[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Colorado-Valley', 'R')aising rabbits in the backyard?

(Allusion to a Michael Moore's documentary about Flint, Michigan, after GM sent its Flint factories to Mexico.)

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')You get another job in something they do want, bad luck you backed the wrong horse..

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')You get another job in something they do want, bad luck you backed the wrong horse..

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')
IE Use your imagination.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')reduced sales of WHAT will have an effect throughout the economy??

[MonteQuest]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear:

I am not anti-conservation nor anti-efficiency.

We must do both.

But we must realize that they are nothing but short-term stopgaps that fail to address the overlying problem. A 20% conservation ethic would be eclipsed by current population growth in 20 years. Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption.

We must acknowledge that these "solutions" have problems associated with them.

Conservation is voluntary "demand destruction."

Demand destruction causes recessions and high unemployment.

If you conserve energy, you cannot use it someplace else, to say build renewables, or provide other employment.

You defeat the purpose.

All I am saying is we need to consider and address these short-comings. We ignore the reality at our own peril.

[Wildwell]

Well there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles. You don't advise GM out of interest? I see they are just about to go down the pan still trying to sell SUVs when much better, more efficient, Japanese cars are on the market...

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et me make one thing perfectly clear:

I am not anti-conservation nor anti-efficiency.

We must do both.

But we must realize that they are nothing but short-term stopgaps that fail to address the overlying problem. A 20% conservation ethic would be eclipsed by current population growth in 20 years. Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption.

We must acknowledge that these "solutions" have problems associated with them.

Conservation is voluntary "demand destruction."

Demand destruction causes recessions and high unemployment.

If you conserve energy, you cannot use it someplace else, to say build renewables, or provide other employment.

You defeat the purpose.

All I am saying is we need to consider and address these short-comings. We ignore the reality at our own peril.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell make up your mind!

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')What do you want?

[Wildwell]

I think you'll get that, at least looking around at the time of writing.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')Two things here: How can in promote increased use if the price of its fuel keeps going up, as it is now?

[Wildwell]

Dutch pay three Euros to drivers to leave their cars at home and reduce speed limits on roads to curb pollution and save energy

http://www.t-e.nu/docs/Press/2005/2005- ... t_tran.pdf

[Daryl]

Let's say the government takes the advice of arch conservative Charles Krauthammer and imposes a fluctuating tax on gasoline that pins the price at $3 per gallon. Simultaneously, they reduce income taxes so that the gas tax is revenue neutral. There will be no negative impact on the economy. Gas will not get cheaper due to less demand, or if it does, that means the tax revenue increases, which is offset by a greater income tax refund at year end.

I personally would like to see the revenue from the gas tax funneled into job producing alternative investments. I would accept the small theoretical net negative impact on the economy in exchange for the greater gain of jumpstarting the move to alternatives i.e. rail and mass transit. From a political realism point of view, though, it would be best to start with a tax neutral plan. At least we could start getting oil consumption down. The auto industry would start also to change in the right direction and the economy would have more time to adjust to the higher fuel prices that are coming.

In my view the major risks to the economy are from a rapid change in energy prices. It is much more likely that the economy can make adjustments to gradual changes. It is the quick dislocations that create the greateset risks. Pinning gas at $3 now would shake out all the cogs in the economy that can't survive at $3. Would clear the way for $4 and $5 down the road. Hopefully that could be done in a gradual fashion by increasing the tax.

The economy is always changing. Industries come and go. The adjustment to more expensive energy will be made without die-off. We are not organisms in a petri dish.

[DoctorDoom]

I think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources. This is clearly not the case; world GDP has risen faster than energy use in the past 30 years, as was posted on another thread. That's world, not US, so the argument that the resource-consuming activities were "outsourced" doesn't hold water.

All you need to do is perform a thought experiment: imagine a community of cavemen, where some number of them spend their time hunting to gather food for the community. Someone invents a better weapon, and now half the number of hunters are needed for the same amount of food. Sure, we could then double the number of cavemen and double the resource consumption, but even here, all the new cavemen will have to find something besides hunting to contribute to the group. Or we could redeploy the hunters to do something else. The something else does not have to consume more natural resources to expand the "GDP" of the group. They could, for example, spend their time cleaning up the camp, learning how to heal sick/injured cavemen, etc.

It's true that you can't just take 100,000 unemployed auto workers and put them to work in healthcare, but the point is that in a large and complex economy declines in one area can be made up in others, though not necessarily with the same people. We need to decrease the number of economically useful activities that consume many natural resources and increase the number of economically useful activities that consume few natural resources. Just to give a few more modern examples, movies, books, software, and medicine have a much higher GDP/resource-used quotient than transportation, heating, food production, etc. Obviously we need to keep people fed, warm, etc., this is the problem with arguments that we shouldn't worry about these basic, essential parts of the economy, but if we can do these things more efficiently it needn't mean economic decline.

Jevon's so-called paradox is inapplicable - you can't consume what you don't have, so increased consumption in response to conservation simply won't happen, it physically cannot. In an era of declining resources the price will rise and consumption will fall, and the question is whether this is manageable or whether it leads necessarily to collapse.

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', 'I') think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources. This is clearly not the case; world GDP has risen faster than energy use in the past 30 years, as was posted on another thread. That's world, not US, so the argument that the resource-consuming activities were "outsourced" doesn't hold water.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoctorDoom', 'I') think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')evon's so-called paradox is inapplicable - you can't consume what you don't have, so increased consumption in response to conservation simply won't happen, it physically cannot. In an era of declining resources the price will rise and consumption will fall, and the question is whether this is manageable or whether it leads necessarily to collapse.