We bought less of it because Saudi Arabia made a decision to cut the extraction of oil and leave some of it in the ground. We bought less of it, not because we wanted to, but because we had to. We still bought all that was available to us.

 

    I agree with you that there is tremendous waste. Why drive a Chevy Suburban to the grocery store for a gallon of milk? The Suburban owner doesn't see it as waste, though. If he can afford it, why not?

 

    If I trade my gas guzzler for a bicycle, that just leaves more oil available for the Suburban owner. The gasoline that I "save" is not going to be available to me later, or to my grandkids. It's going to be consumed by someone else. That's the paradox of conservation. Essentially, everyone is dipping into the same barrel, until it's gone. If you choose not to dip into the barrel, good for you, but the barrel isn't going to last any longer.

 

    In the 1970's, energy consumption PER PERSON dropped across the board. Energy consumption IN TOTAL did not. In fact, we used about twice as much energy in 1980 as we did in 1960, despite more efficient cars, better insulated houses, and so on.

 

   

 

 

I think what Eigth and State is trying to say is...

 

Demand follows supply.  Lots of supply = low prices = SUV's and roadtrips.  Smaller supply (like the Saudi Oil Embargo) = high prices = efficiency increases and a drop in consumption.

 

An increase in efficiency will likely lead to more vehicle miles traveled and largely cancel itself out  (google: Jevon's Paradox).  I'm not saying we shouldn't be increasing efficiency standards.  We should.  It's just that higher prices will ultimately lead to change in this country though.  We could either wait for the inevitable shortages and do it painfully, or take preemptive action and increase the gas tax.  We see it coming...but it's too hard of a pill for people to swallow.

^Anyone want to start a thread on why Americans are so stupid and what can be done about it?

^Anyone want to start a thread on why Americans are so stupid and what can be done about it?

 

Americans don't have a corner on stupidity; we just have more money and opportunities than a lot of other folks to indulge our stupidity through ostentatious consumption.

 

Seen in Johnstown, PA, October 2006:

We see it coming...but it's too hard of a pill for people to swallow.

I would hope that with an earnest public education campaign on peak oil and global warming, we could make people want to drive less and for lawmakers to adopt appropriate policy.

We see it coming...but it's too hard of a pill for people to swallow.

I would hope that with an earnest public education campaign on peak oil and global warming, we could make people want to drive less and for lawmakers to adopt appropriate policy.

 

As the late, great Burgess Meredith said in Grumpier Old Men, "you can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first."  :-D

 

We see it coming...but it's too hard of a pill for people to swallow.

I would hope that with an earnest public education campaign on peak oil and global warming, we could make people want to drive less and for lawmakers to adopt appropriate policy.

 

As the late, great Burgess Meredith said in Grumpier Old Men, "you can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first."  :-D

 

Oh well, whatever, nevermind

I think that the degree of cynicism that people hold about the oil industry is profoundly high.  They don't like the oil companies, or bush, or Cheney.  Give them some credit.  They know they are being lied to.  People want to use less.  People want a better future for their children.  It is just that it is hard to sort out a solution in this incredibly complicated topic.

Here was my solution:  I moved to a walkable, densely populated neighborhood with lots of restaurants, grocery stores, drug stores, banks, video stores and a post office that are all within a 10-minute walk or a 2-minute drive. Much more is accessible by bicycle. And for trips outside my neighborhood, I have seven bus routes (one a community circulator and another running 24 hours) plus a rail transit line that gets me across town in 30 minutes or to the airport in 20. Three bus routes take me past the Greyhound station downtown.

 

I also augmented my condo's natural gas heating with electric panel heaters and put better weatherstripping on my windows. Next stop, get the condo association to install solar panels and a wind turbine or two on our building's roof. Since we're close to Lake Erie and the roof is seven stories up, we get strong winds year round. But the strongest winds are in winter when the sun doesn't shine that often.

 

Do smart things for your own situation. If more of us made smarter choices, the impact on energy consumption (and our own pocketbooks) would be dramatic.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind

I think that the degree of cynicism that people hold about the oil industry is profoundly high.  They don't like the oil companies, or bush, or Cheney.  Give them some credit.  They know they are being lied to.  People want to use less.  People want a better future for their children.  It is just that it is hard to sort out a solution in this incredibly complicated topic.

 

That sounds great Boreal, and I wish things worked that way.  The average American just isn't that ideological.  He has the greatest allegiance to his pocketbook.  I don't think the average American would vote "yes" on an increase in the gas tax because it was in our long-term best interest. 

 

In fact, I saw attack ads on Bob Shamansky when he was running for Representative this past fall.  Apparently he voted for an increase in the gas tax when he was in office in the early 80's and it may have cost him this election.  People think...high gas prices = bad, and it doesn't go much deeper than that.

KJP:  You need to talk to your condo association about replacing the single pane windows in your building before you talk to them about solar panels and wind turbines.  Prior to the natural gas price spikes a few years ago, the energy-savings payback period for the cost of switching from single-pane to double-pane, inert-gas-filled, low-e coating windows was 7 years.  Now that the price of gas has gone up since then, the payback would be shorter. It's cheaper to save energy than buy it. 

 

My neighborhood is walkable and transit-accessible, (more than many, but not as much as KJP's).  We replaced the windows in our house,  added more insulation in the attic, put up insulated siding on the house.  We will likely switch to a demand water heater in the next couple of years.  We already have a high-efficiency washer-dryer set, and any future appliance replacements will be the most energy efficient we can get. 

 

    We bought less of it because Saudi Arabia made a decision to cut the extraction of oil and leave some of it in the ground. We bought less of it, not because we wanted to, but because we had to. We still bought all that was available to us.

 

 

 

Yes, we bought less because the price went up in the 70's. But in the 80's a lot of non-OPEC supply came on-line.  That combined with the demand drop led Saudi Arabia to cut back production (again, because the demand wasn't there) in the 80's while prices still dropped.  There was a glut of oil in the mid-80s.  We didn't buy all that was available.  There was more oil than there was demand for it during that period. 

 

Again, my point is that we don't have to buy all of the energy available to us.  We do, though, because the embedded incentives in our economy (which is a result of bad national energy policy).

KJP:  You need to talk to your condo association about replacing the single pane windows in your building before you talk to them about solar panels and wind turbines.

 

Yeah, yeah. I'm just holding out for more global warming so I can save the expense.

Some of those changes are very much needed. Some, like biofuels, may offer some relief but are more like chasing rainbows, in the context of the overstated expectations that many people have.

 

If the Dems overreact to Republican energy policies, they'll only keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. Our democratic process has been perverted by short-sighted, uniformed self-interest, and if a majority of the electorate feel inconvenienced by Democrat changes, the Republicans will be able campaign on Reaganesque promises of a Return to the Good Old Days when America was Great. They'll take everything in a landslide and have even more power than before the latest turnover.

 

Radical change is necessary, but it has to be finessed. Brute force will backfire.

From the middle of the article:

 

Of course, driving a car far more fuel-efficient than an S.U.V. saves the most of all. But many people will not consider such a vehicle, so they can help by picking a better model in the class they prefer.

 

Why, oh why can't we have more articles that START with this paragraph?

James Howard Kunstler:

 

Making Plans for and Oil Scarce Future

 

Orion Magazine, 1/4/07:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

I've read three of Kunstler's books, "The Geography of Nowhere," "Home from Nowhere" and "The Long Emergency." I'm re-reading the last one.

 

Some people dismiss him as having a view that's excessively Apolcalyptic. I think that he has a view rooted in his knowledge of history and everyday observation of how people react to situations and interact with each other.

 

Some dig in with denial and contend that technology will save us and our way of life. I wonder if they actually read what he wrote.

I think it's his delivery that turns people off more than the content.  He's got that, "I'm right, you're stupid, in your face" way of telling people his opinions.  It sells books, but I hope he doesn't talk to his friends and family that way.

I think it's his delivery that turns people off more than the content.  He's got that, "I'm right, you're stupid, in your face" way of telling people his opinions.  It sells books, but I hope he doesn't talk to his friends and family that way.

 

I agree.  Kunstler does have an arrogant streak and I think that hurts him a bit. 

Oh well, whatever, nevermind

I think that the degree of cynicism that people hold about the oil industry is profoundly high.  They don't like the oil companies, or bush, or Cheney.  Give them some credit.  They know they are being lied to.  People want to use less.  People want a better future for their children.  It is just that it is hard to sort out a solution in this incredibly complicated topic.

 

That sounds great Boreal, and I wish things worked that way.  The average American just isn't that ideological.  He has the greatest allegiance to his pocketbook.  I don't think the average American would vote "yes" on an increase in the gas tax because it was in our long-term best interest. 

 

In fact, I saw attack ads on Bob Shamansky when he was running for Representative this past fall.  Apparently he voted for an increase in the gas tax when he was in office in the early 80's and it may have cost him this election.  People think...high gas prices = bad, and it doesn't go much deeper than that.

However, that does not mean that those dittohead ads against Shamansky worked.  I am sure he did not lose on that issue (in a district that voted for Bush twice).  You are making broad statements about what Americans believe.  I actually look at polls that say Americans want fuel efficiency and less reliance on foreign oil.  I actually do outreach work where I talk to Americans about energy issues and I think I know what Ohioans are thinking.

However, that does not mean that those dittohead ads against Shamansky worked.  I am sure he did not lose on that issue (in a district that voted for Bush twice).  You are making broad statements about what Americans believe.  I actually look at polls that say Americans want fuel efficiency and less reliance on foreign oil.  I actually do outreach work where I talk to Americans about energy issues and I think I know what Ohioans are thinking.

 

That's like saying Americans want world peace and puppy dogs for everyone.  I don't have a link to support it, but I was just reading something about how we shop for cars.  We rank efficiency behind things like safety (big, heavy, and fuel inefficient), price (hybrids are still expensive in comparison), size, and performance (not exactly fuel efficient).  Efficiency breifly moved up the importance scale this summer, but went back down in the fall along with fuel prices.  Incidentally, light truck sales rebounded this fall and winter.

That's like saying Americans want world peace and puppy dogs for everyone.  I don't have a link to support it, but I was just reading something about how we shop for cars.  We rank efficiency behind things like safety (big, heavy, and fuel inefficient), price (hybrids are still expensive in comparison), size, and performance (not exactly fuel efficient).  Efficiency breifly moved up the importance scale this summer, but went back down in the fall along with fuel prices.  Incidentally, light truck sales rebounded this fall and winter.

And how does this relate to raising the gasoline tax ?

Generally, people respond with actions when it hits their pocketbooks.  The rest is just rhetoric, such as my world peace and puppy dogs analogy. 

 

They also don't respond well to people taking money our of their pocketbooks.  That's why I noted earlier that no politician with hopes of re-election would ever touch the gas tax until things got really really bad.  It's the right thing to do, as it would prepare us by forcing the market to the correct answer before things reach the point of emergency (the correct answer being...use less oil).  I suppose this could also be done by placing a tariff on oil imports like those in place for almost all other imported goods.

Generally, people respond with actions when it hits their pocketbooks.  ...  That's why I noted earlier that no politician with hopes of re-election would ever touch the gas tax until things got really really bad. 

The Ohio Legislature accomplished a 6 cent/gallon gas tax hike.  What was that--30%?  That's huge.  I don't recall that being used against any of them this year.  Do you?  The PD "editorial board" looked right past that issue when they did endorsements.  Maybe the PD should have endorsed legislators based upon that sound move.  Would not that have been funny?  Like getting an endorsement from the gays or atheists--the part of the electorate that makes most politicians "uncomfortable" to embrace.

Results from a survey on Energy Attitudes in Ohio.  Interesting highlights are that

40% of Ohioans don't believe there is sufficient oil and natural gas to meet U.S. energy needs;

45% believe that the era of abundant and cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end;

84% support energy conservation measures; and

70% believe Americans must change their consumptive lifestyles to avoid the onset of an energy "crisis" in the U.S.  View the presentation online:

http://ohiosurvey.osu.edu/publications/energy.html

 

How many of those surveyed drive SUVs and live in houses over 3,000 square feet?

 

It's nice that 84% "support" energy conservation measures, but do they turn that into action?  To me, the more shocking thing here is that 16% of those surveyed oppose energy conservation measures.

 

Either way...it's good that Americans are at least thinking about energy conservation...even if they aren't taking responsibility for it.

To me, the more shocking thing here is that 16% of those surveyed oppose energy conservation measures.

 

Yeah, I also oppose energy conservation, along with my opposition to breathing and eating.   :-P

This is a free country, we should be able to use as much as we want! Let the free market dictate whether we should conserve energy or not...derrrr.

Yes, here in Columbus, we drive from the living room to the bathroom. Conservation is for other people, all you foamers and tree-huggers. Let the "free" market rule! :wink:

This is a free country, we should be able to use as much as we want! Let the free market dictate whether we should conserve energy or not...derrrr.

 

If there really was a free market where energy is concerned, there would be more conservation.

 

 

The article below is actually related to peak oil, eventhough it doesn't mention it anywhere.  The global geopolitical game being played out as we speak is being done, in part, with peak oil in mind:

 

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/836

http://www.postcarbon.org

 

The Rise of “The Axis of Oil”—Big Trouble for the United States

 

In Brief: Richard Bell, Communications Director for Post Carbon Institute, reports on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' hearing into “The Geopolitics of Oil.”

 

Just how bad are the geopolitics of energy, from the perspective of the United States?

 

This morning the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources launched its New Year with an unusual hearing into “The Geopolitics of Oil.”

 

The consensus conclusion of the witnesses: the United States is in deep, deep trouble, facing the emergence of an “axis of oil” that threatens to recreate the bi-polar world of the Cold War, complete with Russia as a principal actor.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) spoke to Congress again recently about Peak Oil.  This is a long read, but worth it:

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/24896.html

Matthew Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co. International in Houston, talked yesterday with Bloomberg's Rhonda Schaffler about the need to address energy use, his view that global supply has peaked and the likelihood oil prices could reach as much as $300 a barrel. (Source: Bloomberg)

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2239

 

Simmons is also author of "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy " and former energy advisor to the Bush Administration.

Exxon Record Profits Also Shows Company Took Less Profit in Run Up to the Election

 

Exxon, Shell and Marathon Oil Slashed Q4 Refining Margins to Temporarily Lower Pump Prices, Group Says

 

WASHINGTON - February 2 - Exxon set the record for the largest annual corporate profit of $39.5 billion last year even with a 4% decline in fourth-quarter profit resulting in part from an 18% drop in refining margins, according to the company's profit report today. Shell, the world's second largest oil company, set a company record earning $25.4 billion in 2006 but also announced a 23% decline in refining margins. Pump prices have increased dramatically in recent years following industry wide increases in refining margins.

 

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today's earnings reports show that industry leaders cut domestic refining profits in the run-up to the November election in order to lower gasoline prices, very likely hoping to influence the mid-term election. The nonpartisan group is calling for Congressional investigations to determine whether Exxon and others manipulated the market to effect the election.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0202-01.htm

The food vs. fuel problem is starting.  It's the demand for corn for ethanol that's creating the problem:

 

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/23237.html

 

Zócalo protest calls attention to high prices

By Kelly Arthur Garrett/The Herald Mexico

El Universal

 

01 feb. 2007

 

After two quiet months, demonstrators filled the capital´s central square Wednesday, protesting high food prices and clearly showing President Calderón his honeymoon is over...

 

 

Wednesday´s march and rally grew out of widespread public anger at the suddenly skyrocketing prices of tortillas, the nation´s staple food. The Calderón administration took belated action by forging an agreement among suppliers and manufacturers to hold the line at 8.50 pesos per kilo, with uneven success....

 

 

A prime feature of the NAFTA trade deal was that US corn producers would be able to sell into Mexico without tariffs.  With America's subsidies and scale of production, they were able to WAY undersell the local corn (maize) producers.  The farms in Southern Mexico collapsed as they lost business to the US.  The farmers lost their livelihoods and walked away.  In that period from when NAFTA went into effect until now, the number of undocumented Mexicans in America went from 3 million to 13 million.

 

That's the cause of the "immigration problem" in America.  These people are not criminals.  These people are desperate emigres: as desperate as the Joad family and all the real people fictionalized in The Grapes of Wrath.

 

So, when the US-backed government of Obrador says they are going to do something, they are just blowing hot air.  Mexico has lost control of their price of food.  The price is now determined by market forces in commodity markets.

 

Tortilla crisis, indeed!

 

The food vs. fuel problem is starting.  It's the demand for corn for ethanol that's creating the problem:

 

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/23237.html

 

Zócalo protest calls attention to high prices

 

Wednesday´s march and rally grew out of widespread public anger at the suddenly skyrocketing prices of tortillas, the nation´s staple food. The Calderón administration took belated action by forging an agreement among suppliers and manufacturers to hold the line at 8.50 pesos per kilo, with uneven success.

 

The tortilla crisis ...

THE AGENDA RESTATED

 

By James Howard Kunstler

      Out in the public arena, people frequently twang on me for being "Mister Gloom'n'doom," or for "not offering any solutions." I find this bizarre because I never fail to present audiences with a long, explicit task list of projects that American society needs to take up in the face of the combined problems I have labeled The Long Emergency. That the audience never hears this, and then indignantly demands such instruction, only reinforces my sense that the cognitive dissonance in our culture has gone totally off the charts.

 

    Insofar as I just returned from a college lecture road trip, and heard the same carping all over again, I conclude that it's necessary for me to spell it all out a'fresh. I think of this not so much as a roster of "solutions" but as a set of reasonable responses to a new set of circumstances. (Not everything we try to do will succeed, that is, be a "solution.") So, for those of you who are tired of wringing your hands, who would like to do something useful, or focus your attention in a purposeful way, here it is.

 

 

Original article :

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterf$&k_nation/2007/02/the_agenda_rest.html

THE AGENDA RESTATED By James Howard Kunstler http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/02/the_agenda_rest.html

I like the Kunstler article.  It Certainly makes the point that automobiles are not the solution.  I am not sure what he is getting at about education, though.  One could always live on campus.  The profs too--wouldn't they like that?  :speech:

He's saying that people won't have as much money in the future to attend college (or send their kids). We may be getting to that point already with the rising tuition rates, and without peak oil!

He's saying that people won't have as much money in the future to attend college (or send their kids). We may be getting to that point already with the rising tuition rates, and without peak oil!

Good wry clip, there, KJP.  Personally, I see energy woes leading us to a period of deprivation.  I won't miss the SUVs and cigarette boats, but I am dreading the poor folks losing health care and the children going hungry.

One thing that Kunstler constantly misses the the impact of the very thing that allows him to reach so many people...the internet.  If this were 1950, he'd have to kill a hundred thousand trees to spread his message to as many people as he does today.  People will end up shifting in large numbers to telecommuting to work, school, and loads of other day to day activities.

 

People are not going to just abandon the suburbs and leave smoldering ghost towns.  They're going to fight kicking and screaming until they can find an arrangement that allows them to keep something that resembles their current lifestyle. The price of gas might hit $10/gallon, but people will find a way to cope with it...just wait...it'll be rediculous to watch.  To an extent, it already is (see: Bush Adminstration's reliance on Ethanol to keep us motoring).

I think you're 100 percent right. It was actually kind of funny watching people's reactions to $3 gas. They had no idea how to adjust to such a small increase. It might actually get scary as to how people will react to $5 gas, $7, $10....

 

I recall a survey from a year or two ago in which a frighteningly large number (20 percent?) of respondents thought that driving was a constitutionally protected right. Of course, state constitutional restrictions in many states (including Ohio) prevent spending gas tax revenues for anything other than highways -- those survey respondents are technically correct!

I've read a lot of what Kunstler has written and while I agree we are in for some huge long range changes, I don't think they have to be as calamitous as he suggests, especially if they happen gradually over a period of time. Still, I believe we only have about a ten or twenty year window to react. Otherwise it's "Game Over."

 

To those who think we could not survive a peak oil scenario I offer the year 1900, when we were arguably a very prosperous society in spite of the fact that we used little oil. Railroads were coal powered and trolleys and interurbans ran on electricity. People walked, rode horses, drove carriages to get around as well. To be sure, we were not as mobile, but we also were not overdependent on oil either.

 

Now fast forward to 2007. I have to believe that with all the advances we have had over the past 100 years, we could reduce or eliminate our need for oil as a fuel. Railroads could be electified and we would depend on them far more than we do today. Light rail lines and trolleys, already undergoing a renaissance would spead like spiderwebs across metro areas. Hybrid or elecric vehicles would roam the streets of our cities as well.

 

I haven't even gotten into efficiencies with housing or large buildings, land use and development patterns, changes in agriculture....

 

Peak Oil is going to force a change in today's equations. Inanities such as the highway trust fund will be swept aside as will any large scale highway construction. Instead we will be hard-pressed to maintain what we have. This is already happening with the gas tax, which is drying up because users of ethanol or hybrid vehicles contribute less to the fund and that we have a mature system. The US Chamber of Commerce projects the federal gas tax will be broke in just a few years. What then? Toll roads? higher registration fees? Peak pricing? No more new roads?

 

Just a few subtle changes shift the dynamics significantly. We started seeing a ridership boom for public transit when gas hit $3 per gallon last year and that boom is continuing, even tho the price of gas has fallen. What will happen when gas hits $4 and stays there?

 

 

 

^---- I have heard it said that high gasoline prices will not keep Americans from driving, but rather that Americans will stop driving when the government stops maintaining the roads.

 

   

If both happen, that's a perfect storm. That's something we're already starting to see. Combine the rising of costs of road construction materials (steel, fuel, oil-based asphalt, etc) with high traffic congestion/the desires to add lanes ad nauseum plus the beating the roads/bridges are taking from the traffic, and the party may be over.

 

To those who think we could not survive a peak oil scenario I offer the year 1900, when we were arguably a very prosperous society in spite of the fact that we used little oil. Railroads were coal powered and trolleys and interurbans ran on electricity. People walked, rode horses, drove carriages to get around as well. To be sure, we were not as mobile, but we also were not overdependent on oil either.

 

The U.S. economy and its population were also a lot smaller back then.

That's true. I offered that example to show we weren't always oil junkies. I'm not saying this change will be easy. It won't. I just don't see things in apocalyptic terms IF we react the way we should. If we don't, that's another matter.

 

This is still a country capable of doing great things, if we can rise above the incompetance and myopia out there.

 

^---- I have heard it said that high gasoline prices will not keep Americans from driving, but rather that Americans will stop driving when the government stops maintaining the roads.

 

    

 

That's true everywhere...Europeans drive, even tho they pay much more than us.

You know, the theory always was that higher oil prices would surely coax more oil from the ground. But over the last few weeks, Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell have all announced their 2007 exploration plans. My general take on their announcements is that even though they are swimming in profits, they are plowing a relatively small portion of them back into exploration, meaning, to me, that they're well into the curve of diminishing returns on the supply-side.

 

My recollection is that both BP and Shell are saying that they will lift less oil in 2007 than in 2006, even though demand is rising all over the world. So even if people are evidently willing to pay more at current price levels, the supply-side issues will eventually rule and impose a sort of price-rationing. If you can afford it, great. If not, you may have to do things differently.

 

And also, consumption behavior to higher prices may be a lot different in the long-term compared to the short-term. In the short-term, we all adjust at the margins, do-without and make substitutions. In the long-term, we restructure our lives. I think this is what Kunstler is saying. There's a tipping point out there somewhere.

I agree.  If you can't change what the consumers are driving...change how they drive.  Raise the gas tax.

There's a problem with using price, via gas tax or market pricing, to moderate fuel consumption.

 

Land use policies and public policy founded on cheap oil and the assumption that everyone will drive have put many jobs and services in suburban or rural areas far from the working poor who need employment. At the same time that we've moved the jobs and services far from the urban core, we've let public transportation options diminish or disappear for many mid-sized and small cities.

 

Consequently, the working poor spend disproportionate amounts of their limited income maintaining and feeding old cars considered beyond usefulness by two or three generations of previous owners. Hybrid cars, or even efficient, dependable late-model used cars aren't anywhere close to being an option for them. Rising fuel prices, whether brought about by market forces or increased taxes, only exacerbate their hardship.

 

Investors, marketers, developers, politicians and even some self-proclaimed environmentalists still put most of their efforts into trying to maintain a car-dependent economy and lifestyle whose eventual demise is inevitable, while further disenfranchising a large segment of the population and abandoning them in decaying neighborhoods with inadequate public and private services and law enforcement.

 

Whether you look at it from the position of morality and social justice, or from the position of economic pragmatism, it's just plain wrong to let this situation continue. If we do not proactively work to correct the inequities, social pressures ultimately will bring about a painful, destructive self-correction.

 

</rant>

I understand your concerns Rob, but I think a sizeable difference can be made through individuals' choices in response to higher prices.  We need to be challenged to use energy more efficiently in this country and what better way to do it then with the almighty motivator.

 

Here are a few things I mean by individual choices...

- Drive less aggressively

- Drive slower on the highway

- Properly inflate your tires

- Consolidate trips to work, shop, etc...

- Drive the more fuel efficient car on longer trips

 

Those changes can be made regardless of social status or availability of cheap hybrid cars.