View Story | 42 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I am conflicted.
There is much truth in it.
Yet, if -- magically -- I have a vehicle that gets 10x the mileage per gallon, my mileage will not go up that way. First, because I won't want to spend all that time in the car. Second, because there are accumulated costs (insurance, maintenance, etc) that make gasoline only a small part of the costs. And, having a better insulated home might make me keep it a few degrees warmer, but I won't turn the temperature to 125 degrees (f).
But, I agree to a tremendous extent with: "Improved efficiency, in the context of a system dependent upon growth, is just an excuse to create more activity." Thus, what we require, is a fundamental redefinition of what economic properity really means.
Striving to Get Energy Smart NOW!!! to Energize America.
by A Siegel on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:45:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I have a vehicle that gets 10x the mileage per gallon, my mileage will not go up that way.
My guess is that your gas savings will probably allow some other prospective driver to burn the gasoline you aren't burning.
"The freeway's concrete way won't show/ you where to run or how to go" -- Jorma Kaukonen
by Cassiodorus on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:06:57 PM PDT
You are correct that if A Siegel uses less gasoline, this will slightly lower the demand for gasoline, and hence the price. And, sadly, yes, this may mean that someone else can now afford it.
However, a lower price of gasoline (and thus oil) means that companies will now find it a little less profitable to look for high-cost oil. Perhaps some projects will be moved from low-profitable to no-profitable.
On a larger scale, if large numbers of Americans cut their gasoline usage significantly, the price of oil would drop significantly. And that would make oil companies a lot less interested in developing the tar sands, offshore drilling, etc.
Eventually, of course, the price will rise enough for them to do those things. But by that time, the technology of solar panels will be a bit further along, acceptance of wind power will be a bit greater, and future generations of the Prius will be out.
Fundamentally, conservation buys us time. And maybe that extra time will be enough for the horse to learn to sing.
by chapter1 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:49:11 AM PDT
However, a lower price of gasoline (and thus oil) means that companies will now find it a little less profitable to look for high-cost oil.
My point is that roaring gasoline demand elsewhere will push prices upward regardless of how many conscientious individuals conserve here. Under neoliberal capitalism, the world is being conditioned to want the American Way of Life.
The conservation efforts of conscientious individuals make sense on the basis of brute economic self-interest. As the world's oil reserves are continually drained, the price of oil will go up and up, and so it will be expedient for the well-to-do to conserve. But it won't really do anything for the environment.
by Cassiodorus on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:45:17 AM PDT
Only the market CAN save us. By producing viable alternatives to oil.
This truly can only happen when the price of oil puts pressure on the masses to come up with a reasonable alternative.
By the way, your tagline is 2/3'rd right. Recycling is a scam as well as peak oil. I support reduce & reuse in my own life. Recycling? Only the good stuff (Aluminum, copper, etc.) I'm not for wasting more energy and polluting the environment more by recycling freakin' plastic milk juggs and newspapers.
Willie Jenkins
by William Jenkins on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 11:36:52 PM PDT
I thought that plastic is a clear positive in terms of recycling energy.
As for newspaper, there are some mixed numbers -- but, when you take the reduced waste stream and the reduced forestry, it comes out as a net positive in terms of environmental impact.
by A Siegel on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:11:30 AM PDT
Recycling plastics can only reclaim a portion...the rest is still dumped.
Sadly, the recycling industry is given too much credence. They have an agenda... it is a multi-billion dollar industry. They seem to do their own "research" with an outcome that is predictable.
The energy used in the recycling process produces waste as well. From the time to sort the items, to the vehicles (big trucks, generally) that burn tons of fuel, to the recycling process itself... for what?
by William Jenkins on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:19:35 AM PDT
Or, the high price of oil allows its owners to concentrate money and power in their hands, thus making it even more difficult to develop alternatives. Please read chapter 6 of Donella Meadows et al.'s Beyond The Limits, which concludes:
Market signals such as oil price are too noisy, too delayed, too amplified by speculation, and too manipulated by private and public interest groups to give the world clear signals about oncoming physical limits. The market is blind to the long term and pays no attention to ultimate sources and sinks, until they are nearly exhausted, when it is too late to act. Economic signals and technological responses can evoke powerful responses, as the oil price example illustrates, but they simply are not connected to the earth system in the right place to give useful information about limits. (184)
And this from market believers!
by Cassiodorus on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:22:55 AM PDT
The market I am talking about is not simply the stock market.
The fact is, oil will not "run out" one day just like that. The cost will go up, quantities will be more limited and people will move to something else that is supplied to the markets.
It is going to happen without government interference. It is simple as that.
Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith #30 of the most influential figures in history. He isn't there for no reason at all.
by William Jenkins on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 07:24:43 AM PDT
the "market" does not send adequate enough signals re petroleum/oil to enable a transition without MASSIVE turbulence. Check out Hirsch's work, for example.
by A Siegel on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 08:35:28 AM PDT
Doubtless for the reason Y'Shua, Muhammad, and Martin Luther are there -- he started a religion, justifying a priestly elite. Influential doesn't mean infallible.
by Cassiodorus on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:34:30 AM PDT
One is a peaceful Vale of Kashmir (I have hopes this may be true again in my lifetime).
The other is the city of Samarkand, because there is a statue of nasrudden and the donkey learning to read the Koran!
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them." [Ray Bradbury]
by RosyFinch on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:08:03 AM PDT
leaves out the essence of what Fosters article demonstrates: capitalism is incapable of achieving an ecologically sound economy. By its very nature it is driven to expand, whether humans "need" its output or not.
We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008
by unclejohn on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:42:04 AM PDT
he can move to a fartherflung exurb, increasing his dependence on the automobile.
by unclejohn on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 04:38:08 AM PDT
"having a better insulated home might make me keep it a few degrees warmer, but I won't turn the temperature to 125 degrees (f)."
What we found years ago when we did solar barnraisings on houses in the Boston area is that there were actually greater savings than estimated as time went on. We theorized that the people who were interested enough to do solar were also motivated to do more insulation and weatherization and monitor energy use.
Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at http://solarray.blogspot.com/2006/03/solar-video.html
by gmoke on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:43:41 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 42 comments