Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I'm struck by the fact that everyone sees a future in which we use less oil as 'inevitable' and, most importantly, extremely desireable, yet there is so much resistance to any policy/product/idea that gets us to this allegedly inevitable future that one has to seriously question how our society makes long-term decisions.
Lutz and his ilk have been leading the fight against this future for a long time. Did the logic of why oil use must change only get to him now? Did he see it before? The future is an obvious combination of electrification, conservation, renewables, and nuclear power...why the resistance to change? I'm a political scientist and fully understand the power of vested interests, but at a certain point even the most powerful vested interest eventually bow to the weight of the majority or reality. Is there something I'm just not getting? It's as if Americans have a cultural aversion to the long-term, societal public-good thinking that underlies energy/environmental policy.
Ten years ago GM was telling a story: we'd drive gasoline cars (and SUVs!) now, and when oil or global warming became a problem, hydrogen cars would be ready to replace them. This might have been a cynical marketing move ( tobacco companies & cancer, Exxon & global warming, GM & fossil fuels ), but it is also possible that they bought into it themselves, over time.
They may have come to believe their own BS that oil would stay cheap, and then (cheap?) hydrogen would be there to replace it.
I snagged this quote in July of 2005:
The source is now gone but my old blog entry is here: http://odograph.com/?p=267
Anyway, I think GM got caught flat-footed, either because they thought they had more time to run the SUV -> hydrogen game, or because they'd fallen for their own marketing. At that point they were stuck with a lot of product and a long design cycle (it takes years to get a totally new car on the road). So they had to talk a story that supported their current inventory. They had (desperately) to keep people buying, while (secretly?) in the back room scrambling to come up with the new generation.
But again the interesting thing is that they can't be too "forward" in their statements. They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now.
odograph,
Great post, and points to at least two very important issues:
The first is the way GM execs can pull the idiotic EIA projections out of the hat for cover. I complained of this in other posts, in that these projections will be used by bankers, venture capitalists, and large corporations to justify their argument that there is no need for change, at least not yet.
The other point you make "They've got a lot of Tahoes down there on the lot, right now." Exactly, and they still have a huge investment in tooling and assembly plants to somehow try to modify or expense down as no longer useful. It is a huge logistical undertaking for a company already bleeding badly financially. One way forward may be to use one of it's more "offbeat" nameplates, like Saab, to make the switch to really advanced vehicles, the type that would lure the "first adaptors" of new tech as much for novelty sake as anything else (the Toyota Prius has done well among that type of buyer), and then move from division to division. After all, work trucks will still be needed, and going to an advanced drivetrain, such as hydraulic hybrid with either propane or Diesel engines could buy them a window of time costing down the chasis assembly lines of the current chassis, as they plan for a more radical product.
Anyway they do it, it won't be easy, and if we do get a sudden flood of cheap oil from new production, they will be caught flat footed, with an advanced product and no one greatly interested in it (they recall well the EV-1, praised but never profitable).
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Notice that the Volt has a gas fired generator on board. One of the "problems" with the electric vehicle like the EV1 is that it required very little maintenance, a very unattractive option for an auto company. As long as we can perpetuate some sort of ICE along with the battery, we can ensure the need for continue and long term maintenance like oil changes, etc.
I will believe that people like Lutz "get it" when they announce that the overwhelming dependency on the automobile for transportation is a model that it is inappropriate for the survival of the planet as we know it and continues to be a serious hindrance to livable cities and a high level quality of life.
I note with sadness that another article above points out that places like Ireland have decided to follow in our footsteps. No one ever learns until it is too late.
I'm glad other people realize the 'necessity' of continual maintenance in GM/Fords business play :P
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with that. The usage of cars as a primary mode of transportation is the root of all evil - and depletion of resources is just one of, not even the most acute one IMO.
Notice that the Irish article ends with a notice from Praga's tram system. When I was back to my home city - Sofia, I was saddened to see it becoming much more like Dublin than the way it used to be - a compact, walkable and mass transit oriented city like Praga. Now it is increasingly becoming the typical polluted and gridlocked nightmare we are talking here.
IMO urban sprawl and the related problems are all a result of an unadequate public policy. During the socialism we managed to build compact and well served cities, where the car was a complementary instead of mandatory mode of transportation because of the ability of the govts to plan the cities around mass transit. Now in US and increasingly in EU the government "follows" urban development - e.g. building roads "on demand". This acts as nothing but putting temporary quick fixes to the problem, which last no longer than the next election. Government's retreat from city planning is resulting in the fast depletion of the "commons" by the private sector - in this case the commons being mass transit, affordable downtowns, walkable neighbourhoods etc. The results are obvious and will show up to be devastating in the near future, IMO.
I wish I fully understood how true that statement is before investing in degrees in architecture and urban design. The problems are generally understood within academia, but the lack of public policy and government leadership means that these planning oriented professions are effectively owned by the developers. This makes it extremely difficult to actually practice without being part of the problem. No meaningful movement is likely to originate from this profession despite the heroic efforts of some. Those that understand the issues simply are not empowered.
Long-range planing and capitalism (as we are now practicing it) don't seem to coexist well and few professions drive this home like land use planing and urban design. I changed professions early on to avoid being part of the problem and still live a satisfying life. As public officials have withdrawn from reconciling community interests with development, and have instead taken on roles as advocates for developers, I have come to see a growing tension between present day capitalism and the common good. We all play a small role in how public policy issues are prioritized and how long term thinking figures into it, but I have no clue what to do about it in the current climate (no pun intended).
Yes it is puzzling. Switz. is very green and ecologically minded, has a hands on democracy, and the vested interests are not oil lobbies or car/machine manufacturers or the military-industrial complex, so called. .. Corps, all the same, eg. Bank-insurance and Big Pharma. And CH produces a LOT of arms.
And yet the picture is very similar.
It seems to be the case that ‘oil’ (fossil fuels) is so tightly wound into our ‘modern’ economies that the very thought reducing their use is frightening; for the present economic scheme - capitalistic growth- to continue, oil must keep on pouring in and giving forth its miraculous free lunch. Without it, or realistically, with mild or sharp reductions in availability, so much changes that no-one can really contemplate it.
This attitude is shared by pols (who want to be elected or remain in place), the ‘economic milieu’ (who wants to keep earning pots of money with their businesses), and ‘the people’, mostly employees, who want their children to succeed, want to drive a car (even a second, why not?), want to indulge in expensive leisure (planes, ski holidays, trips to the mall) and generally consider that living standards, including medical care for. ex. have to rise. Disabled people, special ed kids, and pensioners live off the investments made by their ‘funds’, which have to perform, return at least so much %.
Not new, I know. Says little about the future. The point is that much of the tortuous discussion and real life attempts re. green energy and renewables are attempts to maintain the status quo, if only psychologically...those in the know (vested interests, savvy Gvmt. types, the military, etc) understand that much of the ‘diversification’ of energy proposed is not reasonable, cannot really function (EROEI, long term considerations, etc.) so their response is luke warm or muted or even scornful.
It is not puzzling at all. Oil is simply the cheapest way of moving a machine the size of a car. Even in Switzerland. Even if you are a free thinker. Even if you believe that global warming is the worst problem humanity has ever had to deal with. The fact that using oil at current market prices is the cheapest of fuels useful to power an engine the size of a car is a fact.
It won't stay that way. And that is when change will happen. Not when people come to their minds and not when politicians decide to making changes in the law. Not even when Toyota offers a plug-in hybrid. It will be the day when oil will stop to be cheaper than something else.
As for renewables... they are on the move. Solar and wind have become mainstream industries. You can count the number of years until they become the darlings of every politian on the block (local, state or federal) on two hands because both solar and wind are labor intensive. They both will create jobs far beyond any other energy industry. And that is when people will start to care. Do something against the solar and wind industry in the near future and you will reap political hate and voter's revenge.
It has nothing to do with the oil. It has everything to do with individuals demanding cars - this is universal phenomenon everywhere around the world. Cars are a typical "tragedy of the commons" thing. Individuals think that their car will contribute nothing to the problems we discuss here, but with time the cummulative effect of so many cars inevitably excaberates the problems.
In this regard we behave like spoiled kids, who demand that we are given the toys we want or to be left out lingering in the night clubs but are moaning when we have to face the concequences - for example poor education or ruined health. My solution would be not to listen to the kids and follow a longer term program. Make them toil for their toys (e.g. expensive mobility) or simply not giving it to them at all.
But of course this is utopical suggestion in our current arrangement - the whole idea of democracy, the way we have it now revolves around giving the kids what they want.
People have always wanted and possessed personal transportation, and producing and fueling it always used to be a major industry.
This is not a new phenomenon.
For most of human civilization, it was known as a "horse".
Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals.
"Very few people could afford to have a horse in preindustrial society. Indeed, in countries such as England it was ILLEGAL for commoners even to ride horses, much less to own them. Horses were reserved for the "equestrian class," a tiny aristocracy of less than five percent of the population.
In the U.S., horses, mules and other draft animals were so scarce (prior to about 1840) that for hundreds of years men would hitch up their wives to pull the plow; only the rich slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson could afford to ride horses.
At the height of prosperity of ancient Rome, a few aristocrats had chariots or slave-born chairs for personal transport. Most people put a lot of miles on their sandals."
That was not true in land rich and frontier areas like America. Horses were so common that Virginia passed a law allowing people to geld any horse running loose that was less than some specified height. Horses were what you used to keep down the trees while you waited for the roots in your 'cleared' acreage to decay enough for you to plow. That was because trees were so common that you just girdled the trees so that they would die and dry out, then burned them to clear them as cheaply as possible.
Tree land (where you pastured pigs on mast) was nearly free, pasture land little more expensive. Fenced or walled farmland was what cost money. The fences and walls were to keep the damned horses, cows, pigs, and sheep out of your crops.
Horses in 'settled' countries like Europe, India, and China, really were prestige objects that cost a lot to own and operate compared to cattle, especially larger horses that had to be grain fed instead of hay fed like ponies. Oxen were common draft animals for that reason.
In that good old horse-loving land of Virginia, what percentage of the black people owned horses? And what percentage of the population were black? Although the shortage of livestock was not as bad in the original colonies, such as Virginia, only rich folk rode, well into the nineteenth century. In 1850 in Missouri, only half the farms were wealthy enough to have even one mule.
Just because the white planter/aristocracy was worried about the excess of scrub horses, that tells you nothing of how the ordinary folk got around.
Virginia is a very strange case - in the counties where plantation style cultivation was practical (for simplicity, call it the Tidewater), the slave population in 1800 ranged from as high as 69.8 to a majority ( http://www.virginiaplaces.org/population/pop1800numbers.html ). However, in the Shenandoah/Piedmont (also West Virginia in 1800), the percentage was often under 10% - covering possibly a quarter of the white population. (You can also see why splitting off West Virginia in the Civil War was practical, beyond the geography - the people there weren't generally slaveholders and weren't economically reliant on slavery.)
However, in terms of how rare horses were - Virginia has the only 'wild' horse population in the Eastern United States, which tends to argue for the fact that horses weren't all that uncommon, otherwise they would have been captured and sold off, likely in numbers which would have destroyed the population.
There is a major difference between 'urban' colonial America, like New England and Tidewater Virginia, and the 'western' America which grew after the Revolutionary War - that 'western' area (Charlottesville, for example) did not suffer for any lack of horses or mules, in part because like cows, such animals can live in fairly hilly/steep terrain which is not that useful for other activities, except logging, where horses/mules are an asset. However, in the areas which had been colonized for a century or more at that point, horses were an expensive burden, as the farm land was no longer as fertile, and logging was a dead industry.
Of course. In Spain a 'Caballero' or horseman was a term equivalent to 'gentleman' or 'person of means' in a society where the common 'hombre' walked and, if he was lucky, had a small burro to carry the burdens.
Sancho Panza rode a burro . . . but was it owned by his master, Don Quixote?
Both the ownership of horses and that of swords was restricted to aristocracy in Europe; they did not want peasants, even rich ones, getting any uppity ideas.
The counterpart to Caballero was Peon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peon
"In its obsolete usage in Spain itself, the word denoted a person who travelled by foot rather than on a horse (caballero)."
This word obviously carries derogatory connotations in English.
Limited access to 'horsepower' is probably why efficient hand digging and cultivating tools were once so common. In Spanish they are called an azada, in India a powrah, in english speaking areas they are simply called a digging hoe or a planter's eye hoe. You can still get them at the site http://www.easydigging.com/
Greg in MO
It was never illegal for anyone to ride a horse in England. Stealing one is another matter.
True. Now, if only we had one billion horse carts back then, and we had to feed those horses with a straw only coming from a large granary in the Middle East, and if those horses changed the climate during the centuries, then now we would have had the experience and would have known what to do about it. Phew what a long sentence...