thimblescratch

I know what you mean gwd, and I don't know what kind of impact we have. When I see a hummer pass me, I think to myself "I'm biking so you can drive that thing and I balance out your CO2 and reducing your cost of oil" but does that mean I am passively encouraging the Hummer to be on the road?
For the most part, I don't think so. One byproduct of biking everywhere is setting an example.
Today I saw more bicyclists than I have all year. Several were female which around here is rare, and they looked like average women who probably stopped being able to afford gas. It was a a nice thing to see. When people in cars start seing men in business suits all over the bike paths, things may snowball from there.
At current supply/demand, the less gas we use, the cheaper it will get, but taking into account the rate at which the demand is increasing (population growth, here and places like China) it will balance itself out, and will take more and more people biking to decrease the cost.
I wonder if the downward supply curve will be similar to the inverse of the increase in population.

pedex

economize
localize
produce
become debt free

that is what must be done, and get into the non-discretionary side of the economy and be prepared for big bumps and ugly inflation........

thimblescratch

What does economize mean/entail?

Roody

Time for a new system and a new way of living. Everybody needs to read McKibben's new book.

On the PBS Newshour last night, an economist predicted that in the near future energy development might be a continuation of massive, centralized systems--but probably nuclear- rather than fossil-based. OR future energy will be small-scale, localized and decentralized, with home/neighborhood solar panels as the basis. With engineering developments, enough conservation and demand reduction, either system would probably be sustainable in the long term.

This same economist said that the main problems with transitioning to more sustainable energy are engineering problems rather than economic or political problems. These engineering challenges involve safe storage of waste for nuclear, and efficient means of storage for solar/wind. that will be he main expnse of a switchover, and he advocated government-funded research on the scale of the Manhattan project or the moon landing. The actual cost of switching to sustainables will be relatively modest, since we're already spending lots on maintaining, expanding and rebuilding the current structure. One example he gave of past changes on this scale was of the US going from basically zero warplanes in 1942 to 50,000 planes a couple years later, done without damage to the economy--in fact with huge growth in the economy.

Of course he was discussing this in terms of global warming, not peak oil. I'd be interested in hearing how you all think these two issues relate, if they do.

Roody

Yes, I agree this is what we need to do. I would add

engineer new systems for enegy and food production/distribution

Roody

I can't speak for pedex, but I would say more human power, less consumption of manufactured energy through conservation and better efficiency, revamping of infrastructure to facilitate economy over speed.

pedex

conserve, do not waste anything, recycle as much as possible, find and make use of less energy intensive ways of doing things

for example, suppose you run a pizza shop, you can make your dough by hand rather than using a giant electric mixer, and prepare all the ingredients by hand rather than machines

these things add up

ride bike to work
move closer to work
move closer to food source
live closer to other people

etc etc etc

pedex

I think peak hydrocarbon energy will trump global warming, IMO it is a far more dire issue to deal with, but it will also potentially bring about the changes needed to mitigate any contribution man makes to global warming.

this country could I think if properly motivated make the transition quite easily, but I dont think the motivation will come........the consequences make much of what we are taught to think and act moot and thus unthinkable

as one of the most energy intensive societies on the planet its almost impossible to contemplate what the end result really means until you get there, but there are some very obvious conclusions:
we wont be exporting war and war machinery all over the globe
we wont be occupying 130 countries with military bases
we wont be shipping stuff all over nearly as much
the wide variety and range of choices we have with all of our goods and products will decrease(not always a bad thing)
the quality of services and goods we have now which is quite mediocre may actually get much better
travel beyond local will get more rare and infrequent
we will struggle to maintain health care
we will struggle to maintain an easy living lifestyle we enjoy now
people will have to do much more physical labor

thats just off the top of my head

I kinda look at our future as sort of a mix of what occurred from about 1920 to 2000 run in reverse with a bit of new technology thrown in where it fits and is sustainable.

thimblescratch

I think Peak Oil could be the only thing that saves us all from out-of-control Global Warming. Otherwise (with cheap gas) it would be 'someone else's future problem' like everything else. Hit them in the pocketbooks, and we have no option but to find a more sustainable alternative. It will be late, but hopefully not too late...

gerv 

A pattern seems to emerge in what you suggest. More de-centralized systems are a little more resilient in times of crisis. If your food supply depends on refined oil to move your food from California to your table, locally grown produce is a more secure choice. Being closer to work means that if your automobile can be fueled for any reason, you can still get to work. On an international scale, this buffers economies from one particular crisis. For example, in this scenario, if Venezuela or Canada has a political crisis, it would not affect your ability to find potatoes next week. This kind of a economic layout is something like the Internet... any or even most of it can be down, but many, many pockets of it will continue to function.

wahoonc

That is the way it used to be 100 years or so ago. The bulk of the products you purchased were produced within less than 100 miles of your home and in many cases closer than that. I keep pointing out that IMHO the best place to live is going to be a smallish town with a current diversified manufacturing base and access to a rail line. There are probably thousands of them scattered across the country. The one I live near and we have our shop in is Dunn, NC it has a bit of sprawl going on, but nothing too drastic yet. Everything in town can be reached by bicycle in less than 10 minutes and under 25 by walking. It has it's own medical center with associated clinics. A independent grocer that also owns a canning plant that cans local produce. With many farms in the surrounding area that produce veggies, poultry, fish and beef.

Aaron

gerv 

That sounds ideal, but you should keep in mind that even large cities can be nearly self-sufficient in food. They can also be subdivided into very liveable neighbourhoods. For example, the city I live in, with population near 500,000, has lots of arable land, and a great deal of it is navigable by bicycle. In fact, smaller towns really aren't all that suited to bikes since you can easily walk everywhere.

The bicycle is best suited to distances between 2 and 10 miles in my opinion and that covers a lot of my town, as well as the nucleus of towns like Minneapolis and Chicago.

wahoonc

gerv,
I have ridden a bit in MSP and was impressed with the bicycle infrastructure up there. My concern with a very high population density, like you would find in a larger city, would be getting sufficient food supply for that number of people. It used to be the outlying truck gardens and farms that provided food for city dwellers, but most of those have since been gobbled up by the 'burbs. As an example look at NYC...they used to call NJ the "Garden State" for a good reason a very large portion of NYC's food came from there, typically brought in by rail. Ever heard the term "milk train" It may be that in some of the older better organized cities that it may still work. But I look at our state capital and the unbelievable sprawl that has taken over farm,, after farm after farm, and wonder how they would be able to feed that many people. The land may be available for agriculture but are there people to farm it?

Another factor that is going to come into play very quickly is this country's lack of production capacity and whether people are going to be willing to work for the most basic of necessities. I am in middle management at my company, but we are unique in that I spend much more time with the crews in the field than sitting on my arse in an office. Most of my upper level managers came up thru the field and still know how to get dirty and work. I just wonder how many people out there realize just what it will take to survive via manual labor. I realize that many of us are already moving in the right direction, but for each one of us there are probably at least a few tens of thousand that have no clue and are going to be blindsided.

Aaron

gerv 

That's a very good point. Even if people were willing to work, there is a lot of "know-how" involved in being self-sufficient. Knowledge about gardening or even how to keep a bike on the road are not exactly abundant and there is also that keen sense of "will-power" that you just don't have if you've spent most of your life sitting in front of a television.

wahoonc

I saw a quote somewhere around here about people's bodies today being nothing but a tripod to hold their heads while they stare at the television or computer monitor

Another factor I am wondering about is all the current clowns that constantly whine about the goverment not doing enough for them...what are they going to do when the social handout net gets a huge hole in it because the government is bankrupt and broke along with a fairly large chunk of the populace? I can recall hearing stories from various relatives during the depression. One that always tickled me was a local guy who was on the dole and apparently was using the money to buy gas and go drinking while his family was basically starving, the neighbors got PO'ed at him and took the wheels off his car and locked them to a tree in the yard and put a stop to his shenanigans. I seriously doubt that would fly today.

Aaron

gwd

These seem to add up to engage in farm work. I read all the posts and generally you guys seem to be describing a shift toward a peasant economy. What I really don't get is the connection between living car free and the peak oil issue. I can imagine my car dependent friends responding "Given that your prediction is completely correct, why should I change my lifestyle? Why shouldn't I drive everywhere while I can afford gas and change when pricing forces the change on everybody?" I can also imagine my car dependent friends asking "How are you helping alleviate the peak oil problem? If vast numbers of people who can afford to drive and waste give up driving and wasting won't that just make driving and wasting easier and cheaper for me allowing me to drive and waste more? In fact if the US gets the energy efficiency religion won't that free up oil for the Chinese to enjoy a car dependent life style?" The posts in this thread give me the impression that you guys are advocating training or practicing for the comming crisis on a personal level so that when it comes it will be less painful for you personally. If life will become nasty shouldn't we be stockpiling weapons too? A friend who lived through a starving time told me that when her grandmother got successful at producing some food at home armed men came and stole it. They lived in a place where weapon ownership was illegal.

Platy

If you turn the Oil Availability Knob down to 95%, you get gas lines and carpooling. If you turn it all the way down to 0%, you get peasants.

Personally, I don't urge anyone to change their lifestyle. Economics will take care of that in due course. It would be useful at this point for us as a society to start removing the barriers that stand in the way of carfree living.

rajman

Even a sprawl city like Calgary has a lot of stuff between 2 and 10 miles (for example most people live within 10 miles of downtown). Furthermore, if you double or triple the number of people taking transit, and add capacity to match - now your bus comes every ten minutes instead of every twenty. At this point it becomes a lot more convenient to take transit, so more people choose to save the $20 gas/parking cost, which means that service improves, etc.

I really don't think that the doomsday scenario for personal transportation works - suburbs are relatively inconvenient because their roadways are designed for cars, rather than innately because of the distances involved. As cultural/economic changes induce people to seek alternatives, and those alternatives are accomodated, they will become more viable (e.g. it will revive the little strip mall, etc). Simple things like allowing acessory apartments, and building condos on suburban mall parking lots will go a long way to intensifying them.

Bakemono

Its not practical for everyone to give up their car or truck. Are you going to ride your bike 20 miles or more to work? How are you going to pick up grocerys on your bike? How are you going to pick up home improvement supplies on your bike?
A bike is fine if you have a short commute, but its not practical for most people as their only vehicle.
I enjoy riding my bike, but no way would I not have a car or truck because it just wouldnt make sense.
For me, I kinda live out in the country, so the best I can do is just live with the gas prices for now and when it comes time to trade up to a newer vehicle I will be most likely looking at a smaller truck or maybe even a car. Im driving a '99 Ford F-150 right now and while I like it, paying $60-$80 a week for gas sucks.
Bottom line, when we finally do run out of oil, things are going to get scary. It is my opinion that the way of life most of us know now will end and we will all be forced to go back to communal living, living off the land and subsistance farming. Mankind will survive, but we will go back to living much simpler lives. Technology, cars and travel is something that only the very, very rich will be able to afford.
This is kind of morbid, but it is my hope that I will no longer be around when that day comes, because its not going to be fun. As someone who loves things that run on internal combustion engines, that day would signal the end of many of the things that I love.
Who knows though, maybe by the global warming/climate change will have changed the Earth so dramatically that running out of oil is the least of our worries.

Roody

YES!!!!

Roody

I guess everybody has to answer these questions in terms of their own lives. But you can find lots of ideas and suggestions here on this forum. Every one of these questions has been disussed extensively.

Welcome!

ericy

When I was in China, I saw something that I guess you could sort of describe as a cargo tricycle. There was a small flatbed in back over the rear axle, with small leaf springs. I even saw one guy who had 3 refrigerators loaded up on the thing - he was pushing it down the street (probably too much weight to cycle, or perhaps there was a slight incline - don't remember). These were of course smallish Chinese refrigerators, and not the huge American versions that we are accustomed to, but I was still impressed when I saw the thing.

Bakemono

I agree. What fits for one person doesnt always fit for everyone.
I just resent the attitude that people who cycle everywhere they go are somehow better than those who dont and that those who dont are ignorant or lazy.
Thanks for the welcome.

Wogster

Well some people DO ride 20 miles to work, and some of them do it all winter as well. As for groceries, well, shop more often, there is no law that says you must buy a weeks worth of groceries at a time, in fact in many places, such as in parts of Europe, almost everyone stops at the market on the way home, and picks up enough for the next day or two. In fact it gives you even more flexability in your meal choices, in that you have a whole store full of options, and not just what you bought last Friday.

As for home improvement supplies, lots of places will deliver, and small items can be picked up by bike. Bike trailers and racks/panniers can carry an incredible amount of stuff.

I think the key to your message is you WANT to have a motor vehicle, so you find excuses to need one, but that doesn't mean you need a big truck, how about something like a Honda Jazz, that's a 50cc scooter, capable of around 30MPH, gets 150+ MPG, that means you can drive it all week, and get change back from a fiver when filling up.

I would go that direction myself, but right now I work nights, and need to go through a less then desirable neighbourhood to get there, so neither the bike or the scooter is an option, for work at least

I-Like-To-Bike

Some people do ride a bike at night and in very undesirable neighborhoods too. I did both for six years in Philadelphia.

Your message reads the same as the other poster whom you think is making "excuses" for using a motor vehicle instead of a bicycle for his tasks. The motor vehicle fits your needs better than a bike for your purposes.

I think that the key message is that there is no "need" to judge other people's reasons and determine if they have a "valid" excuse to not use a bicycle for every "possible" task.