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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


More frightening than the book is that it's taken seriously!   March 10, 2006
 91 out of 159 found this review helpful

In the late '60s, Paul Ehrlich shocked the world and helped start off the Green Movement with his famous The Population Bomb. In it he predicted a catastrophic future in which overpopulation would destroy human civilisation as we know it. By 1970, he was predicting that, after decades of famine, decline and anarchy, the year 2000 would see the American population shrink to 22.6 million and tens of millions would be starving across the globe. In reality, America's population in 2000 was around 280 million, or about 13 times that predicted by Ehrlich. The proportion of the world's people starving or hungry remained unacceptably high - but lower than at any point in human history.
I remember my first atlas, as a child fascinated by geography, in the early 1980s, which stated plainly that the world's oil supply would run out in 1999. Instead, oil reserves are larger than they were in 1980.

In fact, those nightmare stories of the '70s and '80s were only part of a long trail of horror stretching back to Malthus, and beyond to ancient myths warning man of the moral perils of wealth and greed. Perhaps they reflect that part of the human soul which has produced wonderful monastic traditions in all the great religions - that longing for a simpler, more harmonious life. However, the scientific rationale behind them remains perilously weak.

And so to Professor Heinberg's book - please take the more hysterical predictions with the large pinch of salt that, given the history of eco-disaster literature, they surely deserve. Heinberg's claim that 4 billion people will die before the Earth reaches a sustainable population is the same old Malthusian myth trotted out all over again. With human population growth slowing dramatically and now likely to plateau within half a century, it is entirely possible that we can stabilise our population at a sustainable level without catastrophe. But that doesn't sell books!

Heinberg's claims of widespread devastation of trees, to the extent of suburban avenues being denuded, also seems a little bit over the top. There is still a lot of untapped oil in the world, and some rich countries with substantial reserves, notably the USA and Canada, have greatly cut drilling due to the high local production costs. Similarly little exploration yet takes place in the Middle East, while oil still all but bursts from the ground spontaneously in places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Undoubtedly more oil will be found for some time, giving us a considerably greater breathing space than Rhienberg claims. And research into alternative energy continues to produce results. With more goodwill both from the general public and governments, there is no limit to what we can achieve.

While deforestation in the rainforests is worrying, deforestation isn't a one way street, as I can attest as a citizen of a country (Ireland) which is considerably more forested than it was a century ago.

More worrying than this exaggeration is the deeply authoritarian and anti-poor vein running through the book. Not only will we in rich countries, according to Professor Heinberg, need to radically change the structures of our economies, industries and societies, but poor countries such as China will have to 'forego' industrialisation to save the planet. I wonder how they're going to do that without some sort of particularly grotesque display of American military power of the sort that Heinberg - rightly - detests? While it may be difficult for University Professors in the world's richest country to grasp, there are a lot of people in the world, even in rich countries, who have a pretty horrible standard of living. I'm sure it's easy for Professor Ehrlich to talk about the joys of tending his vegetable patch, but he's not exactly as dependent on it as the average Malawian peasant farmer, or large Californian family surviving on a single minimum wage earner. You can't give everybody a decent standard of living without a bigger world economy than we have at the moment, and wealth generates both the sort of environmental conscience and technological development we need to make the planet a better place to live on.

I'm sure many people are clicking the unhelpful box as we speak and tagging me as a right-wing loony. Bear in mind, I'm an anti-War, non-car owning, bicycle commuting, small flat-inhabiting person working in a non-energy intensive sector of the economy. I have no axe to grind here. I just don't like being panicked for no good reason. When I've been panicked about the same things all my life and they never happen, I start to get suspicious.

How many times will the phone have to ring late at night before we realise it's a hoax caller?