by Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 16:55:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'T')here's no scenario where the entire workforce needs to redistributed, it happens over time and has happened in the past. The largest redistribution would be a car company going bust (30,000 job losses at GM the other day) or an airline going bust, otherwise you are looking at a 30 year transition.
Name an energy transition in the past that went from a cheap, energy dense source to a less dense, more expensive form.
It has never happened in the past.
We have an energy mix of varying price, so there’s no direct example.
Whether it's less dense and more expensive really depends on use, price is irrelevant it’s about bang for buck. For example if a car does 15mpg and the fuel costs $1 a gallon ($1 = 15 miles) if that fuel rises to $2 a gallon and you purchase a 30 mpg car you are no worse off, it's still costing $1 to go 15 miles.
In the past, oil reduced jobs:
UK 1930: Nearly 2 million railway workers, over 1 million miners, several million agricultural workers. Lets say 6 million people *directly* involved in the 'coal economy'
Today: 150,000 railway workers, a few thousand miners, considerably less people in agriculture, 1 million people in car related jobs, 300,000 in trucking, more people in oil and gas (sorry don't have the figures), 150,000 airline workers....maybe 2-3 million people in the oil economy...
So the jobs have just been re-located over a period of 50 year or more and REDUCED.
GDP has risen because of:
Women working, productivity, cheap credit, better education, technology, better health. Cars? I’m a doubter. It may have opened up rural areas and allowed more people to get to places they wouldn’t have gone, so they have had some effect, but that’s been at the expensive of other sectors and walking, leading to heath, crime and environmental problems that have costs.