Rating: 
Summary: What you don't know can hurt you.
Review:
I purchased this as part of my catch-up research on the state of debate regarding Peak Oil. It is a very handy text for starting out in the debate, but does require the reader to follow on in doing verification of some of his assertions. That's a plus for me, as a new entrant in this area of policy critique. Peak Oil is an essential subject to discuss right now, so I strongly recommend this book to people wishing to debate the subject, either from the Alarmist camp, or the Naive Optimist side. As a further recomendation in perspective on the near future of our lovely, lonely planet I also highly recommend you to buy, read and lend out Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy".
Rating: 
Summary: expontential oil demand meets oil depletion
Review: "Markets solve almost everything" economists and politicians believe that relatively cheap oil will continue for decades. However, "The Party's Over--Oil, War and the Fate
of Industrial Societies" by Richard Heinberg, says that the world is about to change "dramatically and forever as the result of oil depletion." In the 1950s oil geologist M.K. Hubbert forecast that U.S. oil production would peak in ~1970, which was later confirmed. Using the Hubbert method and the most recent data, other geologists forecast that global oil production will peak between 2003 and 2015, even with all potential oil discoveries.
What happens when exponential increasing demand meets declining oil availability? Are we doing much more than war to plan for this wrenching benchmark? Heinberg writes clearly from extensive research and experience that there is hope for healthy societies and economies if humankind starts quickly to make the transition to sustainable resources and technologies.
Rating:
Summary: Fine book, but the 'party' may not be over
Review: "The Party's Over" is a relatively short book that gives a very
good overview of mankind's developing of civilizations through what the
author calls "expanding the human carrying capacity of our environments,"
that is creating modes of living that more than a few would say rape and
pillage the natural resources of the planet. The author discusses the five
strategies we have employed, the most important being "drawdown," the
mind-boggling rates of extraction and use of nonrenewable resources. Of
course the major point of the book, as surely all who have heard about
the book know, is that we are soon to hit what is widely being reported
as "peak oil." Actually we hit peak oil production in 1979, the author states,
and now, between 2006 and 2015, we will reach the point where what he calls
EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) will begin to decline precipitously.
EROEI is perhaps the key concept in this discussion, because as we know, there
will still be plenty of oil in the ground, the problem will be the exhorbitant
cost to extract it, according to the author and the "cassandras" who
support this point of view. The author uses the writings of many retired,
former oil-company geologists to back up his conclusions. Mr. Heinberg then goes on to "prove" that not only is there not one
or even a combination of alternative sources, either renewable or
nonrenewable, to replace oil, that it would also take far too long to develop
the necessary infrastructures. Thus we are "hopelessly" dependant on oil,
and it is inevitable that we are going to have to scale back our useage
of oil, reduce the population drastically (by 2/3's), and live in
self-sufficient communities, relying on "good pair of shoes and a sturdy
bicycle" (p. 149). "The Party's Over" is a great book to give to someone who is concerned
and wants a basic understanding of the concerns of the book. I particularly enjoyed Chapter 4, "Non-Petroleum Energy Sources..." The author demonstrates
a solid knowledge of wind, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, and other power
sources, though for someone already versed in these areas there isn't
much new. Still, the writing style is consistently first rate, and many
good references are provided for those who want the details (like me!).
I also compliment the author on his even-handed style, devoid of the
"misanthropic invectives" that some environmentalists seem to revel in!
Yet I must disagree with the author's conclusions, especially
the "fait accompli" of the final chapters. I have been exposed to
the kinds of predictions expressed in the book since the 1970's, and
over and over (and over) I have watched prediction after prediction
of this kind NOT come true. While I won't say I am a "cornucopian,"
I simply do not believe that depleting energy resources is going to
cause the scale of changes predicted here. Does anyone remember Y2K?
I heard countless "experts" make countless predictions (I understood
the computer aspect since I do that for a living), and as we all know,
Y2K was a total non-event. Now, you might say, well, because of all
the warnings, organizations got their acts together and solved the
problem, whereas oil is nonrenewable and nothing can change that.
I disagree. Y2K and other problems prove that there is something
about the human spirit that we seem to be able to find solutions,
regardless of how all-encompassing the problems are. If something is going to take civilization down it isn't
energy. There are countless other possibilities - earth changes,
nuclear war, consciousness shifts (or lack thereof!), take your
pick, whichever insanity getting out of hand, but if we make it
to peak oil, assuming the dates in the book are correct, we will
find ways to survive, even thrive, in my opinion. And let's face
it, the people who run the world may publicly show no concern, but
they want to stay in control, and I feel certain they have already
got solutions. And even if they don't, there are many brilliant
scientists and environmentalists who can come up with answers if
that becomes necessary, and as the author states at the bottom of
p. 236 (I am twisting his words somewhat), if the masses really
believe that there is an energy crisis and demand that it be solved.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Small Earth Model
Review: Again we have a Small Earth Model that ignores markets. How many times can the same mistake be made and credibility be maintained? When The Limits to Growth was published in 1972 its dire predictions were taken with the same seriousness as those in this tome are sure to be. Unfortunately, or perhaps I should say fortunately for mankind, these predictions were radically and irrecoverably wrong. Again the same "small" models trying to predict "huge" events appear again in this book. In addition to the lessons Mr. Heinberg could have used in Economics, this Biologist could have also used some lessons in Physics. You see, as powerful as we like to think we are, we simply cannot violate the laws of Physics, that is to say that we could spend eternity trying to destroy the matter and energy of the Earth and we'll be no closer to that goal at the end of such an enterprise than we were when we started. That's right folks . . . it can't be done. The worst we can possibly do with the matter and energy available on this planet is change its form, disperse it, move things around. It is absurd to conclude that human beings do not have the capacity to reorganize and innovate in their search for energy, to increase efficiency in response to scarcity.
Rating:
Summary: Chilling Examination Of Coming Crisis In World Oil Supply!
Review: As someone who now has the time and energy to watch current world events with interest, I have puzzled over what seem to be possible ulterior motives for our aggressive intervention in Iraq. Yet, given its rich supply of so much marker (or high quality) crude oil, this well documented book by author and academic Richard Heinberg book gives one a new perspective as to why we seem to be taking the actions we are to consolidate the stranglehold the Western world needs to guarantee a continuing and uninterrupted flow of it in its various forms. The author makes a strong and persuasive case for the notion that the world is running dangerously close to serious shortfall and consequent disruption in the overall supplies of crude oil for variety of reasons. In "The Party's Over", Heinberg threads an argument that the world is quickly running out of inexpensive oil, and that the world economy as it is currently oriented around the premise of such cheap sources of oil is about to undergo a relatively sudden sea change. In fact, he argues, within the next few yeas the high mark of such oil production will peak, much to the dismay of consistently expanding requirements for ever more total production. Given this gradual but consistently greater historical requirements for oil and its products, momentary gluts on the world market are more representative of temporary relaxation of segments of the world oil market rather than indicative of an overall trend, which slowly but surely increases from decade to decade. To wit, Heinberg argues, the Western world is about to enter a new era, one that will dramatically change the nature of international commerce and the increasingly unified world economy, in which a sneeze in Asia gives Canadians a cold. Thus, posits the author, even if the Western democracies are willing and able to initiate conservation programs and develop strategies for switching to alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power, the overall effect of the declining availability of crude oil over the coming decade or so will be to force a de-facto decline in the total availability of energy for overall consumption. Such a set of circumstances could prove to be a serious challenge to the attempts to grow the global economy, and may also seriously damage overall standards of living, especially in modern post-industrial societies like our own that are so intensively energy dependent. According to Heinberg, we may well be on the cusp of a new era as different from our current culture of extravagance and plenty as the times after the industrial revolution were from the feudal era. Yet this time the progress may be in the opposite direction. What all this represents is a massive transition placed in its proper historical context, illustrating the several ways in which our long dependence on fossil fuels and its corollary development of corporate forces with immense geo-political influence may face a fractious and much more difficult future in the face of such dwindling sources of overall supply, including the possible of resource wars in the Middle east and elsewhere as well. Given our seemingly obsession with SUVs and all the other petroleum intensive products of modern life, the impact may be one that is especially difficult and troublesome for affluent societies such as our own. This is a troubling yet quite informative book, and one I highly recommend. Enjoy! .
Rating:
Summary: BUY THIS!
Review: Disregard the review that criticises the author's demonization of Nuclear power. EVERYONE must read this book and make up their own mind.
Rating:
Summary: A Book Ahead of Its Time - And Therein Lies the Problem
Review: Heinberg's book suffers from only one major flaw I can see: it is too far ahead of its time. Therefore, he ignores the "perilous optimism" endemic in American culture and society, to use the phrase of Prof. Ernest Partridge of the University of California-Riverside. The existence of this misplaced and misguided optimism - or what I call national hubris - means that his book is more likely to be ignored or dismissed (e.g. as "too dark, too pessimistic") unless the mindset changes. Which isn't likely anytime soon!
By "perilous optimism" Partridge meant a kind of national philosophy or zeitgeist built largely on ignorance and unfounded hope for the future rather than appreciation of cold, hard facts. There are multiple inputs to this, particularly where our national and global energy predicament is concerned.
Perhaps the most significant is entropy, and how energy is constantly "degraded" as it used, ushering in ever declining scales of efficiency, ease of extraction, leading to diminishing returns. An appreciation of entropy would thus pave the way for a more realistic assessment of the global energy situation - and how we need to prepare from now for a start post-industrial, low energy age.
Heinberg is not the first to have sounded the various warnings of imminent collapse and onset of a "regressive" energy age. For example, Jeremy Rifkin in his landmark book `Entropy- A New World View' (Bantam New Age, 1980) called attention to the many underlying themes to do with entropy - including the waste energy accompanying each energy conversion, say combusting petroleum in an auto to yield waste heat and CO2. The latter now the prime culprit in the Greenhouse Effect, which has increased significantly in atmospheric concentration the past 2 years (2002, 2003).
The now deceased and noted science writer and biochemist Isaac Asimov- in various essays written over decades- also warned repeatedly of the need for human stewardship. He particularly pointed out constraints on humanity's use of resources, particularly in terms of how population growth impinges on finite resources and sets limits to growth. Isaac Asimov was probably also the first to use the term "carrying capacity" which he estimated to be 3 billion humans for this limited world. (Overestimating Heinberg's value by 1 billion. But for a more scientific assessment, which approximates this,see: 'Population Growth and Earth's Carrying Capacity' in *Science*, Vol. 269, p. 341).
Asimov warned that humans had two choices: decrease their population to the carrying capacity limit - to live in an equilibrium with the Earth and its resources- or let nature "increase the human death rate" (e.g. by starvation, diseases - especially pandemics, wars over resources etc.)
Author Aurelio Peccei, in his `One Hundred Pages for the Future' made similar pleas for humans to notch their numbers down to replacement levels or lower since they exceeded the Earth's ability to support them. (Part 1: `The Ascent and Decline of Humankind'). Peccei refers to an enormous supplemental population - one that exists beyond the ability of additional resources, energy as a "human bomb threatening the planet".
More recently, two articles appearing in `Physics Today' (July, 2004 issue) have set the stage starkly for what we face in a bleak energy future. The first by Paul B. Weisz, `Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies' (p. 47) embodies pretty well what the title implies. The second, `Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies: Scientists and the Silent Lie' by Albert Bartlett (p. 53) pinpoints the failure to name human population growth as a major cause of our energy and resource problems.
Bartlett avers that "their (scientists') general reticence stems from the fact that it is politically incorrect or unpopular to argue for stabilization of population - at least in the U.S. Or perhaps scientists are uncomfortable stepping outside their specialized areas of expertise".
Whatever the reason, Bartlett argues it is equivalent to perpetuating a "silent lie", a term derived from a Mark Twain quote:
"Almost all lies are acts, and speech has no part in them...I am speaking of the lie of silent assertion: we can tell it without saying a word."
Indeed, it occurs each time a rosy economic forecast is given, and energy scientists - for example, withhold comment rather than strongly vocalize or object to how these forecasts are adrift from sober reality since they take no account of "externalities" or "external costs".
One example of such a false economic indicator is "GDP" or `Gross Domestic Product' as noted by University of Maryland eo-economics professor Herman Daly.
The GDP is supposed to measure the total production and consumption of goods and services in the United States. But the numbers that make up the Gross Domestic Product by and large only capture the monetary transactions we can put a dollar value on. Almost everything else is left out: old growth forests that maintain cooling, and acts as CO2 repositories, watersheds, animal habitats, e.g. the Everglades, and costs of infrastructure maintenance.
Ignoring these "externalities" leads us into a fool's paradise where we come to believe things are much better than the GDP numbers show. Similarly with energy, conveniently ignoring externalities of cost and demand leads too many to envisage a pie-eyed future of never-ending growth and ever more intense energy consumption.
All this translates inexorably into "growth" and woe betide you if you dare intimate (as Prof. Daly has done) that a zero or negative growth index may be a lot better for humans, if they hope not to outstrip their resource support base.
Daly has noted that the concept of the GDP was developed to help steer the US economy out of the Great Depression, and through World War Two. It was for another time and place, and is no longer relevant to this time and place. It needs to be dunned and ditched in favor of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.
All of the above sources, issues are mentioned because, if one is not already au fait with the problems posed by human population and energy use, Heinberg's book is bound to fall on deaf ears or unreceptive neurons. Never mind the documentation and evidence he provides.
For example, his primary quantitative indicator used throughout the book: EROEI, or `energy returned on energy invested' will likely be met by eyes glazed over, or disputatious attitude, unless one is reasonably familiar with entropy's role in diminishing energy returns. Thus, as one FINITE energy resource is constantly consumed, it becomes ever more difficult to extract the same energy efficiency for the same cost and effort.
But for those who live in the fantasyland of an infinite -resource planet, this doesn't exist on their radar: since consumption will never make further extraction more difficult!
In like manner, ignoring associated external costs inevitably provides a false assessment for an alternate (to oil) energy source. Thus, critics may pillory Heinberg for not jumping on the nuclear power bandwagon, but he is exactly correct - when the costs of safety implementation, waste disposal and de-commissioning of reactors is taken into account!
I awarded this book four stars, but also aver that it is perhaps too far ahead of its time to be appreciated the way it ought to be at the present time. I believe Americans, especially, need to see much higher oil price spikes and experience more economic and other suffering, rationing - before they can truly appreciate the propositions and proposals Heinberg puts forward. They are still too locked into the numbing mindset of "perilous optimism".
But nothing breaks through such specious optimism as brutal reality and a real world that is finite, and brooks no Polyannish visions of making it "infinite".
Rating: 
Summary: A great start, with some flaws.
Review: I appreciate the book's attempt to use metrics. We need this sort of analysis. But I think it gets sometimes off track and its use of the statistics is a little tendentious. The geopolitical element is relevant, but some Republican voters have posted that its pot-shots at Bush and others are gratuitous. I personally agree with the author that Bush and his party are a huge part of the political problem, but I must concur with these reviewers that I wish the author hadn't put that in. It's not relevant to the underlying science, and I think it turns off many conservative and libertarian readers on an issue which we all will need them to help solve, too. Even if the government is not the main player in the resulting solution, entrepreneurs of any political stripe are certainly needed in the world of renewable and distributed power generation. Everyone's butt may be on the line. The author unfortunately deals with each alternative in Siskel-and-Ebert fashion (thumbs up, thumbs down). He doesn't entertain the possible average EROEI if (imagine!) we tried to use all available solutions at once, in desperation, something I imagine would be more likely than not in his scenario. The author is dismissive in general about the big unknown factor: new technologies improving the efficiency of some of his dismissed alternatives-- especially in a crisis when more heads would be deployed to solve the problems. As with most prognosticators, he ignores at his peril the rather large risk that the future won't be as he forecasts. We can't assume these advances will magically occur-- they may not, and his thesis that we are at risk right now is totally sensible, as is basing all of your EROEI numbers on current technology. But I think it would be more scientific to add a big caveat about "all other things being equal", and discuss this possibility in the conclusion. It is, after all, a possible hope, and something to invest in also. He presents the book as though it's guided by science alone. Then he dismisses across the board all power sources that aren't 100% renewable/clean. His conclusions could be correct. But it also happens to fit the ideological position he expresses elsewhere, and I am skeptical about the sheer likelihood of a perfect harmonic convergence between his ideology and his science. There's just no gray in that part of the analysis. I don't think he does this because he consciously wanted to indoctrinate us with "leftist" thinking, as some charge, but I think his preference for [frankly] the more environmentally preferable technologies biased him toward reviewing them more favorably and vice versa. As examples: biodiesel and ethanol may take energy to produce, but a fair analysis would include statistics minus the energy the farmer was using anyway to grow his corn or whatever was the input to the process. He doesn't mention thermal depolymerization, which generates new petroleum by pressurizing and heating biomass (and thus extends the "party" and throws off the thesis of the book). I also hate nuclear power, but the author calculates its EROEI based on today's plants, which he notes are rarely operational. I could be wrong, but don't the public opposition after 3-Mile Island and the constant protests and shutdowns comprise the lion's share of the reason for poor plant productivity? Regardless of what he thinks is politically possible (or terrorism-proof, etc.) today, he should at least give us an EROEI figure that relates to what's scientifically possible in the best case scenario, too. Opposition might change if we had no oil alternative and new reactors were meltdown-proof breeder reactors far from centers of population. If we don't want that (and, with 5 nuclear subs rotting away in the Atlantic as we speak, we shouldn't), we should at least be forewarned in case we are caught deer-in-the-headlights and we learn suddenly then that's our only productive alternative energy source, and our alternative is to lose our wasteful bourgeois lifestyle. One thing I do appreciate is it ignores the prevailing, glib "hydrogen" discussion which our society is carpet-bombed by in books like "the End of Oil", which spins hydrogen as though it is an abundant, mineable source of energy, which it isn't. In all, this book is a great first start on the subject, a great introduction to the topic, and definitely worth reading. I just wish someone else could re-do the EROEI numbers from a more balanced perspective.
Rating:
Summary: Well done & Provocative -- even if you dont agree
Review: I found this a powerful & provocative read, important to all whether you come away agreeing or disagreing with the theory. Heinberg does an expert job of summarizing the complex and broad information that must be pulled-together in order to allow for a central analysis and conclusion. He offers both sides of the arguement objectively (perhaps not without some bias, but journalistically fair). And, he provides amble references so anyone interested can retrace his analysis and draw their own conclusions. This is a Must-Read for anyone interested in current world events (ie. Iraq). World events look very different when viewed through the prism of shrinking Oil resources.
Rating:
Summary: The most important book published this year
Review: I just ordered a bunch of extra copies to give to friends, and when I run out I'll order more - everyone should read this book. It is by far the best overview available on the 21st century's biggest problem, describing a perfect arc through the whole picture making it impossible to ignore the ramifications and fitting an amazing amount of very readable information into a very small book. In short, the perfect introduction to a subject you really want to know about. By now you know what The Party's Over is all about, so I'll skip to the point. Though I've been buying books from Amazon for a long time, this is the first review I've written and I'm writing it for one reason: to convince you to buy the book. The Party's Over isn't just what everyone should read, it's what YOU should read. I know, you've got a tall stack of books waiting to be read, but I think you'll agree when you've finished that none of them are as valuable to you as this book. If Amazon had a system for it I'd give you a free copy. But I can't. So please, do yourself, your children and the rest of us a huge favor and buy the most important book you'll read this year.
|
