Increasing fuel prices

[lemur]

As I recall, the last time gas prices were rising there came a point (@$4/gallon) where media sources reported as the breaking point where people were willing to make drastic changes to their daily practices, seek more fuel-efficient vehicles, etc. instead of just accepting persistent price increases passively. As fuel prices subsequently decreased (to @$3), it seemed like people/businesses were going to make many reforms to prepare for the possibility that prices would go up again.

 

So, what do you think? Have people/businesses developed coping strategies that make them less dependent on fuel or did people expect the government to fix it all and avoid making any adjustments at the individual and local levels?

[jackson33]

lemur; The last time* crude prices decreased or the bubble burst, was shortly after Bush 43, opened up a good many leases for exploration. The oil prices you see day to day are general April-December futures and most that use large amounts of some fuel product, deal in and take advantage of futures in the event of an increase. Anything like opening up leases or today, maybe allowing for already leased and explored rigs, to continue operation will effect those futures markets.

 

Joe Six Pack and his family are today paying 1.00 more per gallon than a year ago, depending on variables this could easily mean what's equal to a tax increase of 800$/year, the average car mileage being around 20k mile/year. Do YOU think, Americans are better prepared???

 

* http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Commodities.aspx?Symbol=COG1

[lemur]

lemur; The last time* crude prices decreased or the bubble burst, was shortly after Bush 43, opened up a good many leases for exploration. The oil prices you see day to day are general April-December futures and most that use large amounts of some fuel product, deal in and take advantage of futures in the event of an increase. Anything like opening up leases or today, maybe allowing for already leased and explored rigs, to continue operation will effect those futures markets.

 

Joe Six Pack and his family are today paying 1.00 more per gallon than a year ago, depending on variables this could easily mean what's equal to a tax increase of 800$/year, the average car mileage being around 20k mile/year. Do YOU think, Americans are better prepared???

Generally, no. But there was cash4clunkers that supposedly scrapped large numbers of older inefficient vehicles and promoted more fuel efficient ones as a replacement. Likewise, there has been increased pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure built and biking and walking seem to be gaining popularity increasingly. Also, because consciousness of fuel-dependency has remained high since the previous spikes, I think people have continuously thought about ways to reduce their personal/family dependence on fuel, but some of this has been dissipated as pie-in-the-sky dreams of electric cars, trains, hydrogen/biofuel, etc. Some people have blown extra insulation into their attics and installed wood-stoves or coal-stoves maybe, considering there were subsidies to stimulate that. I can't think of anything else, but that's why I posted this thread - to find out if other people know of any measures that have been taken or can be to mitigate price-spiking.

[jackson33]

Generally, no. But there was cash4clunkers that supposedly scrapped large numbers of older inefficient vehicles and promoted more fuel efficient ones as a replacement. Likewise, there has been increased pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure built and biking and walking seem to be gaining popularity increasingly. Also, because consciousness of fuel-dependency has remained high since the previous spikes, I think people have continuously thought about ways to reduce their personal/family dependence on fuel, but some of this has been dissipated as pie-in-the-sky dreams of electric cars, trains, hydrogen/biofuel, etc. Some people have blown extra insulation into their attics and installed wood-stoves or coal-stoves maybe, considering there were subsidies to stimulate that.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Cash for Clunkers was announced late July 2009, long after the price of crude had already fallen, then the differential between what the New Vehicles MPG and the older models received was minimal. The program was a fiscal failure IMO and only kept around 600k people from upgrading there even older models and it certainly effected New Car Sales for months after the program ended, end result -0-.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2009/db2009085_823256.htm

 

By January 2009 the price had dropped from around 140$/B to the lowest point since, around 40$/B. Here is a better chart...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg

 

Bush Administration Poised to Sell Oil and Gas Leases Around Dinosaur National Monument, Arches and Canyonlands National Parks...

 

Conservation groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance warned that the BLM was poised to announce on Election Day that it was ready to sell hundreds of oil and gas drilling leases in the above-cited places as well on lands surrounding Dinosaur National Monument, Arches National Park, and Canyonlands National Park. [/Quote]

 

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/11/bush-administration-has-blm-sell-oil-and-gas-leases-around-dinosaur-national-monument-arches

[lemur]

lemur; Cash for Clunkers was announced late July 2009, long after the price of crude had already fallen, then the differential between what the New Vehicles MPG and the older models received was minimal. The program was a fiscal failure IMO and only kept around 600k people from upgrading there even older models and it certainly effected New Car Sales for months after the program ended, end result -0-.

I'm not saying that cash4clunkers was a success or failure in any sense. I just mentioned it as part of the bigger picture of fossil fuel reforms that were supposed to be on the agenda since the previous period of high gas/oil prices. In general, I think average fuel-efficiency may have gone up some since SUVs were at the height of their popularity. I also think people have learned to control their driving habits to a degree that they weren't before. I think there may still be many businesses lagging as far as telecommuting and other alternatives to driving to work are concerned. It's a pain to move businesses and housing around, change jobs, coordinate schedules for carpooling, etc. So the moment gas dropped to $3/gallon, I think a lot of people just gave up on reforms. Still, many people didn't and I'm wondering how much progress those people have made and in what ways.

[ajb]

I would say that we are suffering here in the UK. People moan, but we need a collective effort to reduce the level of taxation on fuel.

 

Save money, save society; burn hoodies as fuel.

[jackson33]

I'm not saying that cash4clunkers was a success or failure in any sense. I just mentioned it as part of the bigger picture of fossil fuel reforms that were supposed to be on the agenda since the previous period of high gas/oil prices. In general, I think average fuel-efficiency may have gone up some since SUVs were at the height of their popularity. I also think people have learned to control their driving habits to a degree that they weren't before. I think there may still be many businesses lagging as far as telecommuting and other alternatives to driving to work are concerned. It's a pain to move businesses and housing around, change jobs, coordinate schedules for carpooling, etc. So the moment gas dropped to $3/gallon, I think a lot of people just gave up on reforms. Still, many people didn't and I'm wondering how much progress those people have made and in what ways. [/Quote]

 

lemur; I really don't want to go back over history, but every action by Government since the 1960's to avert some energy shortage has created greater problems down the road.

 

Unless I missed something, your trying to determine whether Americans can handle another 4.00/Gal cost and in some way trying to link this to changing habits. First it's a simple question of personal economics and few can afford that described 800.00 annual increase cost for long periods. Second, the fuel cost also increases cost of all products consumed by virtue of the transport cost* involved until purchased. Third people and business have long tried to increase productivity (total cost per unit or service). Forth, fuel cost are determined solely in the World Markets and how people get to work in the US is meaningless. Yes, if and when alternative means to accomplish work (telecommuting), doing some jobs (conference calls) or turn to some form of cheaper transportation (electric commuter trains) or the hundreds of things done for economical reasons, the cost might come down. The simplistic answer is really quite simple, explore, extract and improve on the resources AVAILABLE here in this country and quit shipping jobs and money elsewhere.

 

*I mentioned the fuel cost per auto per year, but in two years Diesel fuel, used in most the Trucking Industry has gone up nearly 2.00/gallon and most Big and Medium Rigs are doing good to average 10 MPG. Loads of Produce which are shipped from Southern California to NYC (which I had 10 trucks doing in the early 90's on 6 MPG), have an increased cost of 560.00, one way.

 

On your topic I think and along the above paragraphs line...rail service for many non-timed deliveries have been increasing over many years (20-30), one method for conservation. In fact much produce, many products are being shipped to all parts of the country/world in containers and another means for conserving. Commuter Trains in Metropolitan areas of the US have had some success, general as in Chicago, where people drive to a starting point and commute from there, which is usually caused from other traffic/parking problems, not the idea of conserving anything.

 

 

I would say that we are suffering here in the UK. People moan, but we need a collective effort to reduce the level of taxation on fuel. [/Quote]

 

ajb; I hear Petrol in the UK is nearing 10US$/converted gallon and crude is running 5US$/B above the US Sweet Crude. Yes it must be taxes, since from the refinery today your distributors are paying about 3.03/USG.

[lemur]

lemur; I really don't want to go back over history, but every action by Government since the 1960's to avert some energy shortage has created greater problems down the road.

That's too general to suggest any conclusions. The question is what was tried, how it failed, and why.

 

Unless I missed something, your trying to determine whether Americans can handle another 4.00/Gal cost and in some way trying to link this to changing habits. First it's a simple question of personal economics and few can afford that described 800.00 annual increase cost for long periods. Second, the fuel cost also increases cost of all products consumed by virtue of the transport cost* involved until purchased.

Which means not only is reducing driving a goal but also reducing consumption (or finding more fuel-efficient goods to consume).

 

Third people and business have long tried to increase productivity (total cost per unit or service).

Maybe it hasn't worked because of high labor costs and input costs. Local farming has gained popularity lately so maybe these farms are increasing their utilization of local inputs and otherwise finding ways of reducing their fuel-dependency so that there will be sufficient food available at affordable prices regardless of how much fuel prices drive up costs of more shipping-intensive foods.

 

Forth, fuel cost are determined solely in the World Markets and how people get to work in the US is meaningless. Yes, if and when alternative means to accomplish work (telecommuting), doing some jobs (conference calls) or turn to some form of cheaper transportation (electric commuter trains) or the hundreds of things done for economical reasons, the cost might come down. The simplistic answer is really quite simple, explore, extract and improve on the resources AVAILABLE here in this country and quit shipping jobs and money elsewhere.

Why do people assume that the current economic culture is necessarily inflexible? My sense is that social conventions are more determinant than anything else in necessitating people to show up at an office 5 days/week. As for businesses that require physical presence, why shouldn't these be located close to the residential neighborhoods they serve and whose residents work there? Why can't businesses cluster around neighborhoods where service amenities are already clustered?

 

*I mentioned the fuel cost per auto per year, but in two years Diesel fuel, used in most the Trucking Industry has gone up nearly 2.00/gallon and most Big and Medium Rigs are doing good to average 10 MPG. Loads of Produce which are shipped from Southern California to NYC (which I had 10 trucks doing in the early 90's on 6 MPG), have an increased cost of 560.00, one way.

Should we start a separate thread about trade-routes of NYC or do you just want to assume there's no way to provide sufficient food for New England without shipping it from southern California?

 

On your topic I think and along the above paragraphs line...rail service for many non-timed deliveries have been increasing over many years (20-30), one method for conservation. In fact much produce, many products are being shipped to all parts of the country/world in containers and another means for conserving. Commuter Trains in Metropolitan areas of the US have had some success, general as in Chicago, where people drive to a starting point and commute from there, which is usually caused from other traffic/parking problems, not the idea of conserving anything.

Good examples. And good point about transit-choices being motivated by concerns other than conservation. The problem is that when gas is cheap, the cost of choosing an alternative to driving too often outweighs the benefit of doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

[ecoli]

Good examples. And good point about transit-choices being motivated by concerns other than conservation. The problem is that when gas is cheap, the cost of choosing an alternative to driving too often outweighs the benefit of doing so.

 

 

Yup. One of the best arguments to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, btw.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yup. One of the best arguments to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, btw.

 

We could try subsidizing it more and more until it's all gone and then wondering why we're not prepared with alternatives.

[lemur]

We could try subsidizing it more and more until it's all gone and then wondering why we're not prepared with alternatives.

And yet the taxes would increase to such high proportions that we would have already had to find fuel-free alternatives for all our basic needs by the time it runs out.

[ajb]

ajb; I hear Petrol in the UK is nearing 10US$/converted gallon and crude is running 5US$/B above the US Sweet Crude. Yes it must be taxes, since from the refinery today your distributors are paying about 3.03/USG.

 

Also, insurance prices have increased lately. In effect we are being taxed off the road!

[CaptainPanic]

Interestingly, this graph suggests that indeed US oil consumption has dropped.

 

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_consumption.html

[jackson33]

That's too general to suggest any conclusions. The question is what was tried, how it failed, and why.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Your more interested in "Green Energy", but since the US first started importing crude oil, in the 60's with any economic effects, the premise was dependency. Laws were passed, including the "CAFE Standards Act" of 1975, which countered Natural Capitalism, which was producing cars getting 40-50-60 MPG already. Some VW, I believe were topping 60 MPG and GM's Corvair was designed for high gas mileages, both including larger Vans. While this might have worked in the end, for fuel consumption, Government decided "emissions" should also be controlled, as well as what Auto Manufactures should be allowed (percentages) to produce in the US. The results are history, Auto Manufactures expanded to overseas markets, in those days mostly to Canada and imports for small cars produced outside the US increased. In the 90's, many of those imported simply built plants in the US.

 

There is NOTHING classified alternative energy that hasn't been around for a very long time, including Geothermal, Wind, Solar and Battery. For at least 10 years, anybody wishing to, could build their green home drive electric vehicles or said simply, live without fossil fuels. Of course it's a little inconvenient, not very efficient or dependable and is VERY expensive. Most all Warehousing today operates with electric fork lifts and other machinery.

 

Which means not only is reducing driving a goal but also reducing consumption (or finding more fuel-efficient goods to consume).[/Quote]

 

The trouble there is whom and/or what determines HOW, to reduce driving/consumption. Should it be Capitalism, which could drive down world fuel cost or Government trying to create or prolong shortages to affect an agenda. We have the natural resources, the bridge to alternatives is there, so why not use what's available until those alternative cost, dependability and efficiencies can be developed.

 

Maybe it hasn't worked because of high labor costs and input costs. Local farming has gained popularity lately so maybe these farms are increasing their utilization of local inputs and otherwise finding ways of reducing their fuel-dependency so that there will be sufficient food available at affordable prices regardless of how much fuel prices drive up costs of more shipping-intensive foods. [/Quote]

 

The US is the only country with a "AAA" rating for productivity, it has worked. Local farming has always been around in the US, however today is totally inefficient to support local needs. In fact several Corporate Farming concerns have moved in part to total operations in both Mexico and South America, distance equals transport cost...

 

Why do people assume that the current economic culture is necessarily inflexible? My sense is that social conventions are more determinant than anything else in necessitating people to show up at an office 5 days/week. As for businesses that require physical presence, why shouldn't these be located close to the residential neighborhoods they serve and whose residents work there? Why can't businesses cluster around neighborhoods where service amenities are already clustered?[/Quote]

 

Actually at one time many of the majors business concerns were built in metropolitan areas, but zoning laws and growth has increasingly sent them where labor cost and local acceptance were more favorable. Then as productivity increased, more products could be produced their need for markets to sell in were needed and rail access was very common. Then it went to trucking and a good share to Sam Walton's Distribution style for distribution. Wal Mart has a good many International Distribution Centers and small manufactures can often ship Truck Loads (they no longer use rail cars) for a small fraction of shipping to 1000 local retailers. Sam's Club, in fact sells more today to small retailers for less than they could buy direct.

 

Should we start a separate thread about trade-routes of NYC or do you just want to assume there's no way to provide sufficient food for New England without shipping it from southern California?[/Quote]

 

lemur, I'm completely lost on where your intended threads direction should take and simply responding to some comments you or others are making. Transport or distribution of goods is often overlooked and interruptions could be devastating on any economy.

 

 

The problem is that when gas is cheap, the cost of choosing an alternative to driving too often outweighs the benefit of doing so.[/Quote]

 

People and business will always levitate to economical means for getting around, but this has to include efficiency and access.

 

 

Also, insurance prices have increased lately. In effect we are being taxed off the road! [/Quote]

 

ajb; Your probably talking Comprehensive Auto Insurance, opposed to Liability, which is increasing everywhere, as Auto cost and repair cost have increased. Believe me, Government does NOT want you off the roads, your 4-6.00/G tax is used for a whole lot more than building roads.

 

 

Interestingly, this graph suggests that indeed US oil consumption has dropped.[/Quote]

 

CP; I think you'll find the unemployed, somewhere around 23 Million (including those no longer looking for work or receiving unemployment) has a whole lot more to do with fuel consumption, than anything else.

[lemur]

The trouble there is whom and/or what determines HOW, to reduce driving/consumption. Should it be Capitalism, which could drive down world fuel cost or Government trying to create or prolong shortages to affect an agenda. We have the natural resources, the bridge to alternatives is there, so why not use what's available until those alternative cost, dependability and efficiencies can be developed.

Capitalist rationality is prone to driving up fossil fuel prices as high as possible simply because they are a non-renewable resource. As global sources get tapped, those that remain become more scarce and thus increase in value. For this reason, anyone who owns fuel sources should want to save them for the future, when they'll be worth more. I think the ideal situation for fuel dealers would be to drive prices up until only a very privileged elite could afford them and then milk their supplies for as long as possible at maximum rates. The trouble for them is assessing how high a price markets will sustain without collapsing. This is where conservation and economic/technological reform factor in.

 

lemur, I'm completely lost on where your intended threads direction should take and simply responding to some comments you or others are making. Transport or distribution of goods is often overlooked and interruptions could be devastating on any economy.

You're basically taking the opposite approach that I intended with the thread, which I intentionally tried to avoid because it is so many people's knee-jerk reflex to give reasons why reforms are impossible. The point of the thread is to consider what reforms have or will make it possible for economies to sustain higher fuel prices without suffering too much deprivation.

 

CP; I think you'll find the unemployed, somewhere around 23 Million (including those no longer looking for work or receiving unemployment) has a whole lot more to do with fuel consumption, than anything else.

Why, because they can't afford gas? Then the question would be if their limited mobility is resulting in them developing coping strategies that accomplish more with less fuel-expenditure and, if so, what might those be?

 

 

[ecoli]

Capitalist rationality is prone to driving up fossil fuel prices as high as possible simply because they are a non-renewable resource. As global sources get tapped, those that remain become more scarce and thus increase in value. For this reason, anyone who owns fuel sources should want to save them for the future, when they'll be worth more. I think the ideal situation for fuel dealers would be to drive prices up until only a very privileged elite could afford them and then milk their supplies for as long as possible at maximum rates. The trouble for them is assessing how high a price markets will sustain without collapsing. This is where conservation and economic/technological reform factor in.

 

Good in theory, but everyone needs energy, not just the elites. If the oil companies tried that 1) immediate profits would suffer 2) cheaper alternative energies would be more cost effective compared to oil.

 

Why would the elite buy more expensive fuel just because they happen to be rich when cheaper sources [hypothetically] exist? I don't follow that logic.

 

 

You're basically taking the opposite approach that I intended with the thread, which I intentionally tried to avoid because it is so many people's knee-jerk reflex to give reasons why reforms are impossible. The point of the thread is to consider what reforms have or will make it possible for economies to sustain higher fuel prices without suffering too much deprivation.

 

Best guess is to invest in infrastructure that lets markets work that out painlessly.

[lemur]

Good in theory, but everyone needs energy, not just the elites. If the oil companies tried that 1) immediate profits would suffer 2) cheaper alternative energies would be more cost effective compared to oil.

 

Why would the elite buy more expensive fuel just because they happen to be rich when cheaper sources [hypothetically] exist? I don't follow that logic.

I agree, it's a balancing act between maintaining demand inelasticity and conserving reserves. Theoretically, though, if people could organize a local economy that practically eliminates all dependency on fossil fuel, those people could invest in buying and holding oil drilling rights for as long as they wanted. They would not need to sell their oil to pay for oil, in other words.

 

Best guess is to invest in infrastructure that lets markets work that out painlessly.

To me the dilemma is that existing infrastructure wouldn't have to be altered much to replace automotive traffic with pedestrian traffic. People and businesses would just need to move around some so that they'd be within walking distance. The reason I don't think markets work this out painlessly is that businesses and employees factor fuel costs into their wage rates, which means giving raises to some employees and laying off others when budgets are stretched thin by personnel and costs. It would be surprising to see existing businesses re-organize geographically, re-invest portions of their personnel costs in corporate vehicles and then limit use of these to special needs and vacation/weekend use; i.e. create mandatory vehicle-sharing.

Edited March 10, 2011 by lemur

[jackson33]

You're basically taking the opposite approach that I intended with the thread, which I intentionally tried to avoid because it is so many people's knee-jerk reflex to give reasons why reforms are impossible. The point of the thread is to consider what reforms have or will make it possible for economies to sustain higher fuel prices without suffering too much deprivation.[/Quote]

 

lemur, forced reforms have never worked or have unwarranted regulations, in itself is an argument for adding additional ones, even to simply test. Business and people have always driven reform on such issues by their participation in this free market. There have been many test, including the ones mentioned under "CAFE Standards", still being used and a total disaster for every persons bottom line. As for individuals effecting total consumption, I went through Sam Walton's program and has literally changed the consumers market place. Think about it, not very long ago you would drive all over town picking up different products or using some service (fast food/banking) and now this can all be done in one place. 600 Sam's Club Warehouses alone service in part or whole, thousands of retailers, farmers, service shops or other retailers, saving untold expenses, resulting in far less energy. That was one Capitalist saving billions for both the consumer and the environments resources. If you wish, take this example of "reform" that did work ....

 

Capitalist rationality is prone to driving up fossil fuel prices as high as possible simply because they are a non-renewable resource. As global sources get tapped, those that remain become more scarce and thus increase in value. For this reason, anyone who owns fuel sources should want to save them for the future, when they'll be worth more. I think the ideal situation for fuel dealers would be to drive prices up until only a very privileged elite could afford them and then milk their supplies for as long as possible at maximum rates. The trouble for them is assessing how high a price markets will sustain without collapsing. This is where conservation and economic/technological reform factor in.[/Quote]

 

Most crude reserves in the World are owned by some Government, even in the US a good deal of potential reserves are on Federally owned land or controlled off shore property. It's also classified a commodity and future price are market set and if any combination of Countries (OPEC) decides to hold off for higher prices THEY can do so. The Industry owns very little and what is owned is used to produce many products which are used by hundreds of different manufacturing companies, from cosmetics, plastics, fertilizers to 60 or so different blends for each State and some Cities. Your blaming the wrong people.....

 

Why, because they can't afford gas? Then the question would be if their limited mobility is resulting in them developing coping strategies that accomplish more with less fuel-expenditure and, if so, what might those be?[/Quote]

 

My first thought was 23 Million people aren't going to work each day. If they used 10 gallons per day would account for 1.15 billion gallons per work week and about 60BG/ work year. Since a barrel refines 27 gallons of gasoline per, that accounts for 2.15BB/year. For any nit pickers, diesel, fuel oil, natural gas and other things, are simultaneously produced from each barrel.

 

Theoretically, though, if people could organize a local economy that practically eliminates all dependency on fossil fuel, those people could invest in buying and holding oil drilling rights for as long as they wanted. They would not need to sell their oil to pay for oil, in other words.[/Quote]

 

lemur, drilling rights offered by the Federal, States if on State Property (most all resources are owned by States if on private property) are time limited, they must explore, drill, end make secure in a timely manner. They could store the oil, very expensive and certainly not where people live, or refine the oil, store that way, which does decompose over time.

 

i.e. create mandatory vehicle-sharing. [/Quote]

 

An attorney's dream, I can see the law suits coming from the near 2 million auto accidents each year in the US. Then what about China and India, who are just getting started...

[lemur]

lemur, forced reforms have never worked or have unwarranted regulations, in itself is an argument for adding additional ones, even to simply test. Business and people have always driven reform on such issues by their participation in this free market.

Who said anything about "forced reforms" through "unwarranted regulations?" I think people would reform themselves if it weren't for elaborate cultural assumptions that deter people from rational choices. Face it, most people's consumption choices are predicated on impression management and maintaining social popularity, not reforming their lifestyle to the most economically rational possible.

 

Think about it, not very long ago you would drive all over town picking up different products or using some service (fast food/banking) and now this can all be done in one place. 600 Sam's Club Warehouses alone service in part or whole, thousands of retailers, farmers, service shops or other retailers, saving untold expenses, resulting in far less energy. That was one Capitalist saving billions for both the consumer and the environments resources. If you wish, take this example of "reform" that did work ....

True, one-stop shopping is more efficient. However, as I said there is a strong middle-class resistance against rationalization and economic efficiency in favor of fragmenting consumption into numerous high-profit niches. One-stop shopping isn't glamorous enough for them and they're willing to waste resources to get glamour, even if it promotes social-economic structuring that promotes having an underclass.

 

lemur, drilling rights offered by the Federal, States if on State Property (most all resources are owned by States if on private property) are time limited, they must explore, drill, end make secure in a timely manner. They could store the oil, very expensive and certainly not where people live, or refine the oil, store that way, which does decompose over time.

I hope such rights are extendable. Optimistically, I would like to see the global economy rally and reach a level of conservation that quickly ensures fossil fuels get locked in the ground permanently in case some distant future need would arise. I would settle for a slow tapering of demand, since that would be better than barreling full steam into abrupt scarcity.

 

An attorney's dream, I can see the law suits coming from the near 2 million auto accidents each year in the US. Then what about China and India, who are just getting started...

Ok, I can see you don't like vehicle-sharing, but why do you think it would cause more accidents?

 

 

[jackson33]

Who said anything about "forced reforms" through "unwarranted regulations?" I think people would reform themselves if it weren't for elaborate cultural assumptions that deter people from rational choices. Face it, most people's consumption choices are predicated on impression management and maintaining social popularity, not reforming their lifestyle to the most economically rational possible.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Actually your correct here and yes, Americans have often changed habits over the years for various reasons. I remember in the 40's my folks taking me along on a vacation and seeing mile after mile of smoke from folks burning trash, coincidentally seeing trash all along the highway. We had no EPA or any laws on these things or many other things, but over the next 20-30 years people cleaned up their own neighborhoods, used trash bags in there cars and began installing areas to cllect/take trash. After a severe storm, everyone jumped in helping to clear streets, even helping to rebuild a home or whatever was needed.

 

All this said, today people tend to wait on Government to do these things and there are thousand of regulation on just how this is done. Said another way the incentive for individuals has been diminished. I'll never forget Hurricane Katrina and those folks standing around waiting for help. I don't know what would be left of the US, if it really did suffer another "Great Depression".

 

True, one-stop shopping is more efficient. However, as I said there is a strong middle-class resistance against rationalization and economic efficiency in favor of fragmenting consumption into numerous high-profit niches. One-stop shopping isn't glamorous enough for them and they're willing to waste resources to get glamour, even if it promotes social-economic structuring that promotes having an underclass.[/Quote]

 

No sir, I don't believe it's the middle class, rather the labor movement and those in small business feeling they can't compete. Ironically their are others, that build some very good business near these "one stop" box stores and do very well. Some people do prefer personalized service, but I'm not sure it's related to social standing.

 

Optimistically, I would like to see the global economy rally and reach a level of conservation that quickly ensures fossil fuels get locked in the ground permanently in case some distant future need would arise. I would settle for a slow tapering of demand, since that would be better than barreling full steam into abrupt scarcity.[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure locking in crude or natural gas is even possible, a certain amount is always being naturally released. Then if "Abiogenic" or "Abiosynthessis" theory (opposed to fossil) is correct, crude and natural gas would always be naturally produced. You would have to admit a good deal of crude today is being pumped from deep in the earths crust, where no organic life is thought to have ever lived.

 

I can't imagine "a distant future need" that would require the use of crude oil. We can synthetically produce many things currently made from cheaper crude oil. If anything we might be generating/transmitting solar energy from space. Anyway "slow tapering of demand" IS a reasonable desire and I agree...

 

Kakuda, japan—In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion of fossil fuels has forced humanity to turn to space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is set in the year 2307, but even now real Japanese scientists are working on the hardware needed to realize orbital generators as a form of clean, renewable energy, with plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years. [/Quote]

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space

 

Ok, I can see you don't like vehicle-sharing, but why do you think it would cause more accidents?[/Quote]

 

Not really and if "Car Pools" were practical people would do this. I've spent too many years on the road however to believe they actually will. For instance two or more person, lanes in California are usually empty. I figure that if people DID play bus driver for 4-5 others, of the average 6 (SIX) million annual accidents each year in the US, a third would fit this category, but the actual number of vehicles on the road, would have to fall....it's just the end cost involved.

 

 

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.[/Quote]

 

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

 

Who said anything about "forced reforms" through "unwarranted regulations?" I think people would reform themselves if it weren't for elaborate cultural assumptions that deter people from rational choices. Face it, most people's consumption choices are predicated on impression management and maintaining social popularity, not reforming their lifestyle to the most economically rational possible.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Actually your correct here and yes, Americans have often changed habits over the years for various reasons. I remember in the 40's my folks taking me along on a vacation and seeing mile after mile of smoke from folks burning trash, coincidentally seeing trash all along the highway. We had no EPA or any laws on these things or many other things, but over the next 20-30 years people cleaned up their own neighborhoods, used trash bags in there cars and began installing areas to cllect/take trash. After a severe storm, everyone jumped in helping to clear streets, even helping to rebuild a home or whatever was needed.

 

All this said, today people tend to wait on Government to do these things and there are thousand of regulation on just how this is done. Said another way the incentive for individuals has been diminished. I'll never forget Hurricane Katrina and those folks standing around waiting for help. I don't know what would be left of the US, if it really did suffer another "Great Depression".

 

True, one-stop shopping is more efficient. However, as I said there is a strong middle-class resistance against rationalization and economic efficiency in favor of fragmenting consumption into numerous high-profit niches. One-stop shopping isn't glamorous enough for them and they're willing to waste resources to get glamour, even if it promotes social-economic structuring that promotes having an underclass.[/Quote]

 

No sir, I don't believe it's the middle class, rather the labor movement and those in small business feeling they can't compete. Ironically their are others, that build some very good business near these "one stop" box stores and do very well. Some people do prefer personalized service, but I'm not sure it's related to social standing.

 

Optimistically, I would like to see the global economy rally and reach a level of conservation that quickly ensures fossil fuels get locked in the ground permanently in case some distant future need would arise. I would settle for a slow tapering of demand, since that would be better than barreling full steam into abrupt scarcity.[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure locking in crude or natural gas is even possible, a certain amount is always being naturally released. Then if "Abiogenic" or "Abiosynthessis" theory (opposed to fossil) is correct, crude and natural gas would always be naturally produced. You would have to admit a good deal of crude today is being pumped from deep in the earths crust, where no organic life is thought to have ever lived.

 

I can't imagine "a distant future need" that would require the use of crude oil. We can synthetically produce many things currently made from cheaper crude oil. If anything we might be generating/transmitting solar energy from space. Anyway "slow tapering of demand" IS a reasonable desire and I agree...

 

Kakuda, japan—In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion of fossil fuels has forced humanity to turn to space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is set in the year 2307, but even now real Japanese scientists are working on the hardware needed to realize orbital generators as a form of clean, renewable energy, with plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years. [/Quote]

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space

 

Ok, I can see you don't like vehicle-sharing, but why do you think it would cause more accidents?[/Quote]

 

Not really and if "Car Pools" were practical people would do this. I've spent too many years on the road however to believe they actually will. For instance two or more person, lanes in California are usually empty. I figure that if people DID play bus driver for 4-5 others, of the average 6 (SIX) million annual accidents each year in the US, a third would fit this category, but the actual number of vehicles on the road, would have to fall....it's just the end cost involved.

 

 

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.[/Quote]

 

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

[lemur]

All this said, today people tend to wait on Government to do these things and there are thousand of regulation on just how this is done. Said another way the incentive for individuals has been diminished. I'll never forget Hurricane Katrina and those folks standing around waiting for help. I don't know what would be left of the US, if it really did suffer another "Great Depression".

Sorry, but I guess I am getting really tired of hearing people act like anything between their current level of consumption and total deprivation is a disastrous "great depression." Globally, the resources are available to provide for everyone's basic necessities and the only real question is how to organize and distribute the labor in a way that's fair without abridging people's freedom, individuality, and private property rights.

 

I'm not sure locking in crude or natural gas is even possible, a certain amount is always being naturally released. Then if "Abiogenic" or "Abiosynthessis" theory (opposed to fossil) is correct, crude and natural gas would always be naturally produced. You would have to admit a good deal of crude today is being pumped from deep in the earths crust, where no organic life is thought to have ever lived.

 

I can't imagine "a distant future need" that would require the use of crude oil. We can synthetically produce many things currently made from cheaper crude oil. If anything we might be generating/transmitting solar energy from space. Anyway "slow tapering of demand" IS a reasonable desire and I agree...

All fossil fuel is the product of solar-generated biomass accumulating over many years. That is why it is non-renewable. When it ends, the only energy that will be available will come from sunlight and what grows from it. There's no magic source of fuel that can justify continuing to consume as if there's no end in sight. That's why conservation is so important and the major obstacle is cultural norms that make it difficult for people to see that their regular everyday consumption is actually excessive and what they think of as practically abject poverty (walking around in old clothes or biking) is sustainable living. Middle-class culture is so dangerous, imo, because it causes people to measure wealth and poverty relative to themselves as "just normal." Middle-class culture is not "just normal" and should evolve into what would basically amount to working-poverty with responsible social behavior and better education (which the poor should also have access to, btw)

[jackson33]

lemur. I'm not going to pursue "Abionic Oil Theory" or argue with anyone on it's merits. Even if possibly correct, basically crude forms in the Earths mantle seeping up, the idea enough is being produced would never support a future 10-20B people, with today's standards. You might google the theory and maybe add "Russian Scientist". As for sunlight on organic matter, I don't know how much could have been around through time or how it was exposed to sunlight, but then that's a good subject for another thread in Speculations.

 

Sorry, but I guess I am getting really tired of hearing people act like anything between their current level of consumption and total deprivation is a disastrous "great depression." Globally, the resources are available to provide for everyone's basic necessities and the only real question is how to organize and distribute the labor in a way that's fair without abridging people's freedom, individuality, and private property rights.[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure if your trying to explain some "New World Order", have some strange view of benevolence or have little understanding of economics. Over half the world today live lives, equal to or worse than any great depression in what's classified the "Industrialized World" over the past 500 years. All you would in the end create with what appears to be some equalizations of wealth and resources is taking the entire human race back to those days, when a very few lived lives as we do in all the nations that utilize their resources or in some manner trade for them. It's called Capitalism and beats the older methods of conquering territory.

 

As for "without abridging people's freedoms, individuality and private property rights", which is exactly what your suggesting (IMO), the US system for governing, if stuck with (we are not) affords every person born here or can get here legally, all those things. Remember individuality is the opposite of collectivism (all the same) and what your desirous of "everyone's basic needs", which in itself is subjective to what's determined basic.