[JohnDenver]

I've often thought that moving to the country is one of dumber things you could do in response to peak oil.

My reasoning for this is simple: people in the country have a massive dependence on cars and gasoline. For example, my brother used to live on a ranch in the extreme boondocks of Idaho (the area was only electrified in the 1980s) and he and his wife had to drive about 100 miles to go to the supermarket. That's an extreme case, but the general principle is very true. The country has incredible sprawl, and you have to drive really long distances to take care of your daily business. Urban dwellers like myself, on the other hand, don't have to drive at all. My supermarket is a 3 minute walk from my front door. It seems obvious to me that country people -- at least those who aren't making good money from serious agriculture or some other business -- are the ones who will get it in the neck first from peak oil.

Here's an article from summer 2008 that pretty much says it all:
Rural U.S. Takes Worst Hit as Gas Tops $4 Average

Pops and I had a little exchange on this topic in another thread, but I'd like to go into it a little deeper.

Pops:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e'll further diversifying our meager income by planting some U-Pick berries on a couple acres and going as whole-hog into market gardening as time allows next year, direct selling grass fed beef and eggs and some value added (jams, jellies) and homemade stuff at the farmers markets and roadside.

[Ibon]

It is today inefficient but not inherently so. Look at developing countries with huge populations still living in rural agricultural communities for hints on where rural american infrastructure is heading; Jeepnies, buses, tricycles, scooters, carts, horses, oxen take care of transportation. Food distribution and markets less consolidated in big box stores far apart and reemergence of small cottage industries more locally distributed. More grease monkey shops repairing things.

More bartering and trading of services. Extended families pooling resources,

Socialization moving toward shared transport, shared work, shared use of heavy equipment like grain harvesters etc.

Need will create this....

[TreeFarmer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he country has incredible sprawl, and you have to drive really long distances to take care of your daily business.

[mos6507]

A point is being made by JD, though, that people who think they are doing the right thing may have blindspots in their energy consumption. There are still a great many people who push the reurbanization agenda as a solution for peak oil, including Kunstler. There is a schism in the doomer community between reurbanization vs. back-to-the-landers that will probably remain until we run this experiment for real.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TreeFarmer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')he country has incredible sprawl, and you have to drive really long distances to take care of your daily business.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')country life is so gasoline intensive.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')t is today inefficient but not inherently so. Look at developing countries with huge populations still living in rural agricultural communities for hints on where rural american infrastructure is heading;

[mos6507]

JD, for those of us who accept overshoot and the inevitability of a die-off at some scale, reurbanization does little more than buy time. But there will come a day when the cities can no longer import enough food. So in the early stages of collapese, a technofixer's reurbanization plans can seem perfectly rational, but it's only at the latter stages when we see how far down we get pushed in energy descent and ecological collapse that the reurbanization model will be truly tested under fire.

For you to suggest that no matter how bad things get, people will huddle in the city doesn't necessarily mean that it is the wisest thing to do. Haiti is no model for wisdom, considering their poor stewardship of their environment that has led to them eating mud cakes.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')country life is so gasoline intensive.

[Pops]

JD makes a good point regarding exurbanites driving to town and urbanites driving to the country, most people living away from town including farmers are just extra-long-distance-commuters.

I used to think suburbia was bound to dry up and blow away but it turns out that since the '70s more and more businesses are locating near suburbia so their commute is much shorter than when people drove to the city center. Add to that the fact suburbia is mostly veneer, by that I mean there is no component so huge it can't be changed - heck it's mostly asphalt as it is!

There are lots of older cities and towns designed and grown before oil which are walkable, newer cities like Dallas, LA or wherever not so much. Their big problem is they DO have lots of money sunk into driving.

Anyway, as to Pops' berries. They will have more embodied fossil energy than berries flown in from the Pacific Northwest and more than berries from Peru in December. As well, home cooking and preserving them (and most everything else) uses more energy than industrial processing – small farming in general is less efficient that large scale enterprises as things stand today.

I'll readily concede that local food is more energy intensive than industrial production what with small ICEs, probably lots more chemicals/packaging/transportation/processing per amount produced.

So there is no justification from the standpoint of conservation. But to quote one of my heros "We can't simply conserve or ration our way out of this energy crisis". Dick isn't really my hero but I agree with the point. The best use of cheap energy is to try to design a better world – not sit on our hands using up what's left and thinking we're doing the world a favor by burning 'less than the other guy'.

It's like the guy in the sinking lifeboat doing nothing but convinced he's making a contribution because he's not pissing on the guy bailing.

It could be that January tomatoes (or August for those down under) will be with us forever because the Energy Fairy pulls a miracle out of her ear – if it does I will have a nice little country experience for those city folks and outfits like this will keep on flying.

But I don't think they will. I think energy will become more and more expensive and basic calorie crops like wheat, corn, beans and staples like sugar, salt & coffee will occupy a larger and larger portion of the food budget because the way to grow them most efficiently will continue to be large scale and people will be forced to pay the price.

But as bulk transport becomes prohibitively expensive the only way the average family will have fresh fruits and vegetables will be either to raise it themselves or buy it from the local guy who can grow it by hand and transport it by foot.


http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mivhs ... arvest.htm
http://www.communitysolution.org/talks/ ... Megan.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Lawn-Mower-Pollution.htm

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'T')his is similar to smallpox girl who talks about driving from Seattle to Olympia (60 miles) for a farmer's market.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')
It's hard for me to see a return to peasantry in the US and other developed countries, no matter how poor they get. Because in virtually all of the poorest countries in the world today, like Haiti, they are undergoing rapid urbanization.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')hat flowing into the city has two sources. Population excess and economic opportunities.

[mark]

City? suburban?, who the fark knows. I know that once IT happens, everyone will say the answer was obvious all along.