According to the EIA the residential price of natural gas in the USA has risen steadily by 13x in 40 years. Adjusted for inflation that's a 3.25x price increase.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010us3a.htm

Historically the price of natural gas is not low at all. I'm not sure how to parse the rest of what you said.

Here's an EIA chart of consumer gas prices that shows a clear upward trend:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/nggraph.gif

Re: NG now at low price. My understanding is (and others here can flesh it out) that there is relatively little storage space for NG. Thus as long as "production" and consumption are roughly equal, you'll get large price swings as one is a bit more than the other at various times.

One thing that postponed the day of reckoning is the wholesale move in recent years of NG-intensive industries (ammonia fertilizer and some kinds of plastics) from the USA to other parts of the world where NG is still relatively abundant. Another cause has been the relatively mild weather in the last couple of winters. If this winter or the next one happens to be colder than what used to be called normal, expect much higher prices.

With declining extraction of NG in N.America, summers getting hotter, and an on-going well-deserved aversion to additional coal plants, it won't take many more years for the price to start staying higher. Moreover, there is a certain amount of fuel-switching possible between oil and gas, as a few power stations can use either, vehicles can be re-fitted to run on compressed NG, and home and business owners can replace a heating system that runs on one with one that burns the other. Thus, as long as NG is priced a lot less per BTU than oil, such conversion keeps happening, and that means rising NG demand that will eventually equalize the prices of oil vs gas.

Finally, remember that $5 is still a lot higher than it was a few years ago. With drilling for NG becoming less and less productive (4x the wells for the same output) that $5 price is apparently not quite enough for some drillers. That will accelerate the decline, leading to higher prices later...

I don't think trial lawyers had anything to do with the decision making in Detroit, or in Torrance. Their decision making was driven by focus groups and what certain Americans wanted, and thought they wanted. Do you have any case cites on the wrongful death lawsuits? The verdicts woudl really have to be large to offset the profits made on each Escalade.

[It was trial lawyers forcing manufacture of heavier vehicles by claiming they were unsafe. It is unsafe to get hit by a heavier vehicle and this makes drivers of large vehicles susceptible to lawsuits for wrongful death and injury.]

While it is always fun to bash lawyers (until you need one, then suddenly they are your best friends), this statement seems pretty inaccurate. If anything, by your argument, trial lawyers would have made heavier vehicles less common by suing drivers who drove them. And I am unaware of any development in tort law that makes driving a heavier vehicle a basis for a personal injury suit. However, you are correct that if a driver is negligent and causes injury(a basis for a tort action), the damages may be greater becaue more injury was caused by the larger vehicle. But your statement as phrased is pretty misleading.

Look forward to seeing this in its global implementation. Hope it's not too late by then.

Because modeling only the US gives, what, only between 5% and 25% of the system's overall effect and response regarding population pressure, climate change, resource and energy depletion.

Will the model include the effects of multiple dispersed disease outbreaks? Water shortages? Loss of heating in winter months? Food riots and famine? Chemical, biological, or nuclear wars? Terrorism? Social unrest, civil wars, revolution?

Will the model account for places like Zimbabwe, Iraq, and soon Iran?

Will the model account for human behavior that doesn't have access to the information that we do, i.e., the behavior of the unwashed masses?

Good for you. A great follow-on project would be something that could be scaled and fine-tuned for local communities. The Chevron simulation is a good start, but it assumes a relatively large city of fixed size, and allows no fine tuning for local conditions. It also has a relatively constrained mix of technology and policy options. Give us something with a good dashboard of controls and we would really have a useful tool.

I'm sorry to hear you've decided to go with the Sim City interface, I thought I made a pretty good case that it wouldn't serve the model well here. I would be much more interested in seeing a "Sim Policy Wonk" game as I believe that would better reflect the actual activities underlying the manipulation of the model and would be a better representation of the actual challenges involved.

Aside from the obvious deficiencies of the energy assumptions in the Chevron game I was really struck by the invisible unspoken assumption that powering cities full of cars is the primary challenge facing us. It is that assumption that must be rethought at the most fundamental level if we are to avoid the worst consequences of our behavior. A Sim City game would obviously fail to achieve that, just as surely the Chevron game has.

But, hey, as I'm well aware no one is listening to me, so best of luck with your efforts.

Cheers,
Jerry