[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')Cars are a luxury, not a necessity.

[Aaron]

Not in Texas, Alaska, LA, Florida, etc..

[retiredguy]

JD, where do you live that you can purchase all of the things that you need by walking?

I live in an a village that was self-sustaining in the 19th century. With the advent of the autmobile, this village has become a suburb and most of the businesses that don't cater to comuters disappeared long ago. I can pick up groceries locally, but if I needed a shirt or a pair of shoes, I'm out of luck.

The village is servered by NO form of mass transportation. The railroad, which was the lifeblood of the village in the 19th century, is gone, the tracks abandoned and decaying.

The point that I'm trying to make is that millions of Americans live in places like this. The choice is to re-invent the village as it existed a hundred years ago or to relocate the population to the nearby city. To make this transition is going to be hugely disruptive and hugely expensive. How do you envision this happening within the timeframe dictated during post-Peak.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'O')h, and John, it is not a choice once we are in overshoot, which we are.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'O')k Jato, but USA didn't double population and graph is showing GDP per unit of energy. I only didnt say it clearly enough. USA almost doubled GDP per unit of energy.. It also almost doubled GDP per capita (per capita energy use remained the same).

[Licho]

So you are saying that most of this GDP/energy doubling comes from debt spending over last 30 years? Thats almost impossible, it would mean you should have total debt of about 10x annual GDP. And afaik it's nohere near that figure.
Your debt is about $7 trillions, annual GDP about $10 trillions..

So most of this growth is certainly real..

[jato]

Maybe our debt is more like 40 trillion

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'S')o you are saying that most of this GDP/energy doubling comes from debt spending over last 30 years? Thats almost impossible, it would mean you should have total debt of about 10x annual GDP. And afaik it's nohere near that figure.
Your debt is about $7 trillions, annual GDP about $10 trillions..

So most of this growth is certainly real..

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Licho', 'S')o you are saying that most of this GDP/energy doubling comes from debt spending over last 30 years? Thats almost impossible, it would mean you should have total debt of about 10x annual GDP. And afaik it's nohere near that figure.
Your debt is about $7 trillions, annual GDP about $10 trillions..

So most of this growth is certainly real..

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'W')here does the "current" money come from to purchase the goods and services that produce GDP figures? It surely is not from a growth in income/wages due to an increase in worker productivity. It is from the refi-ATM of inflated home equity and the daily borrowing of $2.9 billion dollars from foreign investors.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'J')D, where do you live that you can purchase all of the things that you need by walking?

[Wildwell]

http://www.uie.org/library/REPORT_FINAL_July_2004.pdf

For the hard of understanding here is a report on energy intensity.

Let's say the US could becomes a ball park figure of 50% less energy intensive - most people in the field accept without any real loss in the standard of living.

Have a look at some of the opinions here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4000225.stm

As the price of energy rises, people use less, therefore the net result is you CAN grow and use 50% of less energy. From that point of view Simmons was wrong. It's then possible as energy prices keep rising, that people walk more, cycle more (reduces drains elsewhere because of better health) take more public transport, that sort of thing, so you become even more efficient. It's not to say the loss of jobs in one sector causes a downtown, because this has happened throughout history. For example, last week several thousand people were made redundant at the last British mass production car factory - a lot have been offered jobs with Network Rail. Once you have reduced your overall energy take then is can be compensated for with nuclear and renewables.

Whether growth goes on or how long it goes on for depends on technology and population. Saying we cannot do X now, because so and so isn't possible is like saying man couldn't travel more than 14mph in 1800.

I'm sure someone will say - Look by 2050 we will need 60% more energy. Well that may be true because of rising living standards, but that's not the point, because most of this is the third world and they will start by using nano renewable from scratch. My point is individual economies can grow using less energy year on year. And since when was the United States particularly interested in the well being of any other country anyway? It seems to me they will threaten any country or stop buying their products if they won’t play ball – look at what happened to French spring water.

[tokyo_to_motueka]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'J')D, where do you live that you can purchase all of the things that you need by walking?

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '[')img]http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif[/img]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'W')here does the "current" money come from to purchase the goods and services that produce GDP figures? It surely is not from a growth in income/wages due to an increase in worker productivity. It is from the refi-ATM of inflated home equity and the daily borrowing of $2.9 billion dollars from foreign investors.

[retiredguy]

Hi JD,

What you are suggesting is a 180 degree shift in thinking and being very sanguine about it happening smoothly. The 250,000 people in this county who live outside of metro Madison aren't all going to be able to converge on the city.

I'm choosing to stay where I'm at. I'm in the old section of the village, two blocks from what remains of downtown and two blocks from the railroad tracks. My thinking is that when energy costs make auto driving prohibitive, rail service will be revived and the village, along with other villages in this county will become a distribution center for groceries, dry goods, etc. Those folks living in suburbs that aren't close to a distribution center will be in a world of hurt.

I agree with you regarding automobiles and the blight they cause. However, those of us who feel that way are in the distinct minority in the US. To change this attitude is going to be EXTREMELY disruptive, maybe violent. Even during the Depression, people drove cars.

[Wildwell]

I suspect governments will put in some some of system where you need to prove you need a car. I don't think it will happen very smoothly either, but I see little choice at the time of writing. One thing we all agree on is something has got to give.

[johnmarkos]

Suburbs will probably become small towns -- many of them were built around small towns anyway. In the typical bedroom community, the owner of one house might paint it green and turn it into a grocery store. The owner of another might paint it blue and turn it into a general store. They built these subdivisions for housing, assuming people would be able to drive five miles for their necessities. When people cannot, I suspect zoing laws may change, allowing people to transform buildings into something other than their original intent.

Nonetheless, it will probably be an awkward transformation. Life in pre-defined cities, towns, and villages will likely be far more comfortable.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'Y')ou can do a lot with statistics that’s for sure!

Here’s another one to ponder.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=151

And this is interesting: *Direct* use of energy by sector:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/s ... ?vlnk=5542

All energy 2002 (millions barrels of oil eq):

Agriculture 2.0
Wholesale and retail trade 8.7
Transport and communications 31.3
Financial 6.8
Public admin 4.6
Education and social work 5.8
Manufacturing 48.1
Mining and quarrying 4.8
Electricty, gas and water supply 52.2
Construction 1.4