DrumBeat: March 11, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 11, 2007 - 9:24am
Topic: Miscellaneous
The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.
Report cites risk of offshore gas terminal near Malibu
A comprehensive study released Friday on a natural gas processing plant that would be built in the ocean about 20 miles from Malibu concludes that the project poses substantial environmental and safety concerns for the California coast.
Layers of the substance in the Gulf of Mexico have hidden the crude below but energy companies are finding ways to get at it in the deepest waters.
Biofuels boom raises tough questions
The problem is, ethanol really isn't ready for prime time. The only economical way to make ethanol right now is with corn, which means the burgeoning industry is literally eating America's lunch, not to mention its breakfast and dinner. And though ethanol from corn may have some minor benefits with regard to energy independence, most analysts conclude its environmental benefits are questionable at best.
Challenges, Threats and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture, Part II
But are these new organic farmers and associated industry following the original precepts of the pioneers? Or is organic farming being incorporated into the systems of intensified production, finance, management and distribution typical of conventional agriculture? Is organic agriculture replicating the conventional model that it so fiercely opposed?
Germans urged to give foreign travel a rest to curb global warming
"In the near future, people are going to become increasingly aware that aircraft emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases, far more than cars or trains," said Manfred Stock, a researcher at the climate research centre in Potsdam outside Berlin.
Iranians lose access to unlimited cheap fuel
Iran’s parliament this week set May 22 as the day when the country’s 15m motorists lose access to unlimited cheap fuel.Pump prices, frozen for three years at 80 tomans (or 9 cents) a litre, have boosted consumption far beyond the capacity of Iran’s oil refineries and meant that 40 per cent of petrol has had to be imported.
Russia to Get Oil-and-Gas-Free Budget in 2008
Russia will adopt its first budget which would not rely on oil and gas revenues in 2008, Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin told reporters on Friday.
Global-warming lecture offered free at UH-Manoa
[Richard] Alley, the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Penn St. University, has spent numerous field seasons in both Antarctica and Greenland studying the waxing and waning of ice sheets. His lecture presentation is titled, "Get Rich and Save the World: Global Warming, Peak Oil, and Our Future."
The past, present and future of Idaho's geothermal power
But perhaps Idaho's most lucrative green energy source has been under our feet the whole time: geothermal power. It's relatively inexpensive, plentiful, environmentally friendly to the extreme, and it may just be the key to staving off a potential energy crisis.
Pakistan: New alternative energy projects soon
Sindh Governor, Dr Ishratul Ibad Khan has said that new projects of alternate energy will soon start functioning in Sindh to help overcome energy crisis.He said 64 wind turbines would be installed at Thatta, Jhumpir and other places in the interior of Sindh by Sindh Government's Department of Alternate Energy in coordination with Alternate Energy Development Board through which 15000 MW energy will be produced.
XAND Joins Energy Reduction Incentive Program
Operation Save New York serves as a type of insurance program for the electric grid. When demand on the grid is forecast to be at or above the available level of supply, members are called on to reduce electric usage. Xand is a prime candidate for the program with the ability to curtail 100% of demand from the grid within 5 minutes notice by switching to generator power. The facility can be powered by the onsite twin 1.25 megawatt generators, running on a bi-fuel mixture of diesel and natural gas. Xand's ability to self-power with the industrial grade Caterpillar generators is a key component to its value proposition as a mission critical Data Center in Westchester County.
A New Battery Takes Off in a Race to Electric Cars
VROOOOM! Or, rather, much more softly: brmmm.A123Systems, a start-up in Watertown, Mass., says it has created a powerful, safe, long-lived battery. If the cell fulfills the ambitions of its maker, that softer sound will be the future of automobiles.
Dreams of converting ocean energy into electricity move closer to commercial reality.
Viet Nam: Energy experts look to biofuel to solve Asian emission woes
Making energy from biomass is of critical importance to ensure a sustainable future, international environment and energy experts told a workshop held in HCM City this week.
World Web Of Electricity Charged Up
The key to fighting climate change is for the U.S. to take a leadership role in promoting a "new world wide web of electricity," according to Michael Powers, board member and spokesman for Global Energy Network Institute, a non-profit research and education group based in San Diego...."By connecting regional electricity grids around the world into a global network, it will be possible to tap new renewable resources and phase out our worst polluting coal-fired power plants," Powers said.
Qatar caught in cycle of rising prices, risks
Qatar appears to be caught in a cycle of soaring asset prices, putting the private sector under pressure, exposing banks and insurers to greater risks and forcing the state to keep up expenditure.The rising petrodollar-induced liquidity and the limited avenues for financial investments led to excessive funds being diverted to other forms of investment like the stock market and real estate, bankers said.
Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: March 9, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/09crime.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Unemployment stats are hopelessly skewed, but I can't help but think that layoffs, real unemployment, etc. has something to do with increasing violence and crime.
From one of the links Leannan posted...
This is quite interesting because, IIRC, there were a few people on here advocating exactly this kind of thing for the US. That is, to have some sort of price rationing at different levels controlled by some sort of account that kept track of your purchases. i.e. 1 - 500 gallons will cost you $X and 500 - 1000 will cost you $Y. and so forth.
This brings me back to a comment that someone made. We will eventually have rationing - it is only a question of what kind of rationing.
If we do nothing, then we will have rationing by price. The price will climb until it forces demand down - by breaking the back of the economy if need be.
We can have rationing by availability, but prices could be held down. Meaning that people will have a hard time finding enough gas - it will be affordable when they find it, but it could be hard to find.
And then you can have rationing using ration books like we had in World War II.
What you describe is interesting though - it is sort of a combination of all 3 options. You could have a fixed allotment that you could buy at a reasonable price, and then you could buy anything more than that on the open market.
If crude prices climb, it isn't clear to me how you would be able to maintain a low fixed price at the pump for people.
We'll have a whole new innovative way of rationing: by economic collapse.
Price is a rationing mechanism. It isn't that we will have rationing; we do have rationing. The only question is what kind of rationing we want to have or what is the most desirable.
If you cap the amount of gas that can be sold and then you issue gas credits in order to purchase that gas, both the gas at the pump at the credits will have a price determined by the market. I don't know if the basic price will be "reaonable" because the definition of reasonable depends upon one's point of view. However, it is clear that one will be paying extra on the margin if one decides to exceed one's ration as defined by the number of gas credits issued. In any event, those staying within the basic ration will be paying less per gallon than those who are not. On top of that, those who consume less than the ration or no gas at all can actually reduce their effective price by selling their ration credits on the open market.
By the way, if there is a cap place on the amount of gas sold by way of gas credits, it seems likely that the basic price would go down given the fact that overall demand is being decreased.
What you do is you have two tax rates. A low rate on the rationed amount, and a very high rate on the free-market amount. If deemed appropriate, the lower tax rate could be negative, i.e. the rationed price would be subsidised by the free market rate.
And of course rations should be negotiable. If I can get by with half my ration, or no gas at all, then I can sell my credit to a big user.
No... The point of rationing and taxing automobile fuel is not to set up profit opportunities for urban dwellers and such. They already get subsidized transport via bus and subway systems. And it is not to provide subsistence to retirees either.
Allowing a secondary market in "rations" defeats the goal which is reducing fuel use. Let's keep it simple.
Yes, when gasoline gets to $3.50/gallon; let us add an extra $1.50 gallon tax and use the money for such things as:
1) Higher food stamps and rental assistance for the working poor (take $ out of one pocket but put it back into the other)
2) Reduced Medicare premiums (likewise for retirees)
3) Reduced Payroll taxes (likewise for workers)
4) Building out Urban Rail
5) Reduced (Federal $ to local jurisdictions) property taxes for low energy TOD areas.
6) Eliminate property taxes on railroads that electricify
7) Renewable energy generation subsidies such as wind, geothermal, solar, hydro.
$5/gallon at the pump will change some behaviors (and is impossible politically). But it is simple and will work.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Economists will tell you that the most efficient form of rationing, the one that does the least harm to the economy, is by price. Letting the price rise will automatically cause those uses which can be avoided or substituted most easily and cheaply to be cut back. Uses that have no effective substitutes will be the last to be cut. This is the ideal goal of an economy responding to shortages, and trying to achieve it via centralized planning and a rationing system is virtually impossible.
Density and Urban Rail, Another POV
A week ago we discussed the once wisespread network of interurban rail lines in small town & rural Iowa, Ohio, Indiana et al.
Now Leroy Demery has taken a different look; at the densest Urban Rail systems that do not operate in the densest urban areas (Moscow in this case).
Mr. Demery is the foremost US authority on Japanese rail and has forgotten more than I will ever know.
A "tennyson" is a unit of Urban Rail density. Take the # of pax-kms per year on a rail line or system and divide by the # of line kms. This allows one to compare quite different systems in their fundamental purpose.
Best Hopes for Better Understanding,
Alan
...............
...That figure [of population density] is deceptively low. There is a great deal of open space in this town (and other Russian cities). This is obvious from photos of the new high-rise housing districts.
(Many List members might be surprised at how much space per unit those high-rise blocks contain.)
For Moskva, Seal quoted a crude population-density statistic in excess of 10,000 / km2 (= 26,000 per sq mi). That's roughly equivalent to Manhattan . . . and here the similarity ends.
There's an organization in Moskva whose official title translates something like:
"'State Unitary Enterprise for the City of Moskva, [titled] "The V. I. Lenin `Order of Lenin' and `Order of the Red Banner of Labor' Metropolitan Railway of Moskva."'"
Which is now the world's busiest metro system in terms of traffic density.
If "population density" were truly the key determinant of transit ridership that Cox evidently wants people to believe, then this should not occur in Moskva.
But it does
At 2005, the system carried 113 million "tennysons" (pass-km per km of route) - that is, 113 million passengers, on average, over each km of system length. That's a lot, although down a bit from the "all-time" high, which was 119 million "tennysons," at 1984 (with a significantly
smaller network, and significantly fewer private autos).
The busiest Moskva Metro line carried (at 2005) a staggering 135 million "tennysons" - that's 135 million people, on average, over each km of line. What's even more noteworthy is that the world traffic density record - the Western Railway corridor in Mumbai - is not "that much" higher: a bit more than 145 million "tennysons" per year.
Traffic densities at this level do not occur in New York - and never have. NYCT carried 36 million "tennysons" at 2005. The IRT subway network - which was quite small compared to today's system - carried 52 million "tennysons" at 1914. The combined IRT subway and elevated systems carried 43 million "tennysons" at 1929. The good citizens of Moskva put up with even higher levels of crowding than New Yorkers do.
Hong Kong?
In terms of traffic density, the MTR carries significantly less than the Moskva Metro - less than 70 million "tennysons" per year - although that stat is a couple years old, and is on my "to-update" list.
KCR East, by contrast, carries 134 million "tennysons" per year (again the stat is a couple years old). But this, strictly speaking, is not a "metro," but a very busy single line (that serves a very busy border crossing).
Population density statistics have some significance, but perhaps less than Cox (and Seal) appear to believe.
Leroy W. Demery, Jr.
Alan: The guy is using the example of a town that has the population density of Manhattan. Obviously population density is not the only factor for transit use, but how many locales in the USA have the density of Manhattan? This example does not show evidence that transit is workable in sparsely populated areas in the USA (IMO).
The discussion last week was about the low density interurbans connecting small towns & villages in Iowa, Indiana and Ohio.
Here is at the other end of the spectrum. Slightly less than Manhatten population densities but 3 to 4x the ridership of Manhatten/NYC. We Americans may think that NYC is the "ultimate" Urban Rail density. Mr. Demery shows that Manhatten and the Greater NYC area is not even close to what "could be". Even Manhatten could use significantly less oil based transportation (to put a PO spin on it).
That is a worthwhile point to make IMO. EVERY city in the US could use less oil
My two highest Urban Rail priorities in the US are the 2nd Avenue subway in NYC and extending the LA Red Line subway. But there are several more Urban Rail projects well worth doing in NYC. Another tunnel under the Hudson "Ocean", connecting Grand Central & Penn Central stations, streetcar feeders, etc.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, Moscow has trains every two minutes at rush hour.
For what it is worth, even most smaller cities in Ohio in the range of 10,000 people had elctrified street cars. The density of these small cities was around 5 to 10 housing units per acre. Most of the old rails were torn up for metal during WWII, but many small Ohio cities still have visible street car rails on their streets. I've wondered how much work it would take to get them up to usable condition.
Of course much of Ohio was settled based on water transport- rivers and man-made canals, and last time I checked most the rivers and canals were still there!
From World Web Of Electricity Charged Up:
Existing power grids are already hugely complex. Massively increasing connectivity combined with smart-grid initiatives, such as this author appears to be proposing, would increase that complexity by orders of magnitude. The increase in bulk power transfers that deregulation has initiated, combined with the whittling away of safety margins (and therefore resilience) as too costly, have already pushed existing grids to the limit. Just upgrading them enough to reliably handle in the future what we expect of them now would be expensive and difficult enough. The scale of upgrade proposed in this article is (IMO) completely impractical.
I never expect to see HV DC links under the Bering Straits; but a new HV DC network on a continent wide basis are likely, and quite doable.
The Grand Inga proposal (44 GW hydro project near the mouth of the Congo with HV DC lines to every corner of Africa; Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria/West Africa and East Africa) is economically feasible today if the "risk premium" could be reduced. Combined with existing and near future hydro & geothermal projects, the African electrical grid could be almost 100% renewable.
In North America we have HV DC from Portland Oregon to Los Angeles (1.362 km, 3.1 GW), Northern Manitobe to Southern Manitoba (937 km, 1.8 GW & 895 km, 1.6 GW), Northern Quebec to Massachusetts (1100 km, 2 GW), North Dakota to Minnesota (710 km, 0.5 GW) and plans for two more lines from Wyoming to Phoenix AZ. A new federal law makes building new transmission lines much easier (Phoenix is using this law).
Add 75 to 100 more such lines with up to 10 GW capacity (my guess) and the regional grids may still have problems but power shifting between regions would be practical on a large scale. Figure a billion+ $ for each transmission line.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I don't know if this will be any good, but it's on CSPAN2 today at 1pm:
Oil on the Brain: Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline
Lisa Margonelli
Description: In researching her book "Oil on the Brain," Lisa Margonelli set out to follow the path of oil production, from the oil field to the gas station. She explains how oil is extracted, refined, and distributed, with a special focus on five oil-producing countries: Venezuela, Chad, Iran, Nigeria, and China.
Thanks for the tip. I watched some and TIVOd the rest.
Watched it. The most interesting part occured when someone asked her to comment on peak oil. For a second got fairly weird. Basically, after kind of stuttering for a few seconds, she said that estimates vary widely of when it will occur, but the general consensus was "sometime this century". Also, it was definitely referred to as a "theory". Of course, if you consider the idea that a finite resource would flow out of the ground at a maximum rate before the universe ends a "theory".
Also, another guy, may have been the moderator or something, used the classic "above ground factors" problem as an excuse for supply constraints, and said peak oil is a "secondary concern".
Hydrogen was mentioned, but it was comforting to hear it talked about as "pie in the sky".
In summary, interesting, and fairly disturbing to hear the CERA type view thrown around without question.
I checked the woman's site. Can you say "hippie"?
The thing with this archetype of person (liberal hippie) is they are as locked into BAU as somebody in a suit with an SUV, it's just a slightly more friendly, less consolidated version of BAU they'd like to see. Hence she is predisposed to buying the CERA claptrap.
Yankee Ingenuity Takes on the Hydrogen Challenge
Wishful thinking? "Hail Mary" pass? Or could nanotechnology be the breakthrough for which we dared not hope? Notice how "oil depletion" is creeping into the MSM lexicon. Full Story
Technology of the future. And always will be.
It's probably worth working on, and I'd say more likely to become useful than nuclear fusion, for example. If they do manage to scale it up, it could make the "hydrogen economy" more feasible.
However, the article spends most of its time describing the lab experiment, high vacuum, exotic materials, etc., etc. The first line pretty much sums it up: "Imagine sunlight ...".
"Wishful thinking?"
How about amazingly bad reporting. The linked news story delivers ridiculous soundbites such as:
But the text that really illustrates the reporter's grasp of the science is this:
To summarize what I can glean from prose such as the above: Vermont EE Prof., father, and erstwhile farmer Varhue wants to grow some quantum dots which might be useful as catalysts for the electrochemical separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen, a holy grail that has been pursued for decades. He has cobbled together some Ultra-High Vacuum equipment and will apply for a grant from DOE, but his chances are slim.
Perhaps he should get the reporter to write his grant application, or maybe he should work in the term "stem cells" somewhere.
In any case, getting to 10% efficiency doesn't solve much. You could take existing PV cells with 20% efficiency and wire them to an electrochemical cell to split the water and do better than that. You need to improve on that, plus do it inexpensively. This guy isn't anywhere close, so don't buy that H2 car yet.
Thanks for the debunking. I do know about hydrogen's limitations, and the fact that is a carrier of energy and not an energy source. I thought nanotechnology might have put a new spin on things (or is that only in quantum mechanics?).
The perception of oil depletion seems to be catching on in places, but the realization that we are unlikely to be "saved" by any miracle technology obviously still has some way to go.
Oh and I too saw the moderator on that CSPAN show today interject himself into the author's very careful response to the question about Peak Oil. He seemed eager to reassure everyone that politics, pipelines and manpower were the real problems, not geology. No one asked whether we would have been having problems with regard to politics, pipelines and manpower in the first place if we hadn't already peaked in the US more than 30 years ago.
After I posted that, I felt I was a bit too disparaging of the scientist. The piece was by, after all, a local TV reporter just trying create a compelling story.
There is quite a bit of interesting research on using quantum dots in both solar and photoelectrochemical cells:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060603/bob8.asp
One pertinent quote:
There's an article in today's (Sunday) NYT, front page, "Crisis Looms in Mortgages", which, more than any other I've seen, reeks of panic (in the NYT way).
Maybe someone can supply a link?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/11mortgage.html?
Posted in yesterday's Drumbeat
If fuel costs appreciate considerably by driving season, things in the suburbs could get messy.
Last time the fuel cost issue was on the board, it was pointed out that gasoline is only 3% of the average family's budget, and 15% of the cost of owning and running an automobile. Good news--$4.50 gasoline won't cause more than a mild recession. Bad news, it won't reduce demand enough either.
The straw that broke the camels back.
Why the limit of gasoline @ US$4.50/gallon ?
Perhaps US$9/gallon ? Or higher if the US $ and economy collapses. You seem to assume that if the US choses NOT to conserve then we will get all the oil WE want, and someone else will just have to conserve oil.
We are shipping out about 3/4 trillion in US $ and assets/year. Higher oil prices will increase that # (and decrease demand for most non-oil goods). A $1.5 trillion US balance of payments deficit is quite possible.
In a shrinking world economy (even if only -1 or -2%), is there THAT much demand for US $ or assets ? And for how many years ?
In a PO aware world, would all of the other major players (EU, China, Japan, Russia, OPEC) see it in their own best interests to keep the US afloat or not ?
The "Not" argument would be to force most of the conservation onto the US (good "they deserve it" argument there) and minimize their own forced conservation. OPEC can import the goods that they need from the EU, China, Japan and Latin America except for a few speciality items (oil drilling & production equipment, some medical, Boeing makes better a/c than Airbus).
Perhaps a G8 ultimatum "for our own good". Do whatever it takes (addendum lists specific "suggestions") to reduce US oil use by 10%/year and the US $ & economy will be supported (at depression economic levels perhaps). (-10% US oil consumption annually would create breathing space for everyone else to adapt and conserve in a rational way).
If you think this is unthinkable, review the history of Argentina and how the World Bank deals with wayward nations.
What we have done to others can be done to us.
Best Hopes for Acting NOW,
Alan
15 % seems sort of low. what mpg is this based on? at $ 2.5/gal and using the irs $ 0.45/mile rate that figures out to 37 mpg (44mpg at $3/gal). in any case i am assuming the biggest part is depreciation, the main product detroit is selling.
But the $0.45/mile is not just supposed to cover fuel, but a chunck of the other 85% of the cost of owning a vehicle.
2.5 ($/gal)/ 0.45 ($/mile)/0.15 = 37 mpg
the $0.45/mile the irs uses covers everything (fuel,maintenance,insurance and depreciation)
elwoodelmore said of car costs,
"in any case i am assuming the biggest part is depreciation, the main product detroit is selling."
Oh how true! Most people do not seem to realize that if they buy a 1 to 2 year old car, they have just saved enough money compared to buying new to put fuel in for the first full year to two of ownership, in some cases far longer.....It is astounding.
In my own case, fuel is a higer percent of ownership because my car is old....thus it is fully depreciated out. So I have to figure it as a percent of my income for the number to be useful.
I commute 42 miles per day (round trip), and get a bit over 30 miles per gallon on average, and sure enough, that figures out to less than 3% of my income.
I live well beyond the "suburbs" in a small town.
Fuel (Diesel in my case) could triple and although I would really complain, it would not be a major dislocation, in other words, I could endure fuel cost up to as much as $9.00 per gallon, and still not be in much worse shape than I am now. I would just have to tighten up on the luxuries/waste side. And I am financially in a weaker position than many I know.
If I lived in the "suburbs" of the town I work in, my fuel costs would be almost non-noticable, as you would be talking about a commute of 4 to 8 miles round trip (many of the folks I work with do it). It is to be remembered that the so called "exurb" dwellers who communte 40 or 60 miles one way are actually pretty rare as a percent of the workforce (although they make a great example to prove the "end of the suburbs" nightmares as sold by Kunstler and others), but for me and many folks I know, moving TO the suburbs would be a nice drop in fuel consumption! So why don't we?
Housing costs. I live in a paid for frame house, that cost $14,000 many years ago. To match it close to where I work would take a $160,000 outlay for a house, or a approximately $350 per month to rent even a small apartment in a questionable neighborhood (safety/crime issues I never have to deal with in my small town).
So the bombshell: Fuel could go to nearly $12.00 per gallon before it would cost me as much a year in fuel to drive everyday as it would to move, and that is getting only 30's plus mile per gallon on Diesel. With a smaller Diesel, such as Volkswagon sold for many years (Rabbit, Golf size), I could be getting just under 50 miles per gallon without too much strain (my father got 50 mpg it in the late 70's with a Rabbit when oil was inflation adjusted nearly $100 per barrel), and the fuel costs could then go to.....this is getting silly now, about $15 or $16 bucks per gallon to make a move to the suburbs break even! The move to downtown city would be purely a move for luxury and fun, not to save money, because at that point, to actually come out ahead given rents, fuel would have to be $15 plus per gallon for a person who already had any real equity in their home...(I have talked to a relative about this, and she said, "do you realize how high fuel would have to go for me to walk away from $150,000 equity....I would ride a scooter the 4 miles to work first...."
All this would indicate what we all know: The U.S. consumer can, if we must, easily stand oil prices above $100 per barrel, and in just a few years we could stand $150 without really suffering. Cargo transport would move to barge and rail, and electrified local distribution would take off. We get our fuel now as an almost givaway product, as Matt Simmons reminds us, oil really is still INCREDIBLY cheap, and there is no real incentive to try not to use it.
And oil will never be more than $140 per barrel for long anyway, because even at $100, there are far too many alternatives available now with no new technology needed, just the will to use them. Per a post I did yesterday, it is to be remembered that even if we use Colin Campbell's own worst case number, as published in his new newsletter, we see more fuel being produced in 2050 than at any time before the new century began....the backslope is being adjusted wildly upward by even the darkest pessimists.
As I have tried to tell folks, oil is good, and damm convenient, and cheaper than dirt......but it's not that good.......it's like baseball on TV, folks will watch it for free or almost free, but if you make them start paying too much.....they'll find something else. We need to get on something else NOW, however, for the national security balance of trade reasons, and the ecological issues. The age of oil will come to an end, but frankly, not nearly fast enough....as a nation we are bleeding ourselves to death by being lazy about it.
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Here's where your argument starts to unravel:
Because your "tighten[ing] up" is someone else's job. Say that you decided to give up buying a book every month, one of those expensive $30 books, to cover the increased costs of fuel. Suppose others in your same position do the same. Now the book companies which sold those books are out $30 X however-many-people usually buy books. Well, since books aren't selling as well, they can't publish as many, so they stop publishing as many authors and they shut down a few of their factories. Now a bunch of authors are having to "tighten up" because they're out of work and a bunch of factory workers, freshly laid off have to "tighten up" as well. So they decide to give up the trip to the local restaurant every week. Now business at the local restaurants are down, a couple of the waitresses are let go and some cooks, and they have to "tighten up" now too. etc, etc, ad nauseum. So, for a little while you might be right, you personally could absorb higher fuel prices, but your cutting back causes others to cut back and then people start losing jobs and that might just come back around to get you. This is an example of a "positive" feedback loop. Self reinforcing, and quite complex. The good news? Historically, people without jobs drive less and buy less useless crap.
Substrate,
You skipped over my other option....but a Rabbit Diesel instead of my current Benz Diesel, go from 30 miles per gallon to about 50, and go on living like I do (and by the way, do you think someone who drives a 1981 stick shift Diesel with 250,000 miles buys a lot of luxuries? :-) My last book was Simmon's "Twilight In the Desert", and sorry about this Matt, but I bought it used....:-)
My father switched from an Oldsmobile 98 to a Volkswagen Rabbit Diesel in 1977....and only a couple years later, in the middle of an economic recession and house lending crisis, the nation at record interest rates, bought the first