Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 12, 2013
Peak Car? We’re Not Even Close
The term “peak oil” has been around for decades, referring to when domestic oil production in America would peak. The jury is still out on peak oil, though the latest term to go around is “peak car”, with some studies indicating that the American car market is over saturated, and shrinking. But on a global scale, we’re not even close to reaching peak car.
From 2006 to 2011, miles driven by Americans fell in three-quarters of urbanized areas where recent data was available. That’s quite specific, and also includes four of the five toughest economic years since the Great Depression. This data definitely screams out “selection bias!” to me, as high unemployment and stagnant wages means less reasons and less money for, you know, driving. While the study claims the economy has little to no impact on driving, again, by focusing only on urban areas, the study ignores a large swath of America that has been especially hard hit by the economy, but still has no choice but to drive their own car.
That said, there are indications that car ownership in America really has peaked. For one thing, many metro areas now have more public transit options, and younger Americans are moving into walkable neighborhoods where you don’t need to own a car. There are also a flurry of car-sharing and renting services that relieve you of the hassle of things like car taxes and insurance.
But across the Pacific Ocean, the Chinese middle class is exploding and car sales are outpacing America by millions of automobiles. The rise of the Chinese economy has only just begun, and with 1.3 billion people, but just 93 million cars in private hands, the Chinese market is ripe to explode. It is estimated that by 2050, there could be as many as 662 million cars in China, more than twice as many cars as there are in America right now, and that would still leave more than 800 million people without cars. Don’t even get me started on India, with a domestic car industry that lays claim the world’s cheapest new car. Even with initiatives aiming to make hybrids as much as 40% of all new car sales, the already-smoggy air will only get worse.
I am willing to concede that perhaps in America, we really have reached peak car. But the rest of the world still has a long way, and many millions of cars to go before our planet reaches car capacity, and even if America were to all but eliminate private car ownership, China will more than make up for the deficit. It’s a scary, scary future.
12 Comments on "Peak Car? We’re Not Even Close"
DC on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 1:33 pm
Yea, its all China’s fault. Yes, they are being uncharacteristically stupid by emulating ‘our’ cars-only economy, this much I think we can agree on. But, I seriously doubt China will ever get to that 600+ million trash cans. The simple fact is, China is straining and suffering severely from the ones they have *now*.
Hundreds of millions more gas-trash cans would break China’s back. There is simply no room for them and the pollution and death that would cause would be off the charts. Then of course, there is the always thorny question of where the resources are going to come from….
I do recognize that cars are amazingly seductive things though, and once that toxic way of living takes root, its nearly impossible to shake. Look at ‘us’. We continue to obsess over the price of gas and new trash can sales even when the evidence of the damage cars are doing to everything we *should* hold dear, is staring us right in the face. In fact, so deep is ‘our’ commitment to cars, we keep dreaming of new ways to power them so we can keep killing each other and drive around aimlessly as we consume our way to death with them. Be it idiotic schemes like corn-bio-fools, hydrogen hoaxsters, or EVs, what have you.
China, will go the same route. They know cars are the problem, but will keep pushing for more of them, and more infrastructure for them, even when all they need to do is look across the ocean to see how futile is all is. Cars are the ultimate drug. Once the dealer (literally!) hooks you on them, your hooked for life. You’d rather die than give up that gas-powered garbage can. A lot of time, we do just that. 1.2 million a year now die because of cars.
So, no, China wont get to that 600 million, but that isnt the problem. The problem is that they wont stop trying to…….
rollin on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 2:34 pm
It’s not just china, it will be much of S.E. Asia, India, parts of Africa that take up the car craze. Luckily they will be generally more efficient.
As cars get more dependent on electricity, we had better boost PV and wind. Otherwise, coal, nuclear and natural gas will be under heavy pressure. Trains will probably be converted to use electricity also.
antiwarforever on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 2:36 pm
How can politicians worldwide advocate car use and in the same breath warn us of climate change? it’s an absurdity.
That’s what I hate about our times : the inconsistency of the powers that be, that insult my intelligence.
BillT on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 3:22 pm
rollin, electric is not the answer. There is no grid to carry the loads. You’re talking decades and trillions of dollars before that would even be possible and by then, the hydrocarbons powering most electric plants will be long gone or too expensive for such use. And don’t even start to believe that wind or solar will do it…lol. You are again talking decades and trillions of dollars investment. And, the cost of replacing our current oil powered car fleet just in the US would cost $10 to $20 trillion dollars. Not going to happen.
Anti, if you noticed, the powers that be are NOT warning us of climate change. It is the scientists that are telling us that we are committing specie suicide. Governments are pushing BAU.
J-Gav on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 4:20 pm
Choke on oil and gas (and coal), fry on nuclear, or move just enough toward ‘renewables’ to prolong some semblance of a ‘modern life-style’ for a time, maybe enough time for parts of the population to become more self-reliant and adopt the simpler life-style that will be required at some point in this century. The choice seems easy but it should by no means be construed as a panacea allowing anything like BAU.
pwallmann on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 4:40 pm
There is no alternative model that works. Do you think the Chinese would go down the car/fossil fuel route if there was a viable option that would provide similar benefits?
A real breakthrough can still make a difference in China (top down can impose it) all we can do is hope there is a viable alternative development path when India and Africa start building up their infrastructure.
GregT on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 6:09 pm
The only ‘answer’, is a future that would look much the same as the past, pre-industrial society. Population numbers included.
This may not even be an option, unfortunately, if the PTB keep trying to hang on to BAU, and an infinite growth based paradigm.
I suspect that we will find out much sooner in this century, than later, as to the direction that we are ultimately heading towards. I personally, give it less than 20 years.
Norm on Thu, 12th Dec 2013 8:02 pm
We are at, or very close to, peak bullsh–
BillT on Fri, 13th Dec 2013 12:14 am
Greg_T, we agree on the time table.
I had a thought last night that might be radical but, maybe we will crash and burn before the ice caps melt and all that mineral and maybe hydrocarbon wealth is uncovered for pillaging. That would give any survivors a chance at another civilization. After all, Greenland and Antarctica are large continents that have been out of reach for millenia but might be perfect in a hotter world. Just a thought.
rollin on Fri, 13th Dec 2013 1:25 am
BillT, the whole car fleet gets replaced about every ten to 12 years so the money will be spent anyway – not a factor.
As far as electric goes, if we don’t have the power to run transport society will collapse back to the 1400’s or earlier. Try getting anything done without transport, pretty tough.
As a physicist, I must disagree as to the level of energy available through solar. It is orders of magnitude more than fossil will ever produce and it does not have a depletion factor.
I know the nuclear set will be pushing hard for their reactors, let’s hope they are ones that use all that “spent” fuel.
DC on Fri, 13th Dec 2013 2:57 am
Then as a physicist you must agree then that collecting solar energy so we can build 2 ton private cubes to move 150-200 pounds of human from one red light to the next(at a very low average speed) is not a sound option no?
Electric transport IS highly efficient mass-transit that is, but that does not imply that building out a global collection system to build private EVs so people can avoid walking or biking will be very efficient undertaking. Nor does it automatically mean that private EVs are efficient either.
The way I am seeing this is:
-Build a huge globalized system of solar collectors.(At great cost)
-Then build personal 2 ton EVs with and fill them with mostly useless and supliferous electronic gee-haws.
-Then use whatever energy is left, to move the resulting 2 ton EV to wall-mart with its one passenger.
Somehow, this does not strike me as a ‘solution’, much less an improvement on what exists now.
BillT on Fri, 13th Dec 2013 4:07 pm
rollin, solar is a joke. Your facts are correct, but the possibility of ever harnessing enough solar is impossible. Financially and energetically. The energy and financial cost is prohibitive in a world of contracting economies and incomes for the masses.
I can also say there there is more gold in the world’s oceans than has ever been mined, but that does not make it possible to recover much of it.
Just because something is possible does not mean it can be done. WE are burning centuries of concentrated sunshine every day and that savings account is about dry. So are we about to end the party and go back to normal living, if we survive the hangover.