Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities

Expand Messages
  • charles
    To All, I read several groups that talk only about OIL supply and OIL production peak. We won t be able to produce the oil We are today in 2020, REad
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      To All,

      I read several groups that talk only about OIL supply and OIL
      production peak. We won't be able to produce the oil We are today
      in 2020, REad www.dieoff.org or the ASPO website and thier
      newsletters. Look up Colin Campbell. Do a search on "Global Oil
      Production Peak" There are tonnes of papers on the topic and
      several groups.
      Oil supplies are running out, we will be able to get oil till about
      2100, but not nearly in the amounts we are using today.
      Hey look today the world burned to a crisp or made into things

      78,000,000 barrels of Oil at 42 gallons each.

      In a year we consume a little over a cubic mile of oil.

      next year we will consume 2% more. We won't be able to consume that
      much in 20 years because we won't be able to get it out of the ground
      in a year's time.

      So you better think car free as fast as possible.

      I know this is not a doom and gloom group, but i would be ready to
      give up your car forever, unless it runs off of solar power.


      And anyone thinking of getting a Hydrogen car better know where
      they are getting it, it is a battery, not a power source, it stores
      chemical energy. if you get if from water as the hacks say, then you
      use x energy to get it out of water, then only get 1/2 x energy out
      of the stored energy in it. an Energy SINK. Bummer better learn to
      walk.

      Charles
      Huntsville Al.
    • John O. Andersen
      Good stuff. Thanks for the link. John O. Andersen Unconventional Ideas: Counter-Mainstream Thoughts on Living Meaningfully in the 21st Century
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Good stuff. Thanks for the link.

        John O. Andersen
        Unconventional Ideas:
        Counter-Mainstream Thoughts on Living Meaningfully in the 21st Century
        http://www.unconventionalideas.com

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: charles
        To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:03 PM
        Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities


        To All,

        I read several groups that talk only about OIL supply and OIL
        production peak. We won't be able to produce the oil We are today
        in 2020, REad www.dieoff.org or the ASPO website and thier
        newsletters. Look up Colin Campbell. Do a search on "Global Oil
        Production Peak" There are tonnes of papers on the topic and
        several groups.
        Oil supplies are running out, we will be able to get oil till about
        2100, but not nearly in the amounts we are using today.
        Hey look today the world burned to a crisp or made into things

        78,000,000 barrels of Oil at 42 gallons each.

        In a year we consume a little over a cubic mile of oil.

        next year we will consume 2% more. We won't be able to consume that
        much in 20 years because we won't be able to get it out of the ground
        in a year's time.

        So you better think car free as fast as possible.

        I know this is not a doom and gloom group, but i would be ready to
        give up your car forever, unless it runs off of solar power.


        And anyone thinking of getting a Hydrogen car better know where
        they are getting it, it is a battery, not a power source, it stores
        chemical energy. if you get if from water as the hacks say, then you
        use x energy to get it out of water, then only get 1/2 x energy out
        of the stored energy in it. an Energy SINK. Bummer better learn to
        walk.

        Charles
        Huntsville Al.



        To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
        Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mike Harrington
        It really looks like we re at the end of an age, and most of the twenty-first century will be drastically different than the beginning of it. Suburban
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
          twenty-first century will be drastically different than the beginning of it.
          Suburban development and freeway construction, phenomena that are less than
          sixty years old, are still continuing in North America. Most of the
          intelligentsia are in denial, basing their actions on the belief that the
          lifestyle of the second half of the twentieth century will continue forever.
          The automobile lifestyle requires cheap energy, and that condition will come
          to an end sooner or later. No one knows for sure exactly when global oil
          production will peak. Like Colin Campbell says, we use estimates for future
          oil production because we don't know what the right numbers are. It may be
          2010 or has late as 2020, but it will come much sooner than economists
          believe.

          Part of the problem is that the wrong question is being asked. Instead of
          demanding when all the oil will be pumped dry, and there will still be some
          oil production one hundred years from now, the real question is when will
          oil production go into a permanent decline following peak well production?
          Once that happens, the energy markets will become sellers' markets, and the
          volatility in energy prices seen in the past thirty years will pale in
          comparison to the stratospheric cost of energy at the point where global
          energy supply becomes less than world demand. Energy markets will take no
          account of oil depletion until right around the time peak production passes,
          at which point all investment that is predicated on cheap energy becomes
          nominally worthless. The airlines will disappear and motor vehicle
          production will be a small fraction of today's. Food will become extremely
          expensive and famine everywhere cannot be ruled out. If you think your
          monetary and real estate investments will see you through your golden age,
          that they will be worth anything, forget it. A depression will follow that
          will be worse than that of the 1930's.

          The whole US economic system based on the automobile and sprawl, concocted
          after the second world war, needs increasing energy availability to sustain
          itself. There is no substitute for cheap oil. The late twentieth century
          way of life will collapse, probably within the next ten years. Maybe
          sooner. When you here Bush's bluster and bravado, remember that pride
          cometh before a fall. God will punish mankind for wasting energy.

          Here's the ASPO newsletters:

          http://www.energiekrise.de/e/news/aspo.html

          An interesting recent exchange from
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globaloilwatch/ :

          >From lonewolf1366 <lonewolf1366@...>: Sunday, April 06, 2003 10:50
          AM

          Charles,

          Even if you were to succeed in convincing people that oil is running
          out, I personally don't think it would do any good. Why? Hydrogen
          and the fuel cell will "save us".

          There is a major mass media campaign on to sell the public on this
          idea. There are people who are doing nothing else but going around
          to group after group touting the wonders of hydrogen and showing
          pictures of fuel cells in cars that can also be used as a mobile
          power supply. We just had one come to the NASA Langley Research
          Center the other day. Nice, sharp, cleancut type from some DC
          organization with all the right answers and fancy slides. Heck, you
          can even connect it to your home and run IT from your car. And, oh
          by the way, since all the guts of the car are now going to be
          contained in the base of the vehicle, with a motor at each wheel,
          you'll be able to get different "tops" for the car, depending on your
          mood!!

          When this guy was asked about still needing fossil fuel, his response
          was that they were perfecting the hydrogen part of the technology
          first, then would work on the backend to replace fossil fuel. I
          personally thought it was sort of trying to build the house first,
          then going back and building the foundation underneath it, but who am
          I to say. I guess they're gambling they have enough oil left to
          accomplish this.

          So, the public won't get a chance to worry and panic...until its too
          late, I guess, when they realize there's no free lunch and you still
          need to have energy to "make" energy.

          As far as people are concerned, if we can't control our numbers
          ourselves, then MOther Nature will do it for us and it won't be
          pretty. Efficient, but not pretty. Maybe she's already started to
          do that with AIDS and SARS, who knows. The Public Health officials
          have known for years that we are losing the battle against all kinds
          of diseases since the "bugs" can mutate faster than we can keep up,
          with our antibiotics and other medicines.

          So, what should we do? First of all, we need to let go and stop
          trying to do what we've never learned we can't do...and that is to
          control things. We've never been in control and never will be. And
          the more we try, the bigger the mess there is to clean up. So, let
          it go! You'll feel better.

          Secondly, I feel our task is not to fight what is, but maybe
          counteract it by starting to think about what should come after, and
          start teaching our children healthier ways to live than what we have
          now which is a society that is addicted to materialism and is willing
          to saw off the very limb it sits on. In other words, we need to be
          proactive and think in positive terms, rather than being reactive and
          standing in front of an avalanche that's already picking up
          considerable speed and tons of snow.

          If we can raise children who are connected to life and who have
          nothing but respect for life and the very planet that gives us life,
          they may not need or want all the material things our consumer
          society pushes at them and tells them they need to have to be happy.
          If we start teaching our kids that happiness doesn't come from out
          there or from Nintendo, but from within, then they won't "buy" into
          all the advertising that is aimed directly at them. In this way,
          they will have a better chance at surviving and thriving any major
          upheaval that may be coming at us. If we teach them how to live
          simpler, more responsible, and less cluttered lives, free of
          addictions to material things...I think that's one of the greatest
          gifts we can give them at this point in time.

          And...a few basic survival skills probably wouldn't hurt either! ;)

          Lise




          --- In globaloilwatch@yahoogroups.com, "charles" <ceojr@b...> wrote:
          > I got hooked on this whole topic, when i did a simple search on the
          > net, for Oil Supplies. Gas prices were high, and I knew from
          reading
          > so long ago that oil being a fossil fuel is limited.
          >
          > Now after about a month of intensive reading, asking questions and
          > doing a lot of thinking, I have come to a few comments.
          >
          > Society won't change over night and never has in the past.
          >
          > There are to many people to have a balanced world, yet how do you
          > go about paring them down to only the 300 to 500 million that the
          > world can hold without and big Oil paowered world?
          >
          > Death. Though not a pretty thought, war will be an outcome of
          this
          > selfmade tragedy. Currently we have several Wars going on, Iraq,
          > being the major one, amoung several smaller regional and country
          wide
          > civil death machines. AIDS, about 40 to 60 million dead in 10
          years.
          > And now we have the possible future of not enough food to go
          around.
          >
          > Several predictions of the late 70's of global populations of 10
          > billion, won't happen, we won't have the ability to produce enough
          > food for them all to even be born.
          >
          > Politicians from every nation have their heads somewhere else, and
          > won't be any help, The public has a two week attention span so
          they
          > don't care enough, Those of us who have been doing the right thing
          > might not have the chance to get our points across to everyone
          before
          > it is to late.
          >
          > Life will go on, Not as we have known it, but as it has been in
          the
          > world's past. I can get from the New England coast, to the far
          > side of New Zealand, all without using on bit of Oil energy, For
          > that matter I could live on 5 acres with a family of 4 without
          OIL
          > energy.
          >
          > The problem is not trying to get everyone to listen, but what to
          do
          > with all the dead, 5.5 billion have to go in the next 50 years
          give
          > ot take. Climate change? War? Famine? Viruses? No Births? No
          saving
          > medicines? What I don't know, but it is going to happen.
          > Or a miracle has to happen, That I can't control, or any of the
          > others fooor that matter.
          >
          > my 2 cents.
          > Charles
        • dubluth
          ... Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair amount of our
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...> wrote:
            > It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
            > twenty-first century will be drastically different than the


            Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair amount of our attention over the past weeks. Now it seems that "oil consciousness" is alive on this list. With that I suggest a question that has been asked before.

            The hypothetical situation for the following question is one some won't care to consider, but for the rest: Suppose that energy prices continue along their long run decline in sharp contradiction to predictions of diminishing supply. Will car-free cities be any less attractive? Will they even be less attractive than car-full cities?

            In the past, Joel Crawford and others have said that car-free cities have merit independant oil scarcity. As I understand it, the principle reasons have nothing to do with concerns about the internal functioning of markets for commodities, such as oil. Some specific reasons include external costs like noise, air pollution, and visual blight created by automobiles. In general, a car-free city is a human settlement where social value would grow without being excessively drained by the demands and impositions of the transportation system. If expectations about the desirability of car-free cities hold up to examination, the price of oil isn't _as_ relevant as someone concerned with oil will tend to believe.

            If car-free development is still desirable in the way described, yet only occurs because of the specter of decreasing oil supplies, institutions (including this list) have little to show regarding their ability to address human needs. (I also wouldn't count on car-free cities being a necessary result of motor fuel becoming too expensive for most Americans. If people aren't capable of organizing to rid themselves of the wheeled bane of cities, can they organize a city (in a relatively equitable structure like that envisioned by Joel Crawford) once most realize they can no longer afford to keep pump gas into their automobile? With plenty of conventional urban problems in need of attention, that question is too speculative for me to engage.)

            Suppose we conclude that energy supplies are going to decrease, with resulting increases in price. Will we be showing more wisdom than energy producers? I won't say that that is impossible, but energy company economists and engineers have access to the info found on the die-off web site. If they believe the information, they will put it to use if that means greater profits. Suppose an oil company anticipates a decrease in world energy supplies as predicted. Would oil companies choose to pump and sell all the oil they can pump that will return at least as much in sales on the current market as the cost of pumping? Except for OPEC, doing exactly this is standard practice. (OPEC countries agree on, but don't necessarily comply with, production quotas in an attempt to influence the world price of oil). The competitive tendency is to send any pumped oil to the market, rather than save it. That indicates that oil isn't used as a store of value. Unless energy company owners don't value their own future consumption, they would save oil for sale in the future if the time discounted return on those sales is greater than the current yield from a portfolio of other investments with equal risk. The fact that oil isn't used as a store of value suggests that energy producers don't believe that energy supplies will fall in the future and create a price rise.

            It is hard to dismiss data regarding trends in the oil discovery rates, the consumption growth rate, and humans' dependance on energy intensive agriculture, distribution, etc. It perfectly suggests the S shaped growth curve of a population in a resource constrained media. However, even with an excessively high discount rate, market forces will tend to prevent the total exhaustion of any essential input that is subject to ownership. For that reason, the economist in me doesn't worry about gas, oil, or coal exhaustion. On the other hand, we share the costs of damaging the climate regulating properties of the atmosphere and of depleting other resources that aren't subject to ownership. Because the costs are shared, individuals don't have an incentive to invest in (not deplete) shared resources. The problem isn't one of starving for an input but of suffocating in wastes.

            Here is the institutional challenge that requires broad collaboration for our common good. Can the public come to agreement on implementing mechanisms that will optimally control pollution. Can we design our cities to best accomodate human needs and meet broader environmental goals? At present, our difficulty is exemplified by the current administration's devotion to beating back standards for environmental and public resource protection. (That policy preference happens to also favor a lower user price of energy because environmental quality is an input necessary for any energy output coming from the combustion of oil, coal, or, to a lesser extent, natural gas).

            A lot of practical political know-how is necessary to advance a legislative agenda. In addition, some more specialized knowledge of policy tools is needed to advance a benefit-optimizing program for environmental quality and common resource protection. Energy companies employ considerable political expertise to fight public health and environmental protection. A public that recognizes its interests and cares about future generations would offset the power of the despoilers.

            Bill Carr
          • turpin
            ... For me, the issue is simply that walking is the best way to get about for daily purposes, best in terms of health, convenience, pleasure, and community.
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 11, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              "dubluth" <dubluth@y...> wrote:
              > Suppose that energy prices
              > continue along their long
              > run decline in sharp
              > contradiction to predictions
              > of diminishing supply. Will
              > car-free cities be any less
              > attractive?

              For me, the issue is simply
              that walking is the best way
              to get about for daily purposes,
              "best" in terms of health,
              convenience, pleasure, and
              community. Living someplace
              where I have to drive for
              ordinary purposes is a distinct
              detriment. The issue is one of
              urban architecture, not
              international energy economics.

              Most of the Cassandras who
              forecast an energy crunch, such
              as Jay Hanson, confuse energy
              with oil. Oil is simply the
              energy supply which is NOW the
              most economic. Will we run
              into limits of oil? Absolutely.
              But long before that happens,
              the economy will shift to other
              sources of energy. Today the
              most obvious is nuclear. But
              all sorts of alternative
              sources, from tidal to nanotech
              chlorosynthesis, might also
              become economic. Yeah, energy
              prices will have short-term
              spikes, some triggering
              technology transitions. Such
              spikes will be temporary. In
              2100, I have no idea where we
              will get most of our energy.
              But I also have no doubt that
              its cost per joule will be
              less than it is now, as
              measured by common labor.

              The notion that everything
              will change because we run out
              of energy is a dystopic
              pipedream. It does NOT come
              from the scientific community.
              From the physicist's viewpoint,
              we are surrounded by and
              bathed in vast reserves of
              energy that dwarf the world's
              petroleum reserves. To the
              physicist, the issue isn't
              energy, but practicality, i.e.,
              economics. That hasn't stopped
              science cranks from imagining
              an absolute energy crunch, or
              blathering nonsense about
              entropy. (Jeremy Rifkin was the
              popular crank in the 80s. He
              wrote a book titled "Entropy,"
              but couldn't even get its
              definition correct. He followed
              this up with a crank book
              disproving evolution.)
            • Simon Baddeley
              x-post from CarFree-yahoo in response to turpin s posting Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities ... From: Simon Baddeley To:
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 11, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                x-post from CarFree-yahoo in response to turpin's posting Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Simon Baddeley
                To: CarFree@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:38 PM
                Subject: Demise of auto-flânerie - was "delightful web site"


                There is an article in a recent arts magazine from the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham which argues that "auto-flânerie" is now virtually impossible because unlike walking and cycling the car is now - through its evolving internal telemetry and the external legal technical framework that increasingly regulates motorised traffic - incapable of escaping the matrix of cash transactions - whether with the market or with tax systems. Road congestion - taxed or untaxed, monitored or not - is a further set of nails in the coffin of auto-flânerie.

                The great age of the car was when motor touring on near empty roads was feasible and hugely enjoyable - e.g. when cars were primarily toys of the rich. Now auto-flânerie can only be practised by illegal behaviour where the primary source of pleasure lies in evading increasingly burdensome laws to protect motorists from each other. Our courts are almost overwhelmed by the times and costs of dealing with traffic offences. A further intrusion - often actively welcomed by the participants - is to become the object of video surveillance while law breaking and see oneself later on national and sometimes global channels where one is helping TV companies to profit.

                I took to walking and cycling for work (rather than only for leisure) after a wonderful motoring holiday in the Peloponnese about 6 years ago. I and my family experienced long stretches of empty roads through serene olive groves and accessible places by sea and mountain and in villages which in the UK are barred to cars either by regulation or by congestion or both.

                Driving a car in UK presages a future where car driving will be more like flying than walking or cycling. To get from A to B I can imagine drivers having to submit a "flight plan" and be given a highway slot possibly with a convoy, unless the car-driver is to face complete prohibition or expensive congestion.

                The future I seek is access by proximity rather than access by mobility - cycling and walking across less sprawled human settlements.

                The carfree city needs to be located in a much larger car free terrain.

                Regards

                S
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Rachel
                To: CarFree@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:09 PM
                Subject: [CF] Re: delightful web site


                Great website. I much prefer walking to biking but most info you
                find on walking is the exercise angle and I just enjoy walking and
                enjoying the city. I've found that you get a different view (scale?)
                with each mode of transportation, biking, walking, transit or in a
                car, that sees things that you never really notice with the other
                modes.

                --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
                >
                > hat tip to Simon B who posted this to Brompton-talk.
                >
                > http://www.flaneur.org/flanifesto.html


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • michael.coy@fuse.net
                I believe the laws of supply and demand have quite a bit to say about resource depletion. As supply approaches zero, price goes through the roof, even with
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I believe the laws of supply and demand have quite a bit to say about resource depletion. As supply approaches zero, price goes through the roof, even with constant demand. As we approach this energy pinch, it will make economic sense to research alternative energy. There will be fortunes to be made off of it. I expect that with that kind of motivation, some other form of energy will be made to suit our needs.

                  While our current infrastructure is certainly dependant on oil, it would probably be MUCH cheaper, faster, and politically feasable to modify this infrastructure for a new energy source, rather than to develop new cities on the carfree model. Therefore, I think we need to be careful not to depend too much on this coming oil crisis. Carfree cities are a solution but they are not the only one.

                  The quality of life issues alone justify a carfree environment in my mind.

                  -Mike



                  On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 12:36:57PM -0500, Mike Harrington wrote:
                  > It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak
                  > petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
                  > economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
                  > Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
                  > depletion isn't built into their models. Therefore, all modern economic
                  > thinking is flawed and retrospective, and never takes into account that the
                  > days of cheap energy will come to end, particularly in North America where
                  > the double whammy of natural gas shortages hangs over everyone's head. In
                  > short, the two elements necessary for urban sprawl, cheap oil and cheap
                  > electricity, ultimately disappear.
                  >
                  > The holders of oil resources know that a decline in petroleum production is
                  > inevitable, and undoubtedly expect an inflationary enhancement in the value
                  > of their remaining inventories when demand exceeds supply. Oil wells
                  > typically decline at a rate of 2-3% a year after peak production. But oil
                  > company employees never go public until their retirement, so don't look to
                  > Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco for any answers. The chart on world oil
                  > demand under "Uninterrupted Progress" is not sustainable for the long term:
                  > http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm
                  >
                  > I certainly wouldn't deny that there are other reasons for a carfree
                  > lifestyle besides energy conservation and the certainty of a long-term
                  > energy price increase: little noise and air pollution, the convenience of
                  > walking instead of driving, the fact that walking and cycling are healthy
                  > exercise, the importance of living in a community where you meet your
                  > neighbors face to face instead of the sterile isolation of
                  > automobile-oriented neighborhoods, the extra $8000 each year that foregoing
                  > an automobile provides, the freedom from the ever-present danger of auto
                  > accidents. I'll wager I've been in tune to the car free concept a lot
                  > longer than you have. If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
                  > rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
                  > can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
                  > production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
                  > deep abyss, and that's my business.
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "dubluth" <dubluth@...>
                  > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:55 PM
                  > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
                  > cities
                  >
                  >
                  > > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
                  > > > twenty-first century will be drastically different than the
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of
                  > relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair
                  > amount of our attention over the past weeks. Now it seems that "oil
                  > consciousness" is alive on this list. With that I suggest a question that
                  > has been asked before.
                  > >
                  > > The hypothetical situation for the following question is one some won't
                  > care to consider, but for the rest: Suppose that energy prices continue
                  > along their long run decline in sharp contradiction to predictions of
                  > diminishing supply. Will car-free cities be any less attractive? Will they
                  > even be less attractive than car-full cities?
                  > >
                  > > In the past, Joel Crawford and others have said that car-free cities have
                  > merit independant oil scarcity. As I understand it, the principle reasons
                  > have nothing to do with concerns about the internal functioning of markets
                  > for commodities, such as oil. Some specific reasons include external costs
                  > like noise, air pollution, and visual blight created by automobiles. In
                  > general, a car-free city is a human settlement where social value would grow
                  > without being excessively drained by the demands and impositions of the
                  > transportation system. If expectations about the desirability of car-free
                  > cities hold up to examination, the price of oil isn't _as_ relevant as
                  > someone concerned with oil will tend to believe.
                  > >
                  > > If car-free development is still desirable in the way described, yet only
                  > occurs because of the specter of decreasing oil supplies, institutions
                  > (including this list) have little to show regarding their ability to address
                  > human needs. (I also wouldn't count on car-free cities being a necessary
                  > result of motor fuel becoming too expensive for most Americans. If people
                  > aren't capable of organizing to rid themselves of the wheeled bane of
                  > cities, can they organize a city (in a relatively equitable structure like
                  > that envisioned by Joel Crawford) once most realize they can no longer
                  > afford to keep pump gas into their automobile? With plenty of conventional
                  > urban problems in need of attention, that question is too speculative for me
                  > to engage.)
                  > >
                  > > Suppose we conclude that energy supplies are going to decrease, with
                  > resulting increases in price. Will we be showing more wisdom than energy
                  > producers? I won't say that that is impossible, but energy company
                  > economists and engineers have access to the info found on the die-off web
                  > site. If they believe the information, they will put it to use if that
                  > means greater profits. Suppose an oil company anticipates a decrease in
                  > world energy supplies as predicted. Would oil companies choose to pump and
                  > sell all the oil they can pump that will return at least as much in sales on
                  > the current market as the cost of pumping? Except for OPEC, doing exactly
                  > this is standard practice. (OPEC countries agree on, but don't necessarily
                  > comply with, production quotas in an attempt to influence the world price of
                  > oil). The competitive tendency is to send any pumped oil to the market,
                  > rather than save it. That indicates that oil isn't used as a store of
                  > value. Unless energy company owners don't value their own future
                  > consumption, they would save oil for sale in the future if the time
                  > discounted return on those sales is greater than the current yield from a
                  > portfolio of other investments with equal risk. The fact that oil isn't
                  > used as a store of value suggests that energy producers don't believe that
                  > energy supplies will fall in the future and create a price rise.
                  > >
                  > > It is hard to dismiss data regarding trends in the oil discovery rates,
                  > the consumption growth rate, and humans' dependance on energy intensive
                  > agriculture, distribution, etc. It perfectly suggests the S shaped growth
                  > curve of a population in a resource constrained media. However, even with
                  > an excessively high discount rate, market forces will tend to prevent the
                  > total exhaustion of any essential input that is subject to ownership. For
                  > that reason, the economist in me doesn't worry about gas, oil, or coal
                  > exhaustion. On the other hand, we share the costs of damaging the climate
                  > regulating properties of the atmosphere and of depleting other resources
                  > that aren't subject to ownership. Because the costs are shared, individuals
                  > don't have an incentive to invest in (not deplete) shared resources. The
                  > problem isn't one of starving for an input but of suffocating in wastes.
                  > >
                  > > Here is the institutional challenge that requires broad collaboration for
                  > our common good. Can the public come to agreement on implementing
                  > mechanisms that will optimally control pollution. Can we design our cities
                  > to best accomodate human needs and meet broader environmental goals? At
                  > present, our difficulty is exemplified by the current administration's
                  > devotion to beating back standards for environmental and public resource
                  > protection. (That policy preference happens to also favor a lower user
                  > price of energy because environmental quality is an input necessary for any
                  > energy output coming from the combustion of oil, coal, or, to a lesser
                  > extent, natural gas).
                  > >
                  > > A lot of practical political know-how is necessary to advance a
                  > legislative agenda. In addition, some more specialized knowledge of policy
                  > tools is needed to advance a benefit-optimizing program for environmental
                  > quality and common resource protection. Energy companies employ
                  > considerable political expertise to fight public health and environmental
                  > protection. A public that recognizes its interests and cares about future
                  > generations would offset the power of the despoilers.
                  > >
                  > > Bill Carr
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                  > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                  > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Mike Harrington
                  It s not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak
                    petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
                    economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
                    Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
                    depletion isn't built into their models. Therefore, all modern economic
                    thinking is flawed and retrospective, and never takes into account that the
                    days of cheap energy will come to end, particularly in North America where
                    the double whammy of natural gas shortages hangs over everyone's head. In
                    short, the two elements necessary for urban sprawl, cheap oil and cheap
                    electricity, ultimately disappear.

                    The holders of oil resources know that a decline in petroleum production is
                    inevitable, and undoubtedly expect an inflationary enhancement in the value
                    of their remaining inventories when demand exceeds supply. Oil wells
                    typically decline at a rate of 2-3% a year after peak production. But oil
                    company employees never go public until their retirement, so don't look to
                    Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco for any answers. The chart on world oil
                    demand under "Uninterrupted Progress" is not sustainable for the long term:
                    http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm

                    I certainly wouldn't deny that there are other reasons for a carfree
                    lifestyle besides energy conservation and the certainty of a long-term
                    energy price increase: little noise and air pollution, the convenience of
                    walking instead of driving, the fact that walking and cycling are healthy
                    exercise, the importance of living in a community where you meet your
                    neighbors face to face instead of the sterile isolation of
                    automobile-oriented neighborhoods, the extra $8000 each year that foregoing
                    an automobile provides, the freedom from the ever-present danger of auto
                    accidents. I'll wager I've been in tune to the car free concept a lot
                    longer than you have. If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
                    rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
                    can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
                    production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
                    deep abyss, and that's my business.


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "dubluth" <dubluth@...>
                    To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:55 PM
                    Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
                    cities


                    > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...>
                    wrote:
                    > > It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
                    > > twenty-first century will be drastically different than the
                    >
                    >
                    > Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of
                    relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair
                    amount of our attention over the past weeks. Now it seems that "oil
                    consciousness" is alive on this list. With that I suggest a question that
                    has been asked before.
                    >
                    > The hypothetical situation for the following question is one some won't
                    care to consider, but for the rest: Suppose that energy prices continue
                    along their long run decline in sharp contradiction to predictions of
                    diminishing supply. Will car-free cities be any less attractive? Will they
                    even be less attractive than car-full cities?
                    >
                    > In the past, Joel Crawford and others have said that car-free cities have
                    merit independant oil scarcity. As I understand it, the principle reasons
                    have nothing to do with concerns about the internal functioning of markets
                    for commodities, such as oil. Some specific reasons include external costs
                    like noise, air pollution, and visual blight created by automobiles. In
                    general, a car-free city is a human settlement where social value would grow
                    without being excessively drained by the demands and impositions of the
                    transportation system. If expectations about the desirability of car-free
                    cities hold up to examination, the price of oil isn't _as_ relevant as
                    someone concerned with oil will tend to believe.
                    >
                    > If car-free development is still desirable in the way described, yet only
                    occurs because of the specter of decreasing oil supplies, institutions
                    (including this list) have little to show regarding their ability to address
                    human needs. (I also wouldn't count on car-free cities being a necessary
                    result of motor fuel becoming too expensive for most Americans. If people
                    aren't capable of organizing to rid themselves of the wheeled bane of
                    cities, can they organize a city (in a relatively equitable structure like
                    that envisioned by Joel Crawford) once most realize they can no longer
                    afford to keep pump gas into their automobile? With plenty of conventional
                    urban problems in need of attention, that question is too speculative for me
                    to engage.)
                    >
                    > Suppose we conclude that energy supplies are going to decrease, with
                    resulting increases in price. Will we be showing more wisdom than energy
                    producers? I won't say that that is impossible, but energy company
                    economists and engineers have access to the info found on the die-off web
                    site. If they believe the information, they will put it to use if that
                    means greater profits. Suppose an oil company anticipates a decrease in
                    world energy supplies as predicted. Would oil companies choose to pump and
                    sell all the oil they can pump that will return at least as much in sales on
                    the current market as the cost of pumping? Except for OPEC, doing exactly
                    this is standard practice. (OPEC countries agree on, but don't necessarily
                    comply with, production quotas in an attempt to influence the world price of
                    oil). The competitive tendency is to send any pumped oil to the market,
                    rather than save it. That indicates that oil isn't used as a store of
                    value. Unless energy company owners don't value their own future
                    consumption, they would save oil for sale in the future if the time
                    discounted return on those sales is greater than the current yield from a
                    portfolio of other investments with equal risk. The fact that oil isn't
                    used as a store of value suggests that energy producers don't believe that
                    energy supplies will fall in the future and create a price rise.
                    >
                    > It is hard to dismiss data regarding trends in the oil discovery rates,
                    the consumption growth rate, and humans' dependance on energy intensive
                    agriculture, distribution, etc. It perfectly suggests the S shaped growth
                    curve of a population in a resource constrained media. However, even with
                    an excessively high discount rate, market forces will tend to prevent the
                    total exhaustion of any essential input that is subject to ownership. For
                    that reason, the economist in me doesn't worry about gas, oil, or coal
                    exhaustion. On the other hand, we share the costs of damaging the climate
                    regulating properties of the atmosphere and of depleting other resources
                    that aren't subject to ownership. Because the costs are shared, individuals
                    don't have an incentive to invest in (not deplete) shared resources. The
                    problem isn't one of starving for an input but of suffocating in wastes.
                    >
                    > Here is the institutional challenge that requires broad collaboration for
                    our common good. Can the public come to agreement on implementing
                    mechanisms that will optimally control pollution. Can we design our cities
                    to best accomodate human needs and meet broader environmental goals? At
                    present, our difficulty is exemplified by the current administration's
                    devotion to beating back standards for environmental and public resource
                    protection. (That policy preference happens to also favor a lower user
                    price of energy because environmental quality is an input necessary for any
                    energy output coming from the combustion of oil, coal, or, to a lesser
                    extent, natural gas).
                    >
                    > A lot of practical political know-how is necessary to advance a
                    legislative agenda. In addition, some more specialized knowledge of policy
                    tools is needed to advance a benefit-optimizing program for environmental
                    quality and common resource protection. Energy companies employ
                    considerable political expertise to fight public health and environmental
                    protection. A public that recognizes its interests and cares about future
                    generations would offset the power of the despoilers.
                    >
                    > Bill Carr
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
                    > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Simon Baddeley
                    If cars retain their psychological charge they ll continue - wind powered, solar powered, nuclear steam or electrically powered. Shortage of fossil fuels will
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If cars retain their psychological charge they'll continue - wind powered,
                      solar powered, nuclear steam or electrically powered. Shortage of fossil
                      fuels will not mean their demise so long as cars remain objects of desire.

                      If that desire degrades - and it already takes a massive amount of marketing
                      to keep people interested, especially in annual buying - the pool of those
                      for whom the car retains a psychological charge will diminish to a
                      specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence
                      transport or land use policies.

                      Horse transport did not decline because of a shortage of horses, nor
                      railways because of a shortage of raw materials, inventiveness or design
                      skill. The car, with help from its manufacturers and friends in government,
                      became, for a century, a more convenient, more attractive and more exciting
                      way to get about for many people, whose choices to use cars became
                      conditioned by settlement and retailing patterns that first presented
                      themselves as a new type of liberty - access by mobility. This form of
                      freedom, because it occluded access by proximity evolved long before most
                      people realised it into the highly conditional form of virtual liberty
                      ("virtual" because largely sustained by the brilliant fantasy mechanics of
                      marketing) that many refer to as "auto-dependency".

                      What presages the end of the age of the car is that driving them has stopped
                      being much fun. People complaining about increased taxes on cars, higher
                      fuel costs and tougher road regulation are concerned less with being
                      deprived of fun than of being inconvenienced by restrictions on a technology
                      they have embroidered into life choices in relation to where they shop, send
                      their children to school, take their leisure and do their work.

                      Except for the young who still use the car for sex and socialising the fun's
                      mostly gone - except for in-car entertainment to distract from the
                      frustrations of congestion. How many magazine or TV programmes now serve an
                      audience of motor tourists?

                      Boredom and frustration with this technology and preference for alternative
                      ways of moving people and goods, some known and some yet to be invented, as
                      well as the growing attractiveness of environments from which motorised
                      traffic is largely or entirely absent, is inexorably diminishing the car as
                      an object of desire.

                      This will take a while. With few exceptions most of the world is enamoured
                      of a technology which until very recently - in historic time - was a toy for
                      the rich. The reason an unexceptional person like me no longer gets a kick
                      from driving cars is probably because these things have been in my family
                      since the 1880s. I have B & W photos of my grandmother as a young woman
                      smoking a cheroot at the wheel of an open top Citroen. That looks stylish
                      and fun. I like walking and cycling because I've moved on from getting fun
                      from a car. I've started to move on from using them solely for convenience.
                      I see my car as a rather expensive inconvenience but need it to feed some
                      residual and irrational habit among people like me and to take stuff to the
                      dump and for the occasional emergency. If I was in a carfree city and there
                      were alternative services to substitute for the few things I still need my
                      car for or if I earned less and needed the cash I'd not miss it.

                      Simon


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
                      To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:36 PM
                      Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
                      cities


                      > It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming.
                      Peak
                      > petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
                      > economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
                      > Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
                      > depletion isn't built into their models.
                    • J.H. Crawford
                      ... We have to be careful here. a specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence transport or land use policies might be expected to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Simon Baddeley said:

                        >If that desire degrades - and it already takes a massive amount of marketing
                        >to keep people interested, especially in annual buying - the pool of those
                        >for whom the car retains a psychological charge will diminish to a
                        >specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence
                        >transport or land use policies.

                        We have to be careful here. "a specialist population of hobbyists without
                        political power to influence transport or land use policies" might
                        be expected to apply to the tiny number of private pilots, but, in fact,
                        they have amazing political power in the USA. Practically anything proposed
                        that might be seen to harm their interests is never adopted.

                        >What presages the end of the age of the car is that driving them has stopped
                        >being much fun.

                        Now THERE'S an issue with some stopping power!

                        >This will take a while. With few exceptions most of the world is enamoured
                        >of a technology which until very recently - in historic time - was a toy for
                        >the rich.

                        Like private airplanes, it may long remain so, especially as they are
                        nearly certain to retain their usefulness for those in rural areas.

                        >If I was in a carfree city and there
                        >were alternative services to substitute for the few things I still need my
                        >car for or if I earned less and needed the cash I'd not miss it.

                        Amen! And, even in rich nations, there are millions of families that don't
                        miss it already. These folks are our market.

                        Regards,




                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Drop Bush
                        Not Bombs

                        -- ### --

                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                      • J.H. Crawford
                        ... except that I view this as a wonderful opportunity, not an impending disaster! ... Drop Bush Not Bombs -- ###
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 16, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike Harrington said:

                          >If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
                          >rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
                          >can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
                          >production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
                          >deep abyss, and that's my business.

                          except that I view this as a wonderful opportunity, not an impending disaster!



                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Drop Bush
                          Not Bombs

                          -- ### --

                          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                          mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.