[Wildwell]

The whole Jevon’s Paradox theory is a rather simplistic economic theory because it doesn’t adequately internalise the effects of conservation. For example, if oil use remained high there might be external pollution costs which are imposed on society, congestion costs and road accidents and so on. The demand for oil could create resource wars which have a sink effect for resources, manpower, fuel etc.

Whereas I think it’s a bit silly getting rid of cell phones and TVs etc a move to fuel efficiency is a good thing – because it saves consumers money. So $50 a week saved could be spend in other areas of the economy, so you would actually create jobs. Those jobs may require very little energy so I don’t agree you are just shifting requirements elsewhere.

In addition switching away from oil sends out a clear message. And if demand is high enough for alternatives it’s more likely that they will be provided. So the limits of mass transit also don’t apply. Moreover if that mass transit used electricity created from hydro or wind sources you’re switching away from the resource that is causing the problem. As the earth is not a closed energy system diminishing returns does not apply. In parallel with this, more demand for alternatives may produce economies of scale, reducing prices saving more money which can again be spent elsewhere.

High oil prices would reduce jobs in the long term, because of rising prices. Okay, so lower prices may lift demand in other countries, but in this situation the countries that switch away will gain and those that don't will suffer.

[Wildwell]

And wasting energy doesn’t benefit anyone much. When I had my car I used to go for a lot of pleasure trips that didn’t benefit anyone other that a bit of tax for the government and a couple of pounds for the oil company. The money for the tax would go toward paying for the road damage that was caused and the access charges. I imposed congestion on other people too and wore the car out.

That same energy would have been used for someone going to the shops and spending money or in a piece of industrial machinery doing work and creating more money. So these arguments are rather simplistic to say the least, quite typical of economists really - science of nerds to make sense of the real world.

[holmes]

I am liquidating everything. all "unneccessary commodities".
Use the back pack and bike predominately. Bike to work. Live out of the truck sort of. Spend all extra money on supplies to build TMES and garden.

[Roy]

I have a 1967 Camaro RS/SS 350 that I'm parting with. I;ve owned it for almost 20 years, and have completely rebuilt the car from the ground up. It, much to my dismay, must go before the demand drops.

I think once the middle class starts feeling the pinch, the market for muscle cars will nosedive. You know, less discretionary cash and all that.

My car buddies think I'm crazy. So does just about everyone I've discussed peak oil with.

I guess time will tell.

I know that when the Camaro's gone I'll be getting a small dual purpose motorcycle for short trips.

We just traded in our Subaru Outback Wagon (24mpg) for a Jetta TDI wagon (47mpg). The note is less and we got a really good trade on the Sube. Interestingly, I attempted to trade that car in about 2 years ago (owed $19k then) and was offered at best $10k. Needless to say I didn't take that.

My first offer on the Sube was $14k last Saturday (owe $9k). Are we already seeing an increase in demand for fuel efficient vehicles (relative to SUVs)? I think so. The VW dealer told me that the TDI cars were "flying off the lot".

We decided to get one before demand began exceeding supply.

Roy

[SidneyTawl]

I am waiting for the spring. The Lemans (GTO) has been in storage for quite awhile. Needs new top and some clean up. I had been saving money to finish it out with a nice redo of the interior, really nice top and paint job.

Spent that on solar panels.
Looking to take the money from the Pontiac and put it toward some land in a location yet to be determined.

High School Graduation (money from relatives, plus well off parents)
plus
IRS Tax refunds.

Young rich kids with money.

well at least its a plan



Was the 67 the first with the hiding headlamps. Had a buddy in HS that had one for years. One of his quit working. So one headlight was always open. Nicknamed "the one eyed jack".

[Roy]

Yes that's the one. Electrically operated on the '67 (68-69 were vacuum) and notoriously unreliable. Also extremely expensive to repair/replace today.

If I can't sell it for a decent price locally I'll put that sucker on EBAY in May.

Good luck with the Lemans! My dad had a '66 GTO/389/PG when I was in HS and I always loved that car.

Roy

[retiredguy]

The point MQ is making, and I agree with him, is that conservation is not an end in itself. I was born in 1950, so I lived through the 70's as an adult. Yes, conservation worked after the embargo. Many of us actually got a kick out of driving 50 on the interstate rather than 55. I used to keep a log of my mileage in my old Corolla.

However, as soon as gas prices began to drop, most folks went back to their old ways. My father stunned me by buying a Pinto in the 70s but when the oil glut hit, he traded it in on a Cadillac. Sure, houses were built more energy efficiently, but the new houses were much larger and folks added on to the older homes. In other words, people went back to business as usual. Hard to lay blame, since it certainly was easy to do and very few people (other than John Anderson) were saying that we should continue to strive to use less energy per capita.

Face it folks, the earth's population continues to grow while that which fuels that growth, oil, is being depleted. I don't see governments stepping in to do anything about this until it will be too late to avoid a collapse of some variety. Could be starvation. Could be a war. Could be the "Big Disease." Most people are not going to do much about reducing their use of energy unless forced to.

Conservation, however, has always been an interest of mine, so I will continue to do what I can even if my efforts allow some asshole to drive an SUV in the short term.

I bought a Prius in 2003.

I retired and became debt-free in 2004.

I live in a village that was once served by a train. The tracks are still there so the village could still serve as a materials distribution center for this area. I know all of my neighbors pretty well and we actually do help each other when the need arises (can you say community).

I use my fireplace to provide supplemental heat for the house. Tried to find an insert but failed.

Currently use two solar air collectors (homemade) to heat my house and shop.

Built a woodworking shop and can build most anything out of wood.

Done everthing I can do to make the house more energy efficient.

Just was evaluated for PV. Way too expensive to be feasible at the currect time. Plan to look at solar water heating (and space heating) next.

Grown some of my own food for the last 25 years. All organic; make my own compost. Know how to can veggies and do each year.

Own firearms and know how to kill, dress and preserve meat.

If the SHTF, I'm heading back to central Wisconsin from where I came and will hole up at my brother-in-law's hunting camp.

[Wildwell]

The basic theory is absolutely sound, with a base load demand for a commodity, using less means more demand elsewhere in a growing set of economies. With a mix of commodities and energies it’s more complex. The vast amount of oil use has no effect on the economy because it encapsulates several areas where there are vast wastes or external costs and that was the point I was making.

It depends on the country as well. Take Britain for example, the sum of the airlines provides no internal benefit whatsoever. A net drain of £24 billion according to one report, because of the amount of money they take out of the country in terms of tourists and pollution. They decimated the English sea side town in the 1950s/60s and 70s.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/repo ... 4/AED3.htm

On the other hand, they would be important to Ibiza, Greece, Spain, The Caribbean, and Australia and so on.

So there is room for improvement, but as it has been said before it buys time nothing more. The root of the problem is still evident, where MQ is absolutely right. What is needed is an enormous shift in how people think about energy and the way they live their lives. The market can do a bit to help by providing alternatives, but ultimately it’s going to take policy change, some of which won’t be popular. Does democracy work? It probably doesn’t in this case. Ill make no secret of the fact to an extent I’m playing devils advocate, I’m fully aware what people can be like, how they see themselves and regard the bigger picture. This is why governments need to introduce policies to combat these problems. There is a sign this is starting to happen with environmental treaties, but as we all know the biggest polluter is not on board with this and hence you can see why some get quite vocal about these issues.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

80% of people (Pareto's Principle) are quite reasonable when presented with hard facts. It's the other 20% that act like sheep and are the main problem. That said, most people are not given hard facts, look at the way things are presented in advertising, news and in education. This information can be very selective or not complete.

I remain open minded and *very slightly* more optimistic than pessimistic.

[formandfile]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd as far as people suddenly using mass transit. What mass transit? How much extra capacity is there on the BART, the San Diego Trolley? Fill up pretty quick I would imagine. NY City has it wired, I guess.

[threadbear]

I've done most of what I can already, but am still thinking. My husband and I already live in the Gulf islands, on an acre, but we're tossing around the idea of looking at 100 acre plus holdings, and starting a cooperative, intentional community. If this can be done, it's huge, in terms of savings. One community could use one vehicle, one pick up truck. We'd swap services, share labour, have a little farming area for food, in an idyllic setting, far from danger. This also solves the problem of lonliness which gets worse for people, especially single people, as they get older.

Peak oil will force people to do some things that will be very good for them. It's not all negative.

First thing to go? Massage therapists, manicurists, in middle class communities.

[Ebyss]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we need to blame the Rich for knowing about this impending catastrophe for 40 years and not only doing nothing about it but conspiring to make as much money off raping the regular people for as long as possible.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('formandfile', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd as far as people suddenly using mass transit. What mass transit? How much extra capacity is there on the BART, the San Diego Trolley? Fill up pretty quick I would imagine. NY City has it wired, I guess.

[formandfile]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')Figures for London Underground per day can be seen here - that uses a relatively simple block signalling with two tracks.

http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/lines/central.asp

[MonteQuest]

Wow! A learning curve on mass transit for me. Thanks, Wildwell. I guess I was thinking of my time spent in San Diego where we only had the trolley and buses that took you all day to go across town. If people started using mass transit, I wonder how much the system could take on before capacity is reached?

Gas went to $2.35 a gallon here today. $2.55 for premium. Even so, the roads are packed. We get more visitors here than the Grand Canyon.

[ShawnAvery]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')For me the macro event which is potentially more imminent is a significant US recession. A US recession could easily be brought on independent of, or in conjunction with, already high oil prices. It might take a bit to show up, but the US is so close to a recession now that it is clearly teetering on the edge of the cliff. A US recession, in general, means a world wide recession. A world wide recession means a big drop in demand for oil. Such a recession could serve as the appetizer before the coming Peak Oil entrée. In this scenario I see the US obviously being hit hardest (in terms of GDP % drop) with the rest of the world taking it on the chin. Everyone would be impacted across the board, and importantly, no rethinking of the status quo with relation to oil dependency.

[MonteQuest]

Folks. Lety's try to stay on topic. We have all kinds of threads on the long-term effects of peak oil. This thread is about The Near Term Economic Effects of Peak Oil. We have started up the inflationary hill already. What will you cut out of your budget to compensate for high energy prices? What are you seeing around you? What are you hearing?

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we need to blame the Rich for knowing about this impending catastrophe for 40 years and not only doing nothing about it but conspiring to make as much money off raping the regular people for as long as possible.

[Doly]

Well, I think we are going to find out soon if there is a rich elite that knows about peak oil and have been preparing for it without telling anybody, or there isn't. My bet is that there isn't. We are going to see banks, oil companies, etc, fall with the rest.

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'W')ell, I think we are going to find out soon if there is a rich elite that knows about peak oil and have been preparing for it without telling anybody, or there isn't. My bet is that there isn't. We are going to see banks, oil companies, etc, fall with the rest.

[FatherOfTwo]

This is what Goldman Sachs thinks of the near term effects:

Goldman Sachs believes that oil markets may have entered the early stages of a "super spike" period -- a multi-year trading band of oil prices high enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption, and recreate a spare capacity cushion only after which will lower energy prices return. Firm says resilient demand has caused them to revise up their super-spike range to $50-$105 per bbl from $50-$80 per bbl, and they see as much as 80% total return upside to super spike-adjusted peak values, and are comfortable recommending that investors add to positions in the sector.