steadily declining supply of fossil fuels available— not just to implement the transitions and all that that entails, but also to use for our every day personal and business needs and wants. And just to make this all even more interesting, let’s not forget that billions more around the world will be looking to do the same. (An aside of considerable note: the United States is no longer the world’s leading energy consumer. China is now the world leader. We cannot afford to ignore the ramifications.)

The math doesn’t work at these levels.

Panic is an option, but as with denial and just saying no, it’s not especially beneficial, assuming we’re interested in any semblance of a prosperous future.

The great thing about our nation is the wealth of opportunities it affords all of us, even in the midst of the twin challenges of Peak Oil and global warming (and let’s not forget the Great Recession). But with the choices afforded us comes responsibility for dealing with what those pursuits will bring. If we continue to choose to do nothing, or deny, or pretend, or just simply remain ignorant of the evidence and truth about Peak Oil and the problems of a warming planet (damn those facts!), the consequences will also be our responsibility.

Anyone who thinks that those strategies are the best choices right now should plan some time for careful and serious reflection.

What we may need most of all is courage. Courage from our leaders (in both parties) to first admit to the truth and then convey those facts to us honestly. The time to deny or “refudiate” for sheer political or electoral gain has passed. We cannot afford politics as usual. Leadership is needed to not just tell us the facts we don’t want to hear. Leadership then requires setting aside idealistic differences and recognizing instead that party affiliation and a philosophy about the role or non-role of government has no place in the dialogues we need to engage in. These challenges are bigger than that.

We also need courage from the media to report the facts and the truth and to call out once and for all those who disseminate disingenuous information and outright lies for political or self-serving gain. The levels of outright meanness and an utter disregard for anything remotely resembling integrity must be loosed from public discourse once and for all. Right-wing messengers will suffer the effects of Peak Oil and global warming every bit as much as the most ardent tree-hugging liberal.

The narrow-minded philosophy about limited government and the occasionally insane rantings about socialism and conspiracies and a president born on Mars and what-have-you need to be left in the dark. They confuse and lead astray those most in need of the honest expression of facts. We cannot afford those strategies any longer. That time has come and gone, so those who choose to continue to engage in these mindless games for reasons they probably cannot clearly articulate either must find common ground with the truth. We’ll have enough fear to contend with as it is. Let’s not add fuel to those fires with political lunacy that enflames but does not inform or educate—or help.

Most of all, and what may ultimately be the most difficult part (and at the same time serves as the singular tipping point that determines our long-term successes, or failure): we need to summon our own courage. We need to understand that we are at a defining moment in the course of our progress as a nation and yes, at the risk of over-drama, our civilization. We need to buck up and recognize that each and every one of us is going to experience disruptions in the years to come. The fact that these disruptions aren’t likely to be felt any time “soon” is irrelevant at this point. We need to start thinking beyond next Wednesday.

No one is running out of oil tomorrow or next week or next month or even five years from now. Earth is not reaching the boiling point any time soon, either. But the evolution of those problems and the consequences arising from their steady march will grow more impactful every day. Soon enough there will come a point of no turning back: we will have either begun the process of undertaking the massive changes needed to carry on without fossil fuels while staving off inescapable damage of an ever-warming planet, or we can stand by helplessly and watch our children and grandchildren suffer the ravages of our ignorance and neglect.

Sacrifice will also be required of all of us. No one wants that. That’s a given. However, we’re not going to have much of a choice. So the sooner our leaders, at our behest, begin to set aside the nonsense they toss across the aisles and engage in meaningful dialogue about the future of our economy, our nation, and the world at large, the better our chances of finding our way to lives of meaning and success and yes, prosperity—different though the definitions may be.

We’re in the first inning of a very, very different game now. The rules have changed, and how we “play” must change as well. Understanding must come soon.

{Note to my readers: A death in the family last week took me out of town and thus curtailed my posting activity, and now a family vacation with members from out of state makes it likely that this will be my only post of this week. Thanks for your patience; I’ll be back by the middle of next week.}

Sources:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-nelder/beyond-carbon-legislation_b_657495.html – Beyond Carbon Legislation: Energy Transition by Chris Nelder; July 26, 2010

I’ll follow-up my last post by starting with two truths that (I hope) seem beyond rational dispute:

* “If the ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico tells us anything, it is that we need a new national energy policy—a comprehensive plan for escaping our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels and creating a new energy system based on climate-safe alternatives. Without such a plan, the response to the disaster will be a hodgepodge of regulatory reforms and toughened environmental safeguards but not a fundamental shift in behavior. Because our current energy path leads toward greater reliance on fuels acquired from environmentally and politically hazardous locations, no amount of enhanced oversight or stiffened regulations can avert future disasters like that unfolding in the gulf. Only a dramatic change in course—governed by an entirely new policy framework—can reduce the risk of catastrophe and set the nation on a wise energy trajectory.” [1]

* “[I]nfrastructure is really about the quality of life we want for ourselves, our families and our communities. It affects our lives each day.
“It’s the roads and bridges we drive on, the schools we learn in, the trains we ride on, the water we drink. It’s the energy grid that powers our TVs and refrigerators and the dams and levees that protect us. Like the skeleton in our bodies, it is the framework that every other important thing is built on.
“Without a strong and vibrant infrastructure, our nation will fall behind our competitors in productivity — and lose the high quality of life Americans have enjoyed for decades.” [2]

Michael T. Klare’s excellent discussion about the need for a new energy policy dovetails nicely with those of us concerned that we’re soon going to be faced with the problems and challenges of Peak Oil (oil production and supply no longer being unable to match oil demand). We’re going to have to figure out how to make do with something else. Unfortunately, for all the talk of alternative energy, something else doesn’t exist yet … at least not in sufficient quantities or adequate scale to even come close to enabling us to make effortless and consequence-free transitions away from fossil-fuel-based economic growth and industrial production. That’s a decades-long project under the best of circumstances.

Governor Ed Rendell has been an ardent and tireless advocate of infrastructure spending, and he is absolutely correct in his assessment about the importance of adequate and capable infrastructure. (The fact that this op-ed piece was co-written with Senator James Inhofe—the very same right-wing Senator Inhofe who has indicated that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”—is more than a bit surprising, but give credit where credit is due. Let’s hope that the good Senator understands that this requires that government play a key role. The money and planning for infrastructure investment is not going to come from the marketplace.)

The problem is clear but hardly a simple one: How do we match the need for a new energy policy that will enable us to continue to grow our economy and expand opportunities for all with the fact that we have no infrastructure in place to support that growth with anything other than fossil fuels as the engine? Spending countless tens of billions of dollars on roadway improvement or bridge repair or sewer renovations (while using lots of fossil fuels in the process) are perfectly appropriate expenditures if we are looking to boost demand, create jobs, and solidify the foundations that enable us to grow and prosper.

But those specific kinds of expenditures may very well lead us on roads to nowhere. We cannot—we must not—expect that in the coming decades we will have the same lifestyles or enjoy the same products and services; the same suburban environments; the same industries; the same modes of transportation, and the same lots of other things for one simple reason: we are not going to have the quantities, affordability, and availability of fossil fuels that would continue to make those things possible as they presently exist.

Something else is needed.

I despair for our future only because I am concerned that we might not appreciate the collective national will or understanding needed to truly grasp and accept what is at stake. The disingenuous and occasionally misleading commentary that passes for facts, the pettiness, the idiotic ideas proffered by some, and the complete relinquishment of intellectual curiosity by far too many to the loudest, most narrow-minded and uninformed rantings of “leaders” and celebrities makes me question whether or not we will ever do anything more than advance in thousands of self-serving, incrementally small steps that will ultimately be of no benefit to any of us.

I worry that we lack the boldness of vision to recognize what we have to do and the opportunities we’re being presented with. I worry about what we stand to lose, and I wonder too often if we truly understand what we all need to do to at least try and provide ourselves with the best chances for prosperity in the years to come. Doing more of the same simply is not going to be an option for much longer.

We need to think beyond the next election cycle, and I am not convinced yet that enough of us are willing to do so. Our (and not always inappropriate or incorrect) selfish concerns for getting what we need—consequences-be-damned—stands solidly in the way of formulating and then implementing the plans we’re going to have to take in order to effectively move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and provide new foundations for future prosperity. (And let’s not forget that we will almost certainly find ourselves defining “prosperity” differently than we ever have. “Growth” is likely to take on a different hue as well.)

We lack courage. Or perhaps more accurately, we don’t know that we have the courage we need, and so we shy away from taking the big and bold steps that will be the only way to preserve some semblance of the lifestyles and industries and economic prosperity we believe is our birthright. And we will have to display that courage in the face of billions of others who want what we’ve had, as we’ve had it. There’s no way to satisfy all those demands and expectations if we continue on our present course.

Pretend otherwise or deny all you want if that is your inclination, but the facts about oil production are facts. The world has been using more oil than it’s been finding for forty years. There are no economics double-speak or market-based rationales that can spin that away. No one is hiding vast quantities of readily available and inexpensive oil anywhere. Before too long, and certainly well before we have put into place any solutions on national or international scales even remotely adequate to deal with the problems of Peak Oil, we’re going to be dealing with the reality of Peak Oil and its impact on almost everything we do.

So what do we do? What got us here will not get us there.

The truth, painful as it is, is that there are no perfect solutions and no guarantees about the ones we ultimately employ. We are in an era of great uncertainty, and we are going to have to each summon the courage to move beyond our comfort zones and understand that our expectations and desires to have life return to the heady and prosperous days of the recent past (however poorly created that prosperity may have been) are sure to meet with great disappointment. Things are going to be different; not necessarily bad, but surely different.

An added challenge will be trying to get several hundred million people here and many billions more elsewhere—billions who have witnessed the American dream from afar for decades and now want a piece of that for themselves—to understand this as well. Dashing their hopes and dreams before they can be reached is no easy or pleasant task. They will not acquiesce quietly. (And ask any billion of these people what we all need to do and we’re likely to come up with somewhere around 825 million different responses.)

We have our work cut out for ourselves.

We have opportunities, but no guarantees. So do we continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good? Do we wait for some fanciful perfect idea to solve the problems of declining oil production? Are we just days away from magic technology coming to the rescue? Are our geologists and oil explorers suddenly about to realize that they forgot to look at a huge chunk of this planet for oil? Do we play on misguided and narrow-minded fears perpetuated by some for reasons and benefits unclear at least to me, and regardless of the long term costs to others? Can we continue to afford to ignore the facts (and costs) surrounding the production of unconventional oil and the likelihood that this can solve our problems? Are we ready to move on from (or forget) the Gulf of Mexico tragedy and keep our fingers and toes crossed that that won’t happen again?

Do we continue to think in a nation of several hundred million people facing all the challenges we currently face and the ones we will confront in the near future, that we can all go it alone without the essential assistance of government? Do we really think that the unfettered “market” is the answer? Have we forgotten that much already? The financial collapse in 2008 and its preceding causes are not that far removed from us.

The costs to effect a meaningful transition are probably as close to incomprehensible as can be imagined right now. Trillions is a good bet. I’m not unmindful of the opposition to more government spending. Unfortunately, the arguments of some on the Right are less than truthful at best, but I respect the philosophy behind it, even if I completely disagree. I’m a firm believer that we need more stimulus money, and deficits (at least for now) be damned. Not a perfect solution by any stretch; but on balance I think this is the “better” option. (For an excellent and to- the-point discussion about public spending v. deficit reduction, see this.)

We are all in this together: advocates, deniers, and the vast in-between who don’t have enough information or concern to know which way to turn. And as much as it may chafe some who are disposed by knee-jerk reaction to condemn the possibilities of government for the good (and to be fair, not always without reason), any hopes of digging ourselves out of this economic mess and dealing with the looming challenges of Peak Oil on our own are a waste of time. Solutions are going to have to come from all quarters, and many can only find voice and implementation at the hands of our government and national policies and strategies.

In the end, I think the only question that’s going to matter is: what other choice do we have? Plans and changes on the scale and scope necessary can only be effectively produced at the national level. Five thousand individual plans won’t work, and anything less than a comprehensive plan to overhaul our fossil fuel-based energy and industrial infrastructures is destined to come up short. The transition required can only take years, if not decades. We simply cannot wait until every last denier is convinced by the facts before we start. We have to develop and implement new strategies for energy production and economic growth while there is still sufficient fossil fuel capacity to assist us. To try and effect the changes leading to a different infrastructure and different economy no longer supported by fossil fuel will itself require massive amounts of declining oil supplies. Waiting is only going to make the efforts that much more difficult, if that’s even possible to imagine.

So do we decide once and for all that in this environment—with so many hundreds of millions soon to be competing for a shrinking supply of essential fossil fuels, with millions now suffering from this great economic upheaval we’re mired in, and with looming energy challenges left and right—we had better start thinking a lot more long term than the November elections and boneheaded short term “solutions” or ideas that play to fears and ignorance more than to long term benefit?

This is not a fun topic to cover. Every time a Peak Oil advocate writes or speaks about the challenges we face, a delicate balance must be struck between providing useful, positive information, and an inclination to run screaming into the night. Fear is rarely an effective motivator, but if we do not come to understand the breadth and depth of Peak Oil’s impact on all our activities, we’ll be left with a lot of fear and panic we could have avoided by summoning our best collective efforts to start addressing the problems now … before they overwhelm us.

That’s a choice … and opportunity.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/37529/clean-green-safe-and-smart; Clean, Green, Safe and Smart – Michael T. Klare | July 15, 2010

[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39894.html; Expand investment in infrastructure By: Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Jim Inhofe, July 19, 2010

We are so woefully ill-prepared….

“[S]ix in ten surveyed by Pew believe that the economic situation will be better soon and that the recession is only temporary. This alone vividly illustrates how poorly the true state of the global economic situation is understood and the size of the shock that most of us are in for.
“Nearly everyone will admit that continuing oil shortages and that high (above $100 a barrel) oil prices would be devastating to the prospects for economic recovery and that persisting very high (say above $200 a barrel) oil prices would send the U.S. and many other economies into a deep, long-lasting depression. The problem is that few are willing to consider seriously the accumulating evidence that increasing oil prices and eventually oil shortages within the next few years are as inevitable as the sunrise. Most of us have no thoughts about the issue other than the current price of a gallon of gas. Among those who appreciate that the world’s petroleum resources are finite, few understand the proximity of the crisis.” [1]

Michael Lind, whose recent article on transportation I criticized in a prior post, has written a new piece arguing for public investment in our nation’s infrastructure (highways, water and sewer systems, power/electric grid, etc.). His is only one of many recent articles (including several of my own, beginning with this one) on the importance of infrastructure spending and revitalization. (See this also.) As I usually do with Mr. Lind’s opinions—recent post aside—I agree with his premise, but with caveats:

“If neither foreign private demand nor foreign public demand can compensate for the loss of American private domestic demand, then the only possible source of increased demand for American goods and services that remains is public domestic demand. American government at all levels may need to provide much of the missing demand for American businesses and labor, for the decade or longer that is needed for private sector deleveraging in the aftermath of America’s asset bubble.
“To avoid competing with private enterprise, the government should produce public goods that increase overall productivity and that the private sector has no incentive to provide, in good times or bad, such as infrastructure and social services like policing, health care, education and care for the young and old. In addition to mobilizing idle resources and labor directly, both infrastructure and public service spending could help business in general by boosting the purchasing power of Americans who are now unemployed.”

There are enough studies showing the many benefits of infrastructure spending, so regardless of what type of infrastructure expenditures are eventually made, they will serve to create jobs, enhance demand, and provide a boost to our economy.

The mindless objections to government spending in this day and age, while serving short term political interests (and even that is dubious) can only harm us long term. We cannot continue to do what we’ve always done … we’ll just get more of what we’ve gotten so far. That won’t cut it anymore. What has gotten us here won’t work in the years to come in the face of declining fossil fuel availability, and there is almost nothing on the books to suggest that we have any plans in place to deal with the disruptions declining oil supplies will create. That’s a big problem all by itself.

Another problem that has been expressed is that in the aftermath of this Great Recession, and with the onset of Peak Oil, we may very well never enjoy again the type of growth we’ve come to expect. As Kurt Cobb noted nearly five years ago:

“The hardest sell to any audience is that there is a chance for us to chart a course to sustainability, but that it will take a lot of work at every level: individual, household, municipal, state, federal and even international. And, by the way, when we get there all of us will have considerably less material wealth than we do today.” [2]

Our sense of entitlement is about to be shaken in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. Subtle and not-so-subtle shifts in how we live our daily lives and how our economy functions will become apparent, mostly (at least initially) to our dismay. Things are going to change, and not usually for the better—at least not right away (and I’m trying hard to be as optimistic as I can). Ducking responsibility, hoping otherwise, or just avoiding the issue entirely are not our best options.

A related issue that deserves serious consideration as well is that with the decline in oil production and decreasing availability looming, we’re going to need different strategies and a different vision for what “growth” will mean. That is going to require a different infrastructure. Relying on the fossil fuel-derived one won’t serve us when we have to depend on and use something other than fossil fuels to power and support our economy and industry.

Any infrastructure spending going forward must be targeted more carefully and clearly to help us move to industry and growth beyond and without fossil fuels. Repairing or even just maintaining what we have may turn out to be a monumentally foolish way of time, effort, and money. I quite frankly do not know if we are capable of creating and implementing plans on a large enough scale to do all that needs to be done because the infrastructure we now have in place, however poorly it may be functioning right now (see my February 24 post linked above), is not going to be the one that serves our needs in the largely fossil fuel-free world we’re going to find ourselves in a few short years down the road.

The sheer scope of what we will have to undertake in the face of declining oil supplies is—if we really try to wrap our minds around it—as close to incomprehensible as we can get. As I noted in a prior post on infrastructure (here):  “We have designed our lifestyles, our economic and industrial development, and our communities around cheap, easily-produced oil. Our everyday world is premised on that continuing supply (together with natural gas) to produce and transport food, to fuel our transportation, build and heat or cool our buildings, purify our water, treat our waste, and build, well, just about everything we use.”

Without a new infrastructure in place, one designed to operate and serve as the foundation of … well, pretty much everything, and one designed also to operate on some alternative energies we are not even close to implementing on anything even remotely approaching the scale needed, efforts to transition away from fossil fuels are only prolonging the inevitable, and likely making things much, much worse. The loud “thud” we’ll all be hearing is going to be our comfy and cozy ways of life. Most of us have no clue….

We’ve spent decades and countless sums creating an infrastructure to support and enable our growth and successes primarily because we’ve had access to inexpensive and plentiful oil, and that’s not going to be an option for us before too long. Needed change will only be measured in years of planning and effort.

We won’t be waking up one Monday morning and realize that we’ve run out of oil. That is not the issue. The issue is that we’re not going to have enough to do all that we are accustomed to and all that we need to do in our daily lives. Something is going to have to give, and so far, we have no idea what that might be or how to even think about dealing with the challenges.

There are no quick fixes, and certainly no easy fixes. We’re going to have less oil available to help us effect the needed changes, so we’re hamstrung to begin with (unless we make most of it available for infrastructure and very little for everything else, which is not likely to go over well with … everyone). We only have a relatively narrow window of time to adapt to begin with.

As I previously noted: “There are countless opportunities awaiting us, and countless problems looming if we don’t start thinking about how to deal with less oil.”

Peak Oil is not measured in weeks or even months, but infrastructure re-creation is likewise not so measured. We are talking years, and we are going to have to try and do all of this with much less fossil fuel available. Despite our expected inclination to want to try and do all of this all at once, we are also going to have to consider the impact on climate and the environment as we transition to whatever new forms of infrastructure will be needed.

And echoing one of the key themes I’ve been emphasizing throughout, Sharon Astyk, in a terrific post, observed:

“The simple fact is that we are taking precisely the wrong course as we de-emphasize self sacrifice – and everything we do to reinforce the idea that people will have essentially the same lifestyle that they have reinforces their inevitable sense of betrayal when that proves not to be the case. We are, in fact, seeing that sense of betrayal in working class and lower income families joining tea parties to express their sense that they have lost a basic access to a decent way of life.
“What could work – with great difficulty – is for us to enlist our fellows in a great project of courage and self-sacrifice – engage those people who feel least a part of this society. People climb mountains, run marathons, march off to be killed at war, and engage in all sorts of grand, painful and difficult challenges because doing so expresses their sense of honor, their courage, their patriotism, their love for others. As long as we fear to call upon one another to sacrifice, as long as we sell the narrative that an essentially similar life is possible, as long as we deny the costs, we will give up the greatest tool we have – the passionate energy of those who are doing what must be done for a better future. There is no certainty that such a course would be successful, of course, but it could hardly be less successful than our current strategies.” [3]

In that same post, Ms. Astyk also raised one other point that I expect many will not appreciate hearing, but is one we’re all going to have to accept:

“All solutions must work on a world scale. China and India will not accept a lower standard of living than we have, and will not reduce their coal burning and car usage if we demand that we all keep our cars and run our a/c any time we get warm. Neither will Russia. No narrative that includes the underlying idea that we’re going to keep using more energy than most other people can possible address climate change – period.”

We are at the dawn of an era of incredible opportunity if we choose and act wisely, and as a community, but we must first accept the realization that we are facing some serious challenges in the near future. We’re responsible for what we’ve created, just as we are responsible for resolving the problems our successes (and excesses) have brought us. We may indeed never again enjoy the levels of growth, prosperity, and successes that have defined our past. But this is not to say that we can’t craft new measures of success and prosperity going forward.

“The great transition of the 21st century will entail enormous adjustments on the part of every individual, family, and community, and if we are to make those adjustments successfully, we will need to plan rationally. Implications and strategies will have to be explored in nearly every area of human interest—agriculture, transportation, global ware and peace, public health, resource management, and on and on.” [4]

The choice is ours.

Sources:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53441: The peak oil crisis: A mid-year review; Published Jul 14 2010 by Falls Church News-Press, Jul 14 2010 by Tom Whipple

[2] http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/11/attitude-adjustment-facing-our.html: Attitude adjustment: Facing our ecological predicament; November 12, 2006

[3] http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/07/our_tails_get_in_the_way_the_p.php: Our tails get in the way: The problems and principles of energy descent – 07/13/2010 – Casaubon’s Book

[4] Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines by Richard Heinberg (pp. 22-23) – New Society Publishers

Michael Lind is the Policy Director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a frequent contributor to Salon.com—a publication (and writer) whose perspectives I usually agree with. The new America website is quite good.

However, Mr. Lind recently published an article at Salon regarding the future of transportation—fixed/high-speed rail, specifically—that I take issue with. I do so not so much because his information might be incorrect (and I don’t dispute his knowledge and information on the subject), but I disagree because he offers up an attitude regarding our approach to transportation and automobiles that can only cause us more problems as we confront Peak Oil. It’s an all-too-familiar refrain Peak Oil proponents encounter, and is one we find especially distressing in light of the challenges Peak Oil is going to impose upon all of us.

Lind begins his article advocating more government spending on infrastructure—a position with which I wholeheartedly agree. (Readers familiar with Bob Herbert’s op-eds in the New York Times—which I’ve referenced in several posts—will recall that Mr. Herbert is likewise a passionate advocate of our need to repair, maintain, and enhance infrastructure spending for a host of sound, well-considered reasons.) Enough studies are out there demonstrating the many positive benefits and effects those spending priorities have on our economy and employment numbers.

Despite his advocacy for this essential governmental strategy, Lind criticizes support for high speed rail. In doing so, he raises common objections to funding and planning for alternative forms of transportation. While factually there may be merit to his arguments, the problem is that despite the rhetoric, the reality of Peak Oil is going to make the stated objections entirely irrelevant.

There is little chance that we’re going to devise a perfect public transportation solution, but to dismiss the approach outright because we’re too spoiled to recognize the need for change is at best foolish. We’re in need of some serious attitude adjustments, and transportation woes are another consequence of Peak Oil that we can either prepare for voluntarily, or have imposed upon us. Something is going to have be done. We can either throw our hands up and keep hoping, or start taking steps to figure out the solutions that just might work. It seems quite obvious that public transportation is going to have to be part of that mix.

Lind observes that “As nations grow more affluent, their people prefer the convenience of personal automobile transportation to the inflexibility of mass transit.” Of course they do! I much prefer jumping in one of our cars to run errands or to go to our beach house or do any number of other things when I feel like doing so rather than walking up and down my lengthy and very steep hill and then figuring out how many different modes of public transit I might need to get where I want to go. Millions and millions of other car owners harbor their own legitimate reasons why they favor the comfort and convenience of their own autos.

If fossil-fuel supplies were unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready, we would not be having these discussions. But facts are annoying—especially the true ones!

All of the factors this blog and other writers have set forth regarding the imminence of Peak Oil tell us that unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready oil is not going to be an option for much longer—some reports suggest in as few as a couple of years. Many writers have already noted one of Peak Oil’s many obvious warning signs: we’re drilling thousands of feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere because “cheap” and easy-to-find oil no longer exists. It’s just one sign among many. “Affluence” isn’t going to buy anyone bonus points when it comes to oil supply and demand … the transportation needs of the rich won’t stave off Peak Oil.

So when the ever-diminishing supply of unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready oil is a factor with which we are all contending every day, preferring “the convenience of personal automobile transportation to the inflexibility of mass transit” won’t be worth the paper that comment is printed on. Peak Oil doesn’t much care about our “preferences,” or whether long-distance air or passenger car travel is “more practical,” as Lind also argued.

That’s simply not going to matter … not a little, not a lot, not at all. It’s nice to discuss preferences and wishes and hopes and all the rest, but geology and reality are what they are, and soon enough we are not going to have anywhere near the amounts of inexpensive oil readily available to each of us so that we can drive wherever and whenever we want. That’s a fact. Wishing it away is a nice sentiment but utterly meaningless. Peak Oil doesn’t much care for wishes and prayers, either.

So objections notwithstanding, we need to be thinking about, planning for, and finding ways to fund, create, and construct the types of public transportation we’re all going to need in the decades to come. It’s painful, but it’s that simple.

It’s no doubt true that implementing passenger rail and other forms of alternative transportation (and sources of energy, which Lind also criticizes) on a scale even remotely approaching the levels we’ll need in the decades to come is a jaw-dropping, almost unfathomably expensive proposition … until you realize we will have no rational alternatives other than to truly shrink our growth and become a nation of many local economies.

There is going to be a lengthy list of items and services and needs that are going to have to continue to be fulfilled by an ever-declining amount of crude oil, and I daresay that your and my carefree choices to run a couple of errands on a near-daily basis or visit with friends on the weekend aren’t going to have much priority on that list of who gets what, when, and how much.

Those who are waiting for a low-cost, ideal alternative to our current forms of personal transportation are in for a very rude awakening somewhere down the road.

Likewise, Lind’s urging that we devote more financial resources to enhance freight transportation on our roadways is just as misguided. Truckers won’t be exempt from Peak Oil’s impact … no one will. He is unfairly and inaccurately dismissive in suggesting that all of our urgings to provide more funding for high-speed rail and the like is so that we can “cut five minutes off the daily commutes of office workers in New York and New Jersey.” Enough high speed rail proposals have been put forth, and the Obama Administration has at least opened the door to enough other high-speed rail projects, to dismiss Lind’s snarky contentions outright. That’s something I’d expect to hear from someone on the Right, for whom facts are all-too-often useless and/or irrelevant when choosing to perpetuate narrow-minded ideology instead.

“Focusing on freight infrastructure improvements means that, among other things, we need to build more highway lanes and in some cases new highways for the trucks that will continue to carry most freight.” I’m hard-pressed to understand how that could possibly be a legitimate solution. Not only will not be able to afford that; higher gas prices and declining supply will leave less cars and trucks on the road. What a waste of limited resources!

And despite Lind’s claims about asphalt as some kind of magic solution, the truth is that asphalt is one of the countless products derived from crude oil, or from the energy-intensive and more expensive extraction process of the tar sands. (See this Oil Drum post for a discussion of asphalt.) Less crude oil equals less asphalt—as some cities have already witnessed first-hand.

Thinking that the enormous population increases expected in the coming decades is going to be properly addressed by building more roads and creating more suburban sprawl where owners are going to be left entirely dependent on automobiles they won’t be able to regularly or readily fuel seems ass-backwards at the very least. Asphalt is not nearly the savior Lind asserts it to be.

Two items of note on this subject from an extremely informative 2009 article by Phillip Longman (a Lind colleague) in The Washington Monthly [1]:

“The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that for distances of more than 1,000 miles, a system in which trucks haul containers only as far as the nearest railhead and then transfer them to a train produces a 65 percent reduction in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. As the volume of freight is expected to increase by 57 percent between 2000 and 2020, the potential economic and environmental benefits of such an intermodal system will go higher and higher. Railroads are also potentially very labor efficient. Even in the days of the object-lesson train, when brakes had to be set manually and firemen were needed to stoke steam engines, a five-man crew could easily handle a fifty-car freight train, doing the work of ten times as many modern long-haul truckers.”

and

“Failing to rebuild rail infrastructure will simply further move the burden of ever-increasing shipping demands onto the highways, the expansion and maintenance of which does not come free. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (hardly a shill for the rail industry) estimates that without public investment in rail capacity 450 million tons of freight will shift to highways, costing shippers $162 billion and highway users $238 billion (in travel time, operating, and accident costs), and adding $10 billion to highway costs over the next twenty years. ‘Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc., could double this estimate,’ their report adds.”

And Lind wants to increase freight transportation on our roads?

As for his urging that we build more airports … seriously? In a few short decades—as things stand now and for the foreseeable future—we’ll be lucky to have one-third the number of airports now existing. It’s also quite likely that only a very small percentage of the population anywhere will be able to afford air travel in any event—assuming jet fuel remains available in any semblance of reasonable supply. How is that a solution?! Ignoring the effects of Peak Oil isn’t going to get us much except more difficulties.

Lind urges us to consider a “harsh reality” that makes no sense in light of Peak Oil: “The greatest economic crisis since the Depression shows no signs of ending soon. A major, long-term program of public investment is needed more than ever. But the public investments must pass the reality test. And the harsh reality is this: There isn’t going to be a significant high-speed rail system in the U.S. in the near- or medium-term future. There isn’t going to be a continental electric grid permitting solar panels on condo buildings in Berkeley, Calif., to power heirloom-poultry farms in Maine. Most Americans are not going to sell their cars and move back from the suburbs to the cities in order to live in tiny apartments or condos and ride the rails to work. These are romantic daydreams that Democrats could afford to indulge only as long as they were out of office and were not responsible for results.”

So how does he reconcile those statements with the fact that majority of the world’s population already lives in cities, with estimates suggesting that as much as 75% of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2050? [2] Hate to say it, but “romantic daydreams” or some reasonable approximations may very well be our only options in the not-too-distant future. That is the very harsh reality we will have to contend with in the face of Peak Oil. The fossil fuel choices he seems to think we’re going to endlessly possess are simply not going to be available to us. Ignoring that truth is an option … just not a very good one.

Lind is absolutely correct that we need a massive commitment to our woefully ill-maintained infrastructure. (See this and the referenced links therein.) But his assertions that we need to rely on more roadways and more fossil-fuel-consuming trucks is not a solution. We will cater to consumer demands or for more suburban sprawl at our collective peril. We won’t have those options once Peak Oil is upon us, either.

Again I’ll emphasize how critical it is that we begin considering alternatives to transportation, the nature of our infrastructure, and our sources of energy. The dislocations will be challenging enough; let’s not make them worse by waiting for some “better” day to get started. (And let’s not forget that putting into place the infrastructure and technologies needed to make the transitions a reality are themselves going to require a lot of fossil fuel. We’re simply not going to have enough to do all of that and still maintain our lifestyles and industries as we do now. Something is going to have to give.)

While Lind is correct that “There is no public support in the U.S. or any other industrial democracy for the combination of self-imposed austerity and massive subsidies that would be necessary to create an economy based on renewable energy,” that is likewise not going to matter. Who among us wants to sacrifice the lifestyles we’ve come to insist upon?! The real issue is that when Peak Oil is here, lack of public support (predicated on selfishness and an unwillingness/inability to make sacrifices voluntarily) won’t matter either. We either suffer from the harsh impact of Peak Oil by choosing to do nothing, or start working on the next best options, whatever they may be (while understanding those undefined options are no guarantee of harsh-free changes).

I fully recognize that the energy, affordability, and efficiencies derived from fossil fuels/crude oil are as yet unmatched by any forms of alternative or renewable sources of energy. That’s a major part of the challenge of Peak Oil: there will be no seamless transitions to something else to keep life going as it does now because we don’t have that option. Changes—perhaps even drastic ones—are looming.

So do we wait until we’re really battered and beleaguered by Peak Oil, or do we make a national commitment (and act upon it) to finding some reasonable means of supplanting fossil fuel usage—especially for transportation, given that it’s going to take us many years (decades is more likely) to effectively and permanently transition away from oil? We’re already too far behind, and we have no guarantees of finding a successful solution in any event. Is waiting and doing nothing the better option? Is that our legacy?

There are no easy fixes. There are no inexpensive fixes. There are no quick fixes, either. But we clearly can no longer rely on what got us here.

The sooner we all understand that and begin acting on that knowing, the sooner we can begin digging our way out of a mess our own successes and innovations have created.

Sources:

[1] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.longman.html – Back on Tracks: A nineteenth-century technology could be the solution to our twenty-first-century problems by Phillip Longman

[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2256666/- Nimble Cities: Help Slate make transportation in and between cities more efficient, safe, and pleasant by Tom Vanderbilt

“How horrendous, how destructive, and how ultimately-suicidal does the evidence have to be before we all agree that the age of cheap oil is over?” – Charles Cresson Wood [1]

“When are we going to stop behaving so stupidly?” – Bob Herbert [2]

“It’s time we moved on to something else, or this is going to kill us.” – Craig Severance [3]

“The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us that, of all non-renewable resources, oil best deserves to be thought of as the Achilles heel of modern society. Without cheap oil, our industrial food system—from tractor to supermarket—shifts from feast to famine mode; our entire transportation system sputters to a halt. We even depend on oil to fuel the trains, ships, and trucks that haul the coal that supplies half our electricity. We make our computers from oil-derived plastics. Without oil, our whole societal ball of yarn begins to unravel.

“But the era of cheap, easy petroleum is over; we are paying steadily more and more for what we put in our gas tanks—more not just in dollars, but in lives and health, in a failed foreign policy that spawns foreign wars and military occupations, and in the lost integrity of the biological systems that sustain life on this planet.

“The only solution is to do proactively, and sooner, what we will end up doing anyway as a result of resource depletion and economic, environmental, and military ruin: end our dependence on the stuff. Everybody knows we must do this.” – Richard Heinberg [4]

The hope is that more of us are starting to understand the implications, given the attention lavished on the Deepwater Horizon spill. The question remains: what are we going to do? Nodding our heads in agreement that we’re about to face enormous challenges to preserving our ways of life and industry won’t cut it. The truth is harsher: life as we’ve known it is going to change. How—and how much—are yet to be determined.

We’re already well past the point where we should have acknowledged the problems of declining oil production. Denial, or ignorance, or just waiting until some kind of magical solution comes along are beyond counter-productive at this point. Now we have to start the lengthy, complex, sacrifice-is-necessary process of restructuring the way we live, work, and produce. Plans have not yet been formulated, so we’re already behind.

And all of this, dear readers, is not going to happen any time soon. But we need to start. The longer we wait, the more problems to be overcome we’ll create. That is not our best strategy. We’re already going to be confronted with far more challenges than the vast majority of us realize or understand. None of us are likely prepared for all the changes and challenges we’ll have to confront.

The tin-foil-hat-is-on-too-tight crowd needs to step aside and acknowledge the reality that the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe (yes, Governor Barbour, that’s what it is) is one more signpost on the long road of oil production problems. Denial has served whatever ignorant and ridiculous purpose it might have been intended for. Now, it’s time for the adults among us to start dealing with the facts and the truths about oil production and fossil fuel availability.

Despite their efforts to disparage those of us convinced of the imminence of Peak Oil by uttering ridiculous claims attributed to us, we’re not going to “run out” of oil. But as I and many others have taken great pains to explain, we are going to start seeing problems with production keeping up with demand, and that diminishes our access and availability to the oil and gas we’ve become all too comfortable expecting. Lulls in the prices or availability of gasoline and oil should not be mistaken for anything other than lulls.

We need to keep in mind that the United States does not live in a vacuum, nor, despite the fervent yet misguided expectations of some, are we “entitled” to our fair share of oil and gas before anyone else. (By some estimates the Chinese will increase their ownership of autos by nearly a half billion in the next decade or so! Where is all that needed extra fossil fuel supposed to come from? And that’s just one growing economy!) Facts are annoying as hell, but there’s no getting around them….

The problems are inexorably going to get worse … not next week or next month, but well before we’ve had time to establish a new infrastructure and new methods of commerce and mass transit. We’ve got years of work ahead of us, and not nearly enough years to put it all in place before the serious problems appear.

We’re all in this together, even the paranoid, card-carrying knuckleheads who insist we have “infinite” supplies of oil (as soon as the words “Zionist cabal” or discussions about long-ago-discredited Russian claims about the origins of fossil fuel appear in a pseudo-argument, you know you’re dealing with someone whose sky is a different color than ours); we all have a stake in the solutions we fashion; and we all bear responsibility for the outcomes. What will we choose?

This is getting serious….

Sources:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/52986: The Questions You Ask Create The Future You Manifest; 06/02/2010 by Charles Cresson Wood
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01herbert.html: Our Epic Foolishness by BOB HERBERT
[3] http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/67007: What Will it Take to End Our Oil Addiction? May 29, 2010 by Craig Severance
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52971: The End is nigh – Deepwater Horizon and the technology, economics, and environmental Impacts of Resource Depletion; 06/01/2010 by Post Carbon Institute

A while back I did an introductory series (here, here, and here) on the importance of infrastructure and its relationship to Peak Oil.

I’ve also mentioned from time to time that China is making great strides to not only develop its economy in leaps and bounds—as others have likewise noted; but it is doing so with a recognition of the importance of a sound infrastructure to future growth. China is also moving rapidly to incorporate high-speed rail as an essential component of its plans, recognizing how vital this mode of transportation will be in the years to come. (See this post, for example.)

Yesterday, Dave Johnson from The Campaign for America’s Future offered up an absolutely terrific piece (here) comparing China’s approach (and success with) its stimulus program as compared to the one from President Obama. For the narrow-minded among us, notably those whose knee-jerk opposition to any initiatives offered by our President resulted in his ambitious plans being trimmed in order to achieve passage—those who decry “big government” and think “tax cuts” are the magic elixir for all that ails us economically (yes, I’m speaking to you on the Right)—this piece should be mandatory reading.

Our infrastructure is absolutely critical to future growth; transportation is every bit as essential; and tax cuts and less government are precisely the wrong approach (saying “no” to everything has its drawbacks, after all) as we are about to embark on an economic journey no longer fueled by cheap and easy-to-access fossil fuels. It’s time for certain quarters to expand their horizons a wee bit and take stock of the challenges that face us.

Tax cuts and less government just aren’t in the cards now.

“No” is not a solution. Denial isn’t, either. All of us need to finally recognize this.

It’s been almost a week since my last post … much less frequent than has been the case over these first few months.

Just a note to let you know that I am planning an extensive series of related posts in the next few months, and will also be concentrating a bit more on the issues of infrastructure and transportation. I just concluded two separate series on those two topics, and will be returning to them fairly regularly.

I’ll continue to drop in some observations and links to articles of note over the course of these next few weeks (as I have been from time to time), but I will be devoting most of that time to research.

What it means right now is that the more extensive series of posts I’ve been writing over these past few months will be delayed for a few weeks. That’s not to say I won’t be offering commentary on essential points during that time (I will! Peak Oil isn’t going away.)

I’m simply taking needed time to organize the next batch of 30 – 40 posts before I jump back in with multiple postings each week.

But I’ll be taking all of next week off, visiting my lovely daughter in New Orleans during her spring break.

Keep checking back!

Thanks

I’m still planning my next series of posts, which I don’t expect to begin until sometime next week, but two more articles of note crossed my desk in the last day or two, and are worth passing along if for no other reason than the fact that it clearly appears that other nations “get it” when it comes to the importance of high-speed rail and investing in transportation infrastructure.

 “Two years ago, nearly 90 percent of the six million people traveling between Madrid and Barcelona went by air. But early this  year the number of train travelers on the route surpassed fliers. The trajectory is ever upward.”

Like their counterparts in Germany and France, travelers in Spain are discovering the values inherent in high-speed rail travel, as this recent New York Times article makes clear.

And no nation seems more prepared and willing to devote the financial resources to this than China, as is evidenced here.

As that article notes, China is planning to connect its high speed rail line through 17 other countries in Asia and Eastern Europe, with additional plans to build in Southeast Asia and Russia. That is not an insignificant project, and if successful will clearly help position them as a solid economic leader for decades to come. That level of infrastructure and transportation commitment, as I have stressed frequently in recent posts, is absolutely vital to economic prosperity. Notwithstanding President Obama’s solid leadership, vision, and understanding of this, we fall woefully short in measuring up against China’s progress in these areas.

Our recent $8 billion down payment on high-speed rail transit, important as it is, doesn’t quite cut it when you consider that (as the New York Times articles noted) by 2020, half of Spain’s $160 billion transportation will be devoted to rail travel.

If we don’t figure it out that we have to join the high-speed rail game soon, we’ll pay a hefty price for a long time. As I keep insisting, short-term thinking and planning cannot be our strategy for economic revival and sustained growth. Transportation and infrastructure investments are of critical importance, and we ignore this at our peril.

More choices … and more opportunities

Before I get started on my next series of posts beginning either later this week or early next week, I came across a couple of posts related to my recent series on Transportation that are worth noting today.

First up is another informative piece by Chris Nelder (here) in the form of an open letter to Congress. It contains some very straightforward information about the state of our energy future, and as I discussed in my last post also, he calls on our leaders to begin thinking long term, and to make rail transit a fundamental part of our economic revitalization. (Growth of rail transit infrastructure = jobs.) Of necessity, he is blunt in warning Congress not to make decisions that are only “politically expedient.” That approach, the one Congress is far more comfortable in adopting, simply won’t get it done.

The process of transforming our infrastructure will take decades, and as I continue to insist, waiting to formulate the plans we’ll need to guide us is sure to make things worse.

Just as important, Nelder makes it clear that all Americans need to understand what is at stake here, as I and others continue to urge as often as we can. We’re all in this together, much as we may think—or wish—that the solutions are in the hands of “others.”

It’s well worth the read.

This weekend, I also came across this terrific article from early in 2009. Anyone looking for a solid primer on the basics and importance of high-speed rail can’t do much better than this one.

The author also makes clear the challenges faced by rail proponents (including, shocking as it may be, shortsighted Congressional opposition). Understanding those issues moves us many steps closer to finding solutions and overcoming obstacles that simply should not be factors at all. Narrow-mindedness usually doesn’t get you very far, and so education remains a vital component in the process of economic renewal and future prosperity.

The vital message in author Craig Canine’s article on the critical importance of high-speed rail is this:

“…countries that aspire to participate fully in the twenty-first-century economy are coming to see that a high-speed rail network is as essential as a robust Internet or mobile-phone infrastructure.”

No one is saying any of this will be easy, or quick. But if we truly want this country to return to solid economic footing so as remain a world leader, the re-building of our infrastructure, with rail transit as one of its most essential components, is simply not negotiable. We need to understand this yesterday, and start working on making this happen today.