In the past four months, the Antiplanner has visited 30 cities to speak about transportation and land-use issues. For those who like watching videos (a group that does not include the Antiplanner), here are some recordings of my presentations.
Bozeman, Montana presentation about land-use issues.
Brown University debate with James Howard Kunstler.
Las Vegas presentation about Gridlock (with part two, part three, part four, and part five).
Except the advertisement, some of the branded medicine company appoints the medical representatives for the promotion online order viagra of the medicine directly to the physicians. It actually turns the penile cialis no prescription canada in tough and the nerves in narrow from, which restricts the blood flow out of the penis. Unawareness, myths, false notion, viagra without prescriptions canada djpaulkom.tv guilt and superstition linked to sexual aspects in the minds of consumers. They generico cialis on line http://djpaulkom.tv/category/news/page/3/ must be thoroughly documented for anything that might interfere in the way of proving safety of that chemical, and of course, its effectiveness.
Albuquerque presentation about Gridlock (pretty similar to the Las Vegas one but all in one video).
Boise presentation about streetcars (this was last November) (part two and part three).
All of these recordings were posted by the local organizations that sponsored the presentations.
James Howard Kunstler comes across as a paranoid fool who fears everything, especially running out of oil in the next 5-10 years.
It is simply unbelievable that this guy has any following. To believe in peak oil you have to deny economics, chemistry and history:
economics (supply goes up, consumption goes down with price)
That is why we have recently had a series of dramatic announcements of new discoveries – the recent high oil prices have brought much new exploration which has found more supplies.
chemistry (you can make the stuff)
The Fischer–Tropsch (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process) (also: fischer-tropsch.org) process and the Bergius process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process), both used from the 1930s on, make li quid fuels form coal. Methane instead of coal can also be used a starting point. Sasol (sasol.com/) has been producing commercial quantities of oil from both processes for years. Also from natural gas.
History (Hitler ran a war on manmade oil).
The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany Said this: “The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943″ airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm
Thanks
JK
I couldn’t agree more with JK regarding economics, chemistry, and history. The human race has shown remarkable resilience and inventiveness throughout most of recorded history.
Meanwhile, the IEA, militaries, and most of the planet care little for fringe lunacy and may finally be awakening to reality.
Let us hope, like making an artificial organism, somehow physics are overcome and someone figures out an invention for a similarly energy-dense material. Because at this point thre is no impetus for people to use less energy, conserve, change wasteful behavior, etc.
DS
People go for the easy to get to oil, then the harder to get to oil, stuff like tar sands, coal liquefation & etc.
There is also the higher energy use to convert that stuff into a syncrude.
If the Nazi’s had easier access to regular oil, they would have used that instead of converting coal.
South Africa did the same when they had import restrictions relating to apartheid.
Peak oil is not the first shortage of natural resources to hit an economy on earth. In fact, there probably have been tens or hundreds of thousands of examples of shortages of a natural resource in an economy. Just maybe there are lessons to be learned from the prior shortages.
highwayman said:
There is also the higher energy use to convert that stuff into a syncrude.
If the Nazi’s had easier access to regular oil, they would have used that instead of converting coal.
South Africa did the same when they had import restrictions relating to apartheid.
JK: You left out one little detail:
Coal to oil and methane to oil is IN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION TODAY! making your above claims irrelevant. The process works and is economically sound. Its only problem that it provides the harsh reality that shows up Kunstler & his followers as fools.
Thanks
JK-
Borealis said: Peak oil is not the first shortage of natural resources to hit an economy on earth. In fact, there probably have been tens or hundreds of thousands of examples of shortages of a natural resource in an economy. Just maybe there are lessons to be learned from the prior shortages.
JK: Yup, contrary to Kunstler & his foolish followers, we are still here. The only real dangers at this point appears to be societal suicide by government action such as cap&trade. The coming “little ice age†will be a challenge, but advanced counties will come out OK.
Thanks
JK
And what about those countries that are not advanced, Jim?
bbream,
Your question gets to the coldness of the libertarian philosophy. If you have wealth, good for you. If you don’t, figure out how to get it or F-off and die. Oh yeah, and don’t ask for any help.
bbream said: And what about those countries that are not advanced, Jim?
JK: What about them? Advanced countries can cope better because they have wealth in excess of that required to feed themselves.
The same cannot be said of many countries that keep electing despots like Chavez, Castro and Mugabee. There is little we can do to help them as the governments steals much of any food we send. The real solution is to dump those dictators.
In case anyone thinks it is merely because these countries lack resources, just look at a county that was in almost complete ruins after WWII and has almost NO raw materials or oil: Japan.
The problem is bad government, not any particular disadvantage.
Thanks
JK
bennett said: Your question gets to the coldness of the libertarian philosophy.
JK: You misrepresent Libertarians. Or do you believe in giving Billions of taxpayer money to corporations? Do you believe in giving those unwilling to work a free ride? Do you believe in extracting money from working people who must choose between food and a family vacation to give to someone unwilling to work?
Libertarians do tend to believe in ONLY helping those truly in need.
bennett said: If you have wealth, good for you.
JK: Appearently, you missed econ 101. Wealth is created. Those third world countries mostly have bad governments that stifle people. Sometimes in the name of equality like those worker’s paradises Cuba and N. Korea. (BTW, if you want to live completely free of corporate influence, those are places you need to go.)
bennett said: If you don’t, figure out how to get it or F-off and die. Oh yeah, and don’t ask for any help.
JK: How to get wealth is easy:
1. Get a good government that allows freedom (In case you didn’t notice, millions of people are moving to the USA and few moving to Cuba, Russia, N.Korea and other kindly places or socialist countries.)
2. Don’t have children out of wedlock
3. Don’t commit crimes.
4. Take advantage of the free $100,000 education provided by society to all.
5. Work!
Remember Bill Gates, Michael Dell and a host of other millionaires didn’t finish college – they went to work instead. Note the magic word: WORK!
Thanks
JK
bennet,
What about the LDCs?
They hardly use resources now.
If energy gets more expensive, that will not change their low civilization much.
It is not responsibility of developed countries to help, although many currently do.
bennett said: Your question gets to the coldness of the libertarian philosophy. If you have wealth, good for you. If you don’t, figure out how to get it or F-off and die. Oh yeah, and don’t ask for any help.
THWM: I’ve wondered why libertarians were such hateful people too?
They preach don’t tread on me, yet they have no trouble treading on others.
Libertarianism is pretty much plutocratic anarchism!
What seems hateful about libertarianism?
To keep the fruits of production & not want it taken for others?
What seem like treading on others?
Those wanting to redistribute prosperity are treading & are immoral.
JK: “You misrepresent Libertarians.”
Y’all misrepresent the poor. Believe or not many of the poor people in this world WORK… a lot. You claim libertarians are not cold, yet you answer the question, “What about those countries that are not advanced?” with…
“What about them? Advanced countries can cope better because they have wealth in excess of that required to feed themselves.” !?!?!?!?!?
Hence my statement “F-off and die.” Believe it or not (I can see you don’t) that’s what you saying. Some (not all) libertarians have allowed their faith in the individual to make them indifferent, or as you have shown Jim, spiteful of those who suffer around the world. That’s cold blooded bro. That’s hate. If you can’t see that, then your most likely a spiteful, hateful and selfish (a Randian virtue) person.
Jim also brought up Mugabee. Coupled with Scott’s statement “Those wanting to redistribute prosperity are treading & are immoral,” made me think. There is no doubt that Mugabee is a total disaster. But when I think what it must have been like as an indigenous Zimbabwean, likely working as an indentured, or close to indentured laborer for some colonist occupier, I might have a moral leg to stand on if I wanted to “redistribute” some “prosperity.”
What Jim and Scott completely fail to see is that in many contexts “prosperity” comes at a serious cost. That cost is the disadvantage that someone else has as a result of certain types of prosperity. I’m not talking about slavery here (although a good example), but privileges, successes, and prosperity that are not overtly a result of disadvantage, like slavery, but are more indirect but just as insidious.
But libertarians like Jim got theirs. F the rest of em’.
Here is a nice hypothetical exercise that illustrates my last point.
http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html
I am not a libertarian, so I won’t defend their principles. But Africa is an example of why a drastic redistribution of wealth in a country might make the country more “fair” for a few years, but it also dooms the country to a loss of all capital accumulation and investment for generations.
Research has pretty much conclusively shown that all the foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa in the last 50 years has done remarkably little to improve their quality of life. Almost nobody wants to build public or private institutions because any accumulation of resources is seized by corruption or redistribution. Without institutions, sub-Saharan Africa is not leaving the third world.
Civil society reacting in disgust at the things poor addled Rand Paul says, and how they would translate in actual reality is all you really need to know. Hence my frequent use of ‘small minority’.
DS
What did Rand Paul say about foreign aid to Africa? Nothing comes up on Google.
“Research has pretty much conclusively shown that all the foreign aid to sub-Saharan Africa in the last 50 years has done remarkably little to improve their quality of life.”
No doubt. Many NGO’s and charitable organizations are changing their approach on aid. Throwing money at something is not sustainable, especially from a world away. But there are some good ideas that have gotten some traction to help some populations become self sufficient and independent.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacqueline_novogratz_invests_in_ending_poverty.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_on_patient_capitalism.html
Not only are the vestiges of imperialism and colonialism still echoing across Africa, and the resource exploitation depressing natural resources, but AIDS is reducing the workforce and fracturing families. Not to mention drought, climate change, desertification, etc. Binary argumentation leading toward Western solutions is exactly the wrong approach. Hopefully there are folks out there that have an idea.
DS
True capitalism & the resulting prosperity creates wealth & value, rather than taking from others or redistributing. In other words, it’s not (as many falsely think) taking a larger slice of a finite “pie”, but making a larger “pie.”
Free enterprise takes people out of poverty, raising real income; certainly not making more poor.