Because the US has the world's largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal." It is the world's second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four producer nations (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three.

Wood was this nation's primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when deforestation necessitated greater reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America's main energy source until the 1930s, when it was overtaken by oil. Today coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and provides about a quarter of the country's total energy.

The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (i.e., declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than 30 percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation's increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal class.

While there are coal resources in many states, the main concentrations are in Appalachia, Illinois, Wyoming, and Montana (see map below). The 53 largest coalmines in the US, located in just a few states, account for almost 60 percent of total production.

Read more

(Note: This article is a draft chapter from a forthcoming book, currently titled Coal's Future/Earth's Fate, to be published by Post Carbon Press in spring 2009. The author wishes to thank Werner Zittel, David Rutledge, Jean Laherrère, David Strahan, Julian Darley, and Jason Brenno for assistance with this article.

Previous MuseLetters on global coal supply issues are archived on Global Public Media (www.globalpublicmedia.com) at MuseLetter 193: It's Happening, MuseLetter 190: The Great Coal Rush (And Why It Will Fail), and MuseLetter 179: Burning the Furniture).

The airline industry has no future. The same is true for airfreight. No air carrier has a viable plan to make a profit with oil at current prices—much less in years to come as the petroleum available to world markets dwindles rapidly.

That’s not to say that jetliners will disappear overnight, but rather that the cheap flights we’ve seen in the past will soon be fading memories. In a few years jet service will be available only to the wealthy, or to the government and military.

[Read the rest at Global Public Media]

There is a surreal quality to the experience of seeing the unfolding of unpleasant events that one has predicted. Plenty of times over the past few years I’ve said, "I want to be proven wrong!" Who in their right mind would wish to see economic collapse and famine? But it was obvious that, given the direction our society is headed, these must be the consequences. Now, with oil at $117 a barrel, the US economy teetering, and food riots erupting in Haiti, Egypt, and Asia, one could perhaps gain some satisfaction in saying "I told you so." But what faint compensation that would be. We are all going to have to share the bitter fruits of our society's century-long growth binge, whether we have criticized it or participated wholeheartedly. The only silver lining is the possibility that now, at last, as the trends (Peak Oil, the failure of growth-based economics, the failure of industrial agriculture, climate chaos, and so on) are becoming so starkly clear, policy makers will begin seriously to contemplate a Plan B (or C, as Pat Murphy insists). For those of us who have been lobbying in that latter direction for some while, this is no time to let up, but rather the ideal moment to redouble our efforts.

Awareness of Peak Oil, Climate Change, impending global economic implosion, topsoil depletion, biodiversity collapse, and the thousand other dire threats crashing down upon us at the dawn of the new millennium constitutes an enormous psychological burden, one so onerous that most people (and institutions) respond with a battery of psychological defenses-mostly versions of denial and distraction-in an effort to keep conscious awareness comfortably distanced from stark reality. I discuss this in "the Psychology of Peak Oil and Climate Change," chapter 7 of Peak Everything, where I conclude that the healthiest response to dire knowledge is to do something practical and constructive in response, preferably in collaboration with others, both because the worst can probably still be avoided and because engaged action makes us feel better.

Some people who are aware of global threats respond psychologically with a relentless insistence on maintaining mental focus on possible positive futures, however faint their likelihood of realization. Other knowledgeable people are irritated by this behavior and prefer to plunge themselves into prolonged contemplation of the worst possible outcomes. On various Internet discussion sites this split plays out in endless flame-wars between "doomers" and "anti-doomers" (the latter differ from cornucopians, who deny that there is a problem in the first place).

I generally try to avoid both extreme viewpoints. To me, all that matters in the final analysis is whether awareness leads to effective action that actually reduces the risk of worst-case scenarios materializing.

But the fact is, even those who do engage in practical action get bogged down from time to time in fear, grief, and a sense of helplessness, or they suffer burnout from working too long and hard for too little reward. I've seen enough of this lately to conclude that some sort of informed pep talk may be helpful. (By the way: I experience the same symptoms occasionally; this pep talk is aimed as much at myself as anyone else.)

Burnout and depression are certainly understandable given the scale of the challenges facing us, but these responses cause problems since other people depend on us. Each of us who understands global crises and has some capacity to work on intelligent responses to them represents an enormous cultural investment. I'm thinking not just of the decades' worth of resources consumed in order to keep each of us alive and get us to where we are today, but of the information so carefully sought out and digested, and skills learned. These are not trivial things. I don't say this in order to motivate by guilt; it's simply the reality. If one of us falters, there are not millions and billions to take our place. There may indeed be many millions worldwide who are engaged in some type of vaguely benevolent enterprise, but when it comes to the core threats facing our planet, the ranks are remarkably thin. There are probably more like a few thousand globally who really understand the world resource problematique and are doing something sensible to address it.

A pep talk might take the tack of saying if only we pull together, our problems will vanish and the world will be a marvelous place in short order. But the people to whom I'm directing my remarks won't buy that line of persuasion for a second. We all know that we are in for very difficult times, and that there is no guarantee that, even if we do everything we can, the result won't be human die-off and environmental devastation.

This knowledge evokes overlapping personal and planetary worries. And it's these worries that can undermine even the most psychologically robust of us now and again.

Who among us hasn't fretted over the likely impacts of societal collapse on oneself, family, and friends? Of course, it's perfectly sensible to make some preparations. We should have some food stored, we should be gardening and making efforts to reduce our energy usage and need for transportation. But the obsessive thought that it's not enough can be paralyzing. What if financial collapse proceeds to economic, political, and cultural collapse; what could one possibly do to insulate oneself in that case? Tough question. There are too many unknowns. No matter what we do, there can never be a guarantee that we will be immune to the consequences of Peak Oil and Climate Change.

But this quandary is similar in some ways to the universal problem of personal mortality: we do what we can to maintain health (we eat right, we exercise), knowing nevertheless that eventually we will die. Still, the point of life is not to spend every waking moment trying to cheat death; rather, it is to enjoy each day as much as possible, to grow, to learn, and to give of oneself. Time spent building a family emergency preparedness kit needs to be balanced against time spent helping make one's entire community more resilient, and raising awareness in the world as a whole-and time spent with loved ones, and time spent singing and dancing or whatever it is that makes us happy.

Planetary worries can be even more debilitating. What if there simply is no hope? Once one starts down this mental path, the argumentative ammunition is almost endless. If oil wars don't get us, the multiple reinforcing feedback loops of climate chaos will. Corporate interests will continue to prevent politicians from doing the only things that could possibly prevent planetary meltdown. How could it be otherwise?

Yet again there are so many unknowns. How can we be any more assured of absolute extinction than of the absence of any possibility that, following some early signals of collapse, policy makers-even corporate leaders-will actually wake up and start doing sensible things? If, when an opportunity to influence policy does arise, there are no articulate advocates of a clearly worked-out alternative pathway (because we who are currently working in that direction have all given up and pulled the covers over our heads), then doom will have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I suspect that the burden of dire knowledge is exacerbated by the psychophysical impact of too much time on the computer and not enough outdoors. It's an occupational hazard: those of us who are aware of the impending collision of resource depletion with population growth and climate instability have acquired whatever understanding we have through countless hours tracking trends, peering at graphs, and noting
news items on glowing screens. Assuming you're reading my words on-line right now, you might want to bookmark this page and jump for a moment to http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/, the site of an on ongoing research project of Carnegie Mellon University that has concluded that "Greater use of the Internet is associated with increases in loneliness and symptoms of depression."

So with this pep talk comes some friendly advice (again, I'm also talking to myself here): Take breaks. Eat well, and make sure you get enough exercise and sunlight. Ask yourself: What would I do for joy if I knew I had only a year left? A month? A week? Would I make love, spend time in nature, play music, or...?

Well, do it! But remember the rest of us, and don't drop the ball entirely.

In the end, there is no blame or guilt attached to any of this. And there is a limit to the utility of pep talks. Each of us has different brain chemistry, a different reservoir of past experiences that has shaped our character and repertoire of behavioral responses, all of which results in differing levels of tolerance for bad news and hard effort. We will each do what we can, given our unique makeup. But if words can help, let no courageous worker down tools for lack of simple reassurance.

We're all in this together. Let's rely on one another's reserves of psychological strength when we need to, and provide strength for others when we can.

Thursday, April 19 at 7 pm I will be giving a special public lecture at New
College in Santa Rosa, CA, where I teach. I’ll use this opportunity to
explore a few of areas that I haven’t addressed in any previous talks:

1. The energy issues arising from governments’ attempts to deal with the
problem of climate change (looking specifically at the arguments and
proposals in Thomas Friedman’s article “The Power of Green” as
representative of mainstream thinking in this area)
2. The implications for electricity production of the Energy Watch Group’s
report on global coal supplies
3. A summary of the prospects for nuclear power and biofuels

No surprise: all of this leads to the conclusion that our main strategy for
surviving the decline of fossil fuels will be radical conservation.

The following is the public description of the event:

The Energy Transition: Global Response to Climate Change and Fossil Fuel
Depletion

The key shifts in human cultural evolution were energy transitions--from
scavenging to hunting and gathering, to agriculture, to industrialism. Today
we are at the beginning of the most large-scale, hurried, and fateful energy
transition in the history of our species--away from fossil fuels and toward
some mix of energy alternatives and energy conservation that has yet to be
worked out. This transition is compelled by the combined necessities of
climate change and the depletion of the very fuels that cause it--coal, oil,
and natural gas. Noted Peak Oil educator Richard Heinberg will explore
overlapping climate and depletion issues and assess some of the energy
options being widely discussed--including nuclear power, biofuels, and
"clean coal." He will also introduce relevant and surprising data from
recent studies.

Richard Heinberg (New College Core Faculty) is the author of seven books
including THE PARTY'S OVER, POWERDOWN, and THE OIL DEPLETION PROTOCOL. He
travels internationally to speak on oil depletion and energy policy, is a
recipient of the M. King Hubbert Award for Excellence in Energy Education,
and appears in many film documentaries, including Leonardo DiCaprio's
forthcoming "11th Hour."

The lecture is open to the public, with a $5 requested donation.

New College of California
99 6th Street
Santa Rosa CA 95401
707-568-2605

Richard just got back late Friday night from the physically cold but socially active Vermont, where Professor Suzanne Levine and others at the University of Vermont in Burlington kept him very busy. He breakfasted with representatives of Vermont’s ten Peak Oil groups, which, while operating at all different levels, are still forming a fairly unique and exciting state-wide Peak Oil association.

Sandwiched between speaking with both graduate and environmental students’ groups, Richard presented two lectures, one at lunchtime and the other the evening UVM’s President’s lecture, which was well attended by both college and surrounding community members. Vermont is busy!

On Saturday and Sunday of the February 11-12 weekend, many key Post Carbon Institute folks, including board members Celine Rich, Julian Darley, Dick Bell, and Tony Buggleby, together with PCI staff Dave Room, Aaron Lehmer, Madeline van Roechoudt and Post Carbon Fellows Richard Heinberg and Richard Register, gathered in San Francisco for a Post Carbon Summit and strategy meeting. Richard noted afterward that he was impressed with the level of the discussion, and the commitment, knowledge and understanding among all of those present. The Post Carbon organization seems poised for a year of growth and even more effective action and accomplishment.

Three items of interest for this week of February 6, 2006:

Richard is writing hard up against the March 1st manuscript deadline for his book, The Oil Depletion Protocol. He says is his writing is going well and is keeping his hands full.

For the magazine readers among you, last week Richard submitted an article to American Prospect Magazine (http://www.prospect.org/web/index.ww), which will be coming out in their next issue...

Does anyone have clippings laying about of articles by or about Richard? It seems he is not so careful about saving these sorts of things, which his publisher says would be useful to have. We would love it if you would forward the source and date information to Susan@PostCarbon.org. New Society’s publicist, Beth Anne Sobieszczyk, and his assistant Susan Williamson, have been gathering and organizing articles published by Richard (other than his MuseLetters); reviews about his books; and written interviews with him.

November 13, 2005

Richard had a busy week, which started with a media blitzed event in San Francisco for the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall. Richard gave an opening 15-minute talk on Peak Oil (which is now at www.alternet.org); that afternoon the Prince gave a longer keynote taking in a broader range of environmental issues. See Shepherd Bliss’s account, “The Prince and the Peak

Oil Depletion Protocol moving along, and Prince Charles to attend Peak Oil meeting.

The first is the Oil Depletion Protocol Project. Work is proceeding on this, and we now have the promise of a substantial donation from a generous individual to the get the Project off the ground. The first effort of the Project will be the production of a booklet for policy makers, and we are hoping to have that done within a couple of months. Professor Heinberg is in the process of finalizing a contract with the New Society Publishers for a book on the Protocol, to be released in June 2006.

Richard has also been invited to speak at a special appearance by Charles, Prince of Wales, in San Francisco on November 7, 2006. The two-hour program consists of a keynote speech by Prince Charles, followed by a fifteen minute introduction to Peak Oil by Professor Heinberg, then 15 minutes on global climate change by Professor Stephen H. Schneider, of Stanford University. The program will also include a panel discussion featuring CEO’s and government officials , including Chairman David O’Reilly of Chevron Corporation, Steve Jobs, CEO and co-founder of Apple Computer, and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, of California.