[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'T')he rest is political "if only there could be understanding" which is cheap

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'W')e do have to engage this 300 pound gorilla we derogatorily call "the sheeple" now don't we?

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'I')f this sounds harsh, it is because we are past the point where Morpheus can sit down with Neo and have a long debate with helpful animated illustrations about the merits of the red and blue pills. Now we are at a drug store counter. Packet, leaflet, NEXT!

[Twilight]

Unlike some, I am not expecting collapse tomorrow, I expect it to take a couple of leisurely decades and give way to a future. I avoid group think and expect I am on more than a few ignore lists here for challenging many of the absurdities that are perpetuated, doomer and cornucopian alike. But a couple of decades is not a lot of time to accept setbacks caused by quick fixes for which other people lobbied. I do not think we have the luxury of letting the lowest common denominator approach proceed and start bootstrapping it in the 2020s when people realise they backed the wrong horse and really are in a lot of trouble. It has to be made clear now that the more they do themselves today, the better chance they have of being helped the rest of the way later.

Otherwise, you can see today a taste of what waste may be to come. SUVs with hybrid engines that get less than 25mpg and win environmental awards. Because it is a hybrid, so the reasoning goes, it must be helping. Let's chip in and pay a subsidy to speed up the roll-out. And with that, deny resources to something potentially useful. Similarly, demands in the UK for means-tested cross-subsidy of utility tariffs, which though they might appeal to commonly held notions of social justice, mitigate against the efficiency and demand destruction we urgently need. Yes, urgently; the last few energy policy documents to come out of our sorry stand-in for an energy ministry are scary enough without mentioning the stuff they cannot.

No thanks. If it is crap, I will call BS on it, and if it challenges someone's beliefs, that is the point. To do otherwise would be to indulge false hopes that died in the 80s. It may be painful to hear it, but after well over ten years of trying the education approach, I am ready to say "If you already know what it is doing to your wallet, go sort it."

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'I') will address the one substantive point:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Subsidizing something makes more of it." That's a retarded reflection. What subsidizing? Its a "trade in". Of what would there be more to make? People get caught up in buzz words.

[Ludi]

Ibon, don't you think it would be better to withhold aid as a policy that will cause collapse of this segment of the economy and bring them more quickly into sustainability? What about just giving them a bus pass instead of a new car subsidy? Doesn't a new car subsidy just perpetuate an unsustainable system?

[Ibon]

Hi Ludi, As much as I agree to allow this segment of the economy to collapse we have to first provide alternatives to moving people around. When I lived in Switzerland in the 80's I witnessed how this country dealt with curbing the use of the car. Taxing gasoline, expanding public transportation, taxes on the engine size of the vehicle. All of these measures were voted by the citizens. Where I lived in Zuerich I witnessed how they choked off all the main roads into the center of the city and charged outrages parking fees so that using your car was more inconvenient than taking the tram or train. But the country first had to provide the alternative mode of transport before they could choke off the automobile.

Until we provide an alternative there is no way to simply advocate letting the use of the personal automobile collapse as a segment of the economy. So yes ultimately I agree with you but in the meantime what are the best measures to take to reduce fuel consumption during the time we are still dependent on the automobile? In this context the proposal on this thread does have some merit but I would also agree that if I had to choose where to use subsidies then certainly building out our mass transit would certainly have priority over this proposal. But then again this is also something that would take a decade to get through. So as a short term band aid as imperfect as it is why not?

By coincidence sitting on my porch this morning reading the NY times I came across this editorial.... A future for SUV's. Here was the best idea....

With a few adaptations, a Lincoln Navigator might make a nice streetlamp.

The article proposed sending the SUV's to Russia where there is a huge demand for cars and where people would buy them up since they subsidize fuel prices there. Increasing demand for fuel in Russia will certainly help keep down the price of fuel now wouldn't it. Sometimes people really don't see the big picture here.

[Ludi]

Thanks, Ibon. I was just trying to reconcile your attitude toward the auto industry and SUV owners with your attitude toward those who receive food aid. In another thread you seemed to be saying we need to stop food aid to people who are overshooting their carrying capacity. I don't recall you mentioning putting in place an alternative, perhaps this was implied somewhere. As you know, those of us who drive cars are overshooting our carrying capacity enormously. It seems you were saying it was best if those who receive food aid were allowed to fail and shrink down to the carrying capacity. Wouldn't it be equally as good to let the car culture fail and shrink down to its carrying capacity?

Just trying to reconcile these points of view, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you completely! You seem to be cutting a lot of slack to the most egregiously overshooting people of all, while advocating cutting off aid to those who are using the fewest resources.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'J')ust trying to reconcile these points of view, and maybe I'm misunderstanding you completely! You seem to be cutting a lot of slack to the most egregiously overshooting people of all, while advocating cutting off aid to those who are using the fewest resources.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'D')oes this make sense?

[patience]

Kudi, I feel that way myself, about our personal lack of influence. But maybe we have more influence long term than we realize. When my son in law put up his first windmill at his Dad's place, he didn't feel like he had done anything too big, but since then, people come into their shop every day asking about it, how does it work, and what do they have to do to get a system going on their place. He has a LONG backlog of people who want him to build windmills now, and doesn't even have his own finished yet.

There is always room for good ideas, and now we need a lot of good ideas. People are hungry for leadership to solve the problems they face. I think that when my solar system is in public view, and I have a solar water heater going, I'll spend more time than I want answering questions, but I believe that is how we change the world. One person at a time.

edit: As to the original post, no, let people live with their bad decisions. As cube said, yes, when only small cars are made, they will cost more since they are only made now to meet CAFE standards. Best answer I can see is to jack up the CAFE standards, which should have been done 30+ years ago. Then the market will sort out the problems.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('patience', ' ')I believe that is how we change the world. One person at a time.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('patience', ' ')I believe that is how we change the world. One person at a time.

[Canuk]

There seems to be an anti-manufacturing view here but since I own a small manufacturing company I would like to counterpoint this view. Manufacturing is still a significant portion of our economy. It provides many spin off industries that affect the majority of the population whether realized or not - and since the automotive sector is one of the largest sectors of that manufacturing economy it is important.

Bailing out an individual for bad purchasing decisions (buying a specific vehicle) affects only the individual and should not occur - in fact SUV owners may have already received assistance (tax breaks, etc.).

Aiding an industry that is responsible for 12% of manufacturing jobs and therefore many additional jobs in other sectors of the economy could be seen as a responsible move. Unlike aid to retail or tourism (which occurs) manufacturing has a multiplier effect in the economy and aid to that sector will generally help other sectors of the economy. Since we cannot flick the switch and return to an agrarian past we must help in a controlled decline - so partially alleviating the effect of bad car company business decisions (decisions aided by gov't subsidies and policy etc.) is in the interest of the majority of the populace and may be a better use of dollars than artificially propping up house prices...

As I have previously posted I am not advocating direct subsidies (as already occurs) but instead some type of phased protection to allow the companies to retool since this takes years and it is likely they will not be able to complete this rapid of a change without aid we are in for a serious economic decline.

[yarbo]

I understand many of the points that all of you have made and trading out vehicles obviously has its faults. Its obvious many of you have put in lots of time into the consequence of peak oil and have becoem highly educated. I'm obviously not educated enough to really understand the largest picture of peak oil though I can't help but fear that some of you guys / girls may be a wee bit over the top with the hopeless doomsday scenario. I'm sure you've heard this before though and will perhaps disregard that statement as naive. Maybe it is. I hope its not.

When I originally wrote defensively (and I apologize for that) it was in reaction to a post or two that was stating that the ignorant should suffer the consequences of their dumb action of buying SUV's. Those comments really made me react. Many of these people are struggling families, black. white. etc., that bought according to a simple desire of wanting a bigger car. No mal intent, no arrogance...and with absolutely no knowledge of shrinking global oil supply. If you look within your own families you may find people that fall under the category of those that do not question and believe what they are presented. In the larger picture these people if correctly directed will be the largest moving force of change....just like they always are since they represent the majority. This is not an arrogant stance since if you think about it you have to recognize that the function of any society is reliant on mass unquestioning agreement and allegiance of the masses to any particular societal code. Yes they are vulnerable to being led to walking in mass over cliffs and jumping over bridges to their demise but they are also generally the most healthy part of a society and you have to bow down to them in gratitude. In a way the more independent thinking you are the more of a freak and a negative for society you are. Many of us with "independent thinking obsession" drift towards being separate and aloof towards others. I'm like this myself. For instance I would bet that one on one, if you pit many people connected to this website with those that go to church that you would more likely find church members to be giving more to charity and providing services and substance for their local communities. Am I wrong? Think PTA bake sales, think sending your kids to the military, think standing on the corner in order to gather money for kids with cancer, think being less willing to cheat on their taxes, think praying for Wanda Lou's daddy down the street that drank too much and near drowned to death in the drainage ditch next to the McMurray farm last tuesday night after he found out that his daughter got pregnant with Cletus, the colored boy bagger at the new Johnsonville Piggly Wiggly, etc. The believers are the nuts and bolts of the business side of what moves a society and makes it cohesive. If you don't effect the believers, you're missing the boat of basic change.

To want to punish all SUV owners for being inconsiderate intentional fuel hogs, is not really addressing the issue, sorry. Many of them hadn't a clue. Replacing SUVs with smaller US cars sounded good to me but y'all pretty much shot that down pretty convincingly for me, but not all the way. I'm a mechanic and try to think in emotionless cause and effect terms. The idea was seen as bail out and I meant it more as simple replacement. Replacement is complicated I now see. None the less, the issue raises emotional feelings of resentment and if the general population would respond with the same sentiment which came out in many posts then it wouldn't fly, I understand.

As far as changing the world around you, I am convinced that it is through recognizing your fellow human as being a potential representation of your own self that you are really able to be most effective. As I mentioned, I live in the south. I am also in business and have had to learn to quell my own initial bias and prejudicial stigma I initially had placed on southerners and conservatives. Honestly, it was through my own interest in making money, or honestly, greed, that I truly learned the value of how to practice effective diplomacy with others I previously used to think of as idiotic. This diplomacy is reliant on not seeing others as my enemy or someone beneath or above me, but someone as an equal to myself and trying to appreciate them as who they are, regardless. I am known as a loose minded person but I have made friends with many of my customers who are quite conservative. If I grew up in their shoes, I would be them, if they grew up in my shoes, they would be me. Its simple, honest and it feels better than being negative and prejudicial. Its effective and you end up with friends, not enemies. Enemies will never listen to you, friends sometimes will. Anyway, it works and I'm sort of wealthy now because of it. Think effective market forces.....

Still, something needs to be done which involves citizens and gathers their support and sense of patriotism with energy conservation. Our current government who knew quite well where we were going all along did nothing to stem or warn anybody of future $4.00 a gallon gas or waning oil supply. Should the next administration try to heal the wounds created by this current pile of deceitful garbage in office and redirect the sentiment of the masses? Sure. It would bind US Citizens and give us global credibility we absolutely need. Perhaps trading SUV's out with smaller cars would be impractical but some radical gesture would be very, VERY effective.

When people had to drive 55 mph back in the 70s everybody hated it. That energy crisis was obviously temporary. This ones more permanent and I think there would be more co-operation if it was obvious to everybody that we're at a point of no return (and if gas becomes $8 a gallon).

Personally, I think these are good times coming up. I see an upcoming era as one of pressure and education. Its the first time I've felt hopeful in years. The enemy is our own consumption and expensive energy will prove it. With the general US population overweight, apathetic, depressed on Prozac and generally unhealthy in mind and body, a changing of the survival equation is no doubt going to be healthy.

Sorry for this too long of a post. Damn I can go on, Christ. Its my first and I bet that's a common problem...

<")
( \
/ |``

[cube]

To: Yarbo: I think one aspect of this forum that may lead to great "misunderstanding" for a person first time stepping in here, is how often people talk about death, destruction, and a massive economic collapse very casually as if they are enjoying cookies and a light hearted conversation with friends during afternoon tea break.

With the exception of a small number of idiots who have the respect of nobody, people here do not "want" bad things to happen. But many people here see a very dark cloud coming ahead for reasons that would take too long to explain in one thread. Believing in something does not necessarily mean you want it to happen.
//
Getting back to SUV drivers or maybe just anyone who is in financial trouble. The problem is there are too many people in financial trouble, truck drivers, flight attendants, senior citizens who haven't saved a penny. It's like the Titanic is sinking and there's only enough life boats for half of us.
What that means is we'll have to "turn our backs" on half the people out there.
Pulling out of Iraq is a good idea but even then there's not enough money to:
1) fix the housing crisis
2) transition to an alternative energy economy
3) pay for social security for the baby boomers
4) bail out SUV drivers
5) a stimulus check for everybody
I'm not trying to be mean I'm just stating the unpleasant financial truth.

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Canuk', 'T')here seems to be an anti-manufacturing view here but since I own a small manufacturing company I would like to counterpoint this view. Manufacturing is still a significant portion of our economy. It provides many spin off industries that affect the majority of the population whether realized or not - and since the automotive sector is one of the largest sectors of that manufacturing economy it is important.

Bailing out an individual for bad purchasing decisions (buying a specific vehicle) affects only the individual and should not occur - in fact SUV owners may have already received assistance (tax breaks, etc.).

Aiding an industry that is responsible for 12% of manufacturing jobs and therefore many additional jobs in other sectors of the economy could be seen as a responsible move. Unlike aid to retail or tourism (which occurs) manufacturing has a multiplier effect in the economy and aid to that sector will generally help other sectors of the economy. Since we cannot flick the switch and return to an agrarian past we must help in a controlled decline - so partially alleviating the effect of bad car company business decisions (decisions aided by gov't subsidies and policy etc.) is in the interest of the majority of the populace and may be a better use of dollars than artificially propping up house prices...

As I have previously posted I am not advocating direct subsidies (as already occurs) but instead some type of phased protection to allow the companies to retool since this takes years and it is likely they will not be able to complete this rapid of a change without aid we are in for a serious economic decline.

[Snowrunner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Canuk', 'T')here seems to be an anti-manufacturing view here but since I own a small manufacturing company I would like to counterpoint this view. Manufacturing is still a significant portion of our economy. It provides many spin off industries that affect the majority of the population whether realized or not - and since the automotive sector is one of the largest sectors of that manufacturing economy it is important.

[Twilight]

Well, that makes more sense. The important thing is that good ideas are given an opportunity and bad ideas are shot down, even if the latter are popular. The problem with government initiatives is that bad (but initially popular) ideas can endure far longer than they would if they were left to compete on their merits, and temporary fixes have a way of becoming permanent and sucking in their own budgets. Also, people naturally tend to go for simplistic soundbite quick fixes so they can stop worrying about a problem, and tend to be unwilling to maintain their attention on a multifaceted long-term issue. I think the big idea to get across every time the government does act, is that this does not settle the matter if the public does not meet it halfway somehow.

About car manufacturers - they have too much baggage to be worth saving in their current form. They are a great reservoir of engineering talent, but it is currently being misallocated.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'C')learly any forward thinking Government (haha!) would invest tax dollars in industries that have a long term benefit. But as they don't have clout (yet) and as the current employees from those companies are starting to scream, take a guess where money will end up?