<Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference (Sunday) The Oil Drum Debating to the numbers (or more on Saudi production)>

77 comments on Demand destruction isn't working out so well

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

TRE on September 29, 2005 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Interesting story.  I dumped my "EgoMobile" as well, a BMW 740iL.  What a waste.  And anyone who tells you that a BMW is a good machine is either (a) luckier than me or (b) lying.  That machine had more problems.  Funny, when I traded it in, with about 60,000 miles or so, the guy said "Good to trade in now, these engines have a tendency to blow at mileage above this."  Friend with a 540 had his blow just around this time.

I bought a Prius and then, after my wife decided she wanted to drive it, bought myself a Honda Insight.

An aside:  When people consider the whole issue of demand destruction, I think their thinking is so tightly constrained by the "mind manacles" of the existing socioeconomic structure, they're unable to even consider how we might work our way out of this conundrum in a way minimizes the pain and suffering.  Hence my diatribes against the constant hand wrining and whining.

What is an automobile?  What is transportation?  What sorts of convenience has it brought us?  And what kinds of inconveniences?  The automobile itself is an result of government interference, isn't it?  Would a pay-as-you-go highway system have produced the excesses that we see everday?  I live in San Diego.  Right now they are spending millions and probably billions to widen the 805/5 merge.  At the meeting point: a megahighway.  Good timing folks!!!!!

I suspect a good part of the energy used in the US is in fact used to purchase convenience.  And little more.  The convenience of not having to turn out the lights.  The convenience of not having to consider energy when purchasing a car.  The conveninence of untold random trips in that automobile to transport 100-200 pounds of flesh in a container of thousands of pounds of metal and plastic, from 0-60 in a handful of seconds.

What nonsense.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on September 29, 2005 - 12:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Alright, TRE, I'm starting to think that our approach to this topic is not so different after all. We disagree on economics, fine. Let's not dwell on that.

Regarding demand destruction, I don't really understand what peeves you about it, but in any case, I don't think I said anything that should have bothered you too much. Are you talking about the topic in general, or something I said specifically?

I'm sure I've said this a billion times already, but I live in New York City! I do happen to own a car, but I drive it maybe 10 times a year, and only to get out of NYC. We'll probably get rid of it soon. I also suspect that a lot of energy use is about convenience, but that also has to do with the type of environments we prefer in the US. Suburbs, exurbs, residential-only zoning. It doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it could be that the urban landscape is designed to make walking and biking maximally convenient. And they wouldn't have to be megacities like New York--they could be more like Kunstler's Saratoga Springs.

Obviously this is a massive problem, since changing the urban landscape would involve repurposing or destroying a lot of current structures. But there weren't always suburbs in America, and they don't always have to be here. Those who follow this type of thinking just have to come up with a PR campaign designed to encourage people to think that mixed use development is desirable rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dani on September 29, 2005 - 1:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ianqui, do you know about car sharing? Zipcar serves NYC and could prove cheaper than owning a car for occasional trips out of town.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on September 29, 2005 - 1:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I know, which is one of the reasons we'll probably get rid of it soon. It's mostly been about inertia up until now, but we're making plans for transitioning to car-free.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TRE on September 29, 2005 - 1:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Our opinions probably aren't that different.  Sometimes, no doubt, I'm acting too much the gadfly (jerk might be a better word :-))  All of the editors and most of the posters here at OilDrum are great. Personally, I'm just not that interested in diving into the details of depletion modeling like Stuart (I should, but don't have the focus right now).  But given the great amount of work going on, both here, and at other sites (econbrowser, Peak Energy, etc) I tend to focus more on negative contributions--what I find wrong or adding a voice of caveat emptor--rather than actually contributing something.  I realize that is somewhat self-serving and a bit cynical--or negative.  JD, if I might be so bold, is also coming at this issue from a similar perspective to mine, though I think he's a bit more enamored or convinced that humans can technologize their way out of this conundrum.  (He's also contributing more in-depth analysis in many cases).

I'm not so convinced that we can technologize our way out.  And that's coming from some with physics and engineering degrees, twenty years in high technology companies (some of the best if I don't say so myself--BBN and QUALCOMM), and an appreciation for the limits to limits, e.g. the thinking at the turn of the twentieth century that the future of physics was the fifth digit (all was known).  Then the world changed (quantum, relativity, etc).  Nanotechnology to improve solar, for example, a fusion miracle might happen (I doubt it).  I think John Horgan's book "The End of Science" should be on the required reading list for all peak oilers with a scientific bent.  Peak oil is about people accepting and learning to live within limits.  For a society indoctrinated to think that there are no limits (in particular those who came of age in the Reagan years and beyond), this will be hard to accept.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeTor on September 30, 2005 - 1:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I completely agree with you. And that comes from a physicist, too :-)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

77 comments on Demand destruction isn't working out so well

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version