[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'S')o it’s nothing to do with opportunities, wealth and exploitation by the rich then? .

[Wildwell]

Switzerland and Japan are very much banking and technology economies. Iceland is a bit of a strange one, fishing is its principal industry.

My point about geography is time, distance, land use and energy dictate transport use, urban development and agriculture in the end.

Oh well if Americans want to queue for hours for costly gas then that's up to them. As the man says, you only need a pound of plastic explosive and a camel to cause havoc.

[gg3]

It's rather shocking to see the implicit scapegoating going on. Some, speaking for the poor and working classes, blame the rich for all the world's woes. Others, speaking for the rich, blame the poor or at least try to justify holding them down as part of the natural order of things.

Historically, disparities in equity have been the #1 cause of violent social upheavals. Look back at the 1930s: the US was about to come apart at the seams, and socialism was starting to look good to a growing percentage of the population. Gotta give the liberals credit for the New Deal, which effectively held the country together.

Jack, re "punish those who choose to live well:" what's your definition of living well? And are you going to tell that to your grandchildren?

Re. conservation measures:

First, nature bats first. Last, nature bats last. In the long run (or between now and another thousand gigawatts of nuclear and two hundred gigawatts of wind) the only choice we have is how to distribute the misery. We can distribute it rationally, by which is meant, equitably and fairly and in relatively small amounts at a time. Or we can wait and go flying over the edge, and have the huddled freezing masses decide they have nothing left to lose by starting violent upheavals.

Start with moral persuasion, or social pressure if you will: "I want" is not a moral imperative; and "Because I can" is not a moral justification. Work it back from there.

Carrots and sticks: Status and acceptance and praise for efficiency. Stigmatization and ridicule and shame for wastefulness.

Enlist key media figures to tout the efficient lifestyle. Enlist the fashion industry to make sweaters etc. the height of style. Enlist the appliance industry, automobile industry, all the rest of 'em; not on the basis of finger-pointing but on the basis of "rising to meet the national challenge." Offer tax incentives for all manner of conservation retrofits including home insulation, double-pane glazing, etc., as well as solar and wind installations. These things should also become status symbols.

Next: Bring SUVs under the regulatory umbrella for automobiles (they currently slip through a loophole between cars and trucks), and then relentlessly raise the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards to the point where SUVs and similar obscenities-on-wheels are phased out. If a few wealthy fools want to keep their 2005 Hummers running forever, in the manner of antique automobile enthusiasts with their Ford Model Ts, that's a small drop in the bucket comparatively speaking.

Tradeable energy credits? Great idea.

No more freeway expansions? Excellent.

Now let's take $200 billion a year (cost of Iraq war) and invest it into public transit. Also do an emergency override of all local building & zoning codes to prohibit sprawl and require mixed-use development in all new construction.

Re. drooling morons on public transit: tough shit, you don't have to look at them. Re. gangsta assholes on public transit: hire more cops. "Excuse me sir, you can't take up two seats there." And if they wise-ass the cops, write 'em & cite 'em. Hell, hire recent military vets to do this one: "You gonna' mouth off to a Green Beret?!"

Re. kidnappings at bus stops: Public Safety Cams. A little box on the bus shelter with a couple of pushbuttons. One is for Emergency: turns on the camera and microphone, and gets the cops there pronto. One is for Safety Watch: connects you to a central station where someone is watching; they appear on screen to say Hi and you know you're covered. After they see you get on the bus, they switch off. This is not "pervasive surveillance" because it's voluntary. It's also a viable deterrent.

More re. kidnappers etc: Decriminalize "consenting adult" crimes thereby making plenty of room in prison for kidnappers etc. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." For entire categories of violent crime, one strike and byebye for life. Strict *and* consistent works: think of the crime rate in Singapore.

And one can always issue concealed-carry permits to people who pass simple background checks; after all, how many times have we heard that a well-armed society is a polite society..?

Interestingly, many of the measures that make for effective conservation also make for a safer society, and one that is *more free* because it's safer.

The list goes on. One doesn't need to engage in group finger-pointing when one can simply single out individuals and behaviors for praise or its opposite, regardless of "group" membership.

And a little bit of inventiveness goes a long darn way.

[Jack]

You say it’s shocking – but gg3, I suggest that you’ve seen nothing yet. These are the merest hints of things to come as supplies tighten. Wait a few years and you will see oceans of vitriol.

Take a look at Pops’ thread on Assessments and Planning III. You’ll see that I agree with your analysis regarding the New Deal; however, keep in mind the U.S. may lack the funding to set up new programs, or even to preserve existing ones. That’s likely to create problems with social cohesion.

You ask what my definition of living well is; perhaps not as different from yours as you might think. Adequate good food, reasonably pleasant and secure shelter, comfortable clothing, a few toys and books, and the time and freedom to enjoy them would meet my definition. The word “freedomâ€

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I')n other words, you haven't gotten over being poor. Perhaps you should consider getting into therapy.

[gg3]

But the case can be argued that at least Bill Gates leveraged his advantages into producing something of real value, that in turn has produced enormous productivity benefits and spawned a decent crop of smaller businesses including the consultants who keep it all running.

And I say that as one who has no love of monopolies and who uses MacOSX the vast majority of the time.

There are however, both rich parasites and poor parasites (surprisingly few middle-class parasites comparatively speaking). The poor parasites are the classic stereotypical welfare cheats who breed like mice to increase their take. The rich parasites are the trust-fundies who clip their coupons and sit on their butts producing nothing and consuming much. Okay fine; relatively speaking, both are a small proportion of society, and by & large they'll wash out of the system when crunchtime comes.

Re. distribution of misery: we have 2 - 3 years before the troubles *start,* and that is not the end of the story, only the beginning.

Realistically the single most important thing anyone could do for conservation and the world's future in general is convince the Pope to go on worldwide TV and make a speech to the effect that contraception is not only moral, it's a Christian duty.

Everything else pales in comparison to population growth.

If we don't solve that, then any unlimited source of clean energy is merely going to prolong the agony in a different way: by water shortage, food shortage, pandemic disease, etc.

Realistically I don't think it's going to happen. As long as puritans need to rationalize their own needs for sex by tying it to reproduction, and as long as the unthinking majority of the world's population continues to operate on animal instinct level, it's not going to happen.

So in that sense we're doomed, and the best we can hope for is to batten down the hatches and retain some kind of civilized value system while the dieoffs occur. And then, once population has stabilized within the boundaries of available resources, try to consolidate a sustainable society that can endure for the next epoch of human existence on this planet.

By civilized values I do not mean Euro-American or Chinese or (etc.) culture (i.e. whatever longstanding specific case of a civilization one chooses to use as an example). Rather, the bigger generalization: reduction in violence over time, increase in cumulative knowledge over time, lawful and consistent social order, expansion of individual liberty within the boundaries of available resources (e.g. free speech is resource-neutral, SUVs are not), etc.

This, we can do. Not easily. But not impossible either.

[Wildwell]

The whole point about public transport (air, rail, bus, water) is it is restrictive - which is why it cannot do everything. Problems started when people were given personalised energy burning machines that gave people Cart Blanche to burn up the earth’s resources as they see fit, the only consideration being cost. All public transport responds to flow between nodal points, based on population and economic activity. Private cars are an ‘on demand’ form of transport that makes inefficient use of resources because it promotes ease of door-to-door travel. Most car journeys are not necessary.

On the subject of pricing, these are generally raised or lowered to match capacity (Air, coach, intercity rail yield management and higher pricing in the peak).

The fuel efficiency gains obviously depends on loading, but on weighted mean average loads based on statistical evidence are substantial, apart from air.

Fuel consumption shown below for high speed rail and air

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/racomp/a1.htm


It is absolutely right to point out that the US is simply not set up to deal with the shift of resources, much of which is the product of geography as well as policy. Personally I see America returning to much more self sufficiency and in many areas a sort of romantic ‘wild west’ type environment.

For Europe and Japan, there isn’t the luxury of space for self sufficiency. So some sort of transport is a must in order to survive.

[mekrob]

I was reading in Scientific American a few months ago and they had an article on lighter more fuel efficient vehicles which could be made of some carbon based chemical (can't remember exactly) which is much lighter but stronger than steel. Anyway, they mentioned that China had enacted a law that will make it illegal to buy a car that is not fuel efficient. I'm not sure if it was all cars or just imports. Does anyone else remember this article or the exact details of the law? Thanks

[mekrob]

bizzizump, anyone?