I read his book, albeit many years ago, and I thought it lightweight and unimaginative, yet another pop journalist discussing a scientific issue about which he knew very little. As I recall, I especially objected to his claim that the chemical products of petroleum were irreplaceable.
There are zero chemical commodities from petroleum that cannot be either replaced or produced using syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon oxides, most generally carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Syngas is available from water and practically any carbon source, including but hardly limited to seawater or air when high temperatures are available, which they are, at least in a world not dominated by fear and ignorance.
The book had a "doomsday" appeal without even a remote sense of practical direction.
I found it, frankly, laughable and made lots of fun over the years of "little Jimmy Kunstler" even while I agreed that the car CULTure was not sustainable. The difference between him and me is that I investigated the possible while he focused on the impossible.
I fully concede that the possible is not always the probable or the realized, but no, I'm not inclined to take seriously journalists from Rolling Stone and other pop sources.
We don't need to be done with petroleum because we're running out of it. We need to replace it because nobody knows what to do with the waste.
= new reply since forum marked as read