by dub_scratch » Wed 02 Aug 2006, 15:46:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')The only hope lies in radically changing the infrastructure. Small, self-sufficient towns where people walk and ride bicycles, surrounded by organic farms, cottage industries, and parks, surrounded in turn by wilderness. And the towns connected by railroads, not freeways.
There is NO other rational arrangement.
Thanks Heineken, for offering reason to this debate.
What you briefly outlined is what I like to call "systemic energy efficiency". We can also think of it as working smarter-- not harder. If we have urban structures that don't require so much transportation, then the whole system cannot help but be energy efficient.
Contrast that with the popular focus on improved MPG, or what I like to call "incremental energy efficiency". It takes a whole lot of energy just to get there, but even if you could wave the magic wand and turn all the cars into 50 MPG Prius', you still would be left with huge amounts of dependence on auto transport against a backdrop of declining fossil fuels. In 10 to 20 years you'd be back where you were, having to reinvent the whole world all over again. But that's the good news. The bad news is that high MPG cars will only inspire more cars and more sprawl (a.k.a. Jevons' Paradox). Incremental energy efficiency does not nessesarily give us systemic energy efficiency. It usualy give us the opposite.
We should pray for the affordable 250mpg car to never happen.