You are possibly going bonkers with the realisation that 0.25 acres is simply not enough - about one hectare (2.4 acres) could be considered the minimum, unless you lived in a highly productive tropical or semi-tropical region. Doesn't matter how much you wish something to be so, if it ain't going to be so ...

Just concentrating on growing potatoes might be your best bet as you get a lot per acre, and hope to swap some for a more varied diet.

At least that is what the Irish peasantry did when they had to make do with tiny plots, although of course we all know what happened there.

I am not enough of a gardener to know, but perhaps cloches and greenhouses would help?

Another alternative where you might be able to barter work for more space might be to strengthen your walls sufficiently to support a roof garden.

Both thickening your walls and making a roof garden would also go some way towards insulating your house and reaching your objectives.

Passivhaus technology makes the house very air-tight, and relies on mechanical extraction to change the small amount of air needed, although an alternative might be to build your greenhouses as conservatories which would improve temperatures in the main house.

I also live on a 1/4 acre small town lot. I've got no illusions about being able to produce all of our own food just on that land. I think that with a few year's effort I could reasonably get up to maybe 50% or so. My first priority is to get the fruit and perennial vegies (asparagus & sunchokes) planted, as those take several years to get into production. I'm also going to beekeeping school right now; bees don't have to depend just on what I'm growing in my yard, so the honey they produce will be a lot of "free" extra calories produced on my land. Rabbits are a couple of years down the line, chickens maybe a couple more years after that - I've got the outbuilding and space for them, but I've got some work to do in reconfiguring it. Much of my yard right now is in shade trees, I'll have to gradually take most of them down (except for the two sugar maples in front, which provide afternoon shade as well as eventually syrup) to make more garden space.

One thing I'm doing to increase my production is to garden in containers on our deck. The deck is the sunniest place on our property right now, and I'm not going to let that sunlight go to waste.

I do also rent two 400 s.f. plots at our local community garden, though, so that gives me quite a bit more land to work with. I grow all of my root vegies there (less likely to be stolen), all of my brassicas (cabbage family), corn (with pole beans on the stalks - even if I lose the corn to animal or human thieves, I'll still have something to harvest), and winter squash; I've got these set up on a four-year rotation.

If (when) times get really hard and food gets really expensive, another option will be garden share-cropping. By equipping oneself with the necessary tools and supplies now and proceeding up the learning curve, one will be ready when a lot of one's neighbors are hungry and can't afford food, look out at their vast expanse of lawns, but don't have a clue as to what to do. Offering to do it for them in exchange for half the produce is going to look like a pretty good deal for a lot of them. Under that strategy, you got only close the gap to 100% self-sufficiency, you also can have enough of a surplus to be a regular seller at your local farmer's market.

I am not a happy puppy.

If you can't realistically move, store a large amount of white rice. Get some surplus plastic 55-gallon barrels, seal them shut, and bury them. Cheap to do, and will keep for decades. Just a suggestion.

Thanks to all for your comments. I wasn't expecting any, so this is a great surprise. Some great suggestions. The rice one is nice. Sounds like a good emergency store regardless of any/all other choices. Rice is gawdawful expensive here in Korea, ironically enough.

I was, in fact, thinking of greenhouses due to the limited space. I was incorrect: we have almost a half acre. Looking at some of the intensive programs, such as the fellow in the Bay area (sorry, can't locate the link just now... need to tidy them up) who claims 4,000 sq. ft./person is possible. Under those conditions, I can build a small home and have enough land to feed 3 - 4 people. I am also going to look into hydroponics given the high yields, limited space and good rainfall here.

As ever, money and time. And timing. To go from living in an apartment in the city to a sustainable homestead... daunting. I see it as being my only option if I want to ensure, to the highest degree possible, my family's welfare.

Cheers

But most people are perfectly willing to sacrifice taste for convenience.

or sacrifice taste just to eat.

I think you're wrong about that. Sure, some people are willing to grow their own food (or pay for someone else to do it) just because it tastes better. But most people are perfectly willing to sacrifice taste for convenience. They're busy, and the last thing they want to do is cook, let alone grow their food.

People, in my estimation, are about to get a lot less busy. The thing about the doomsday scenarios is that they are possible, and probable, because things truly are just too complex to remain coherent in the face of multiple singularities and their resulting non-linear results.

IF it is too late to reign in climate change unless there is a massive, coordinated, world-wide response (Hansen), and IF it is too late to mitigate Peak Oil (less than 5-10 years to peak) unless there is a massive, coordinated, world-wide response (Hirsch), AND there actually is no massive, coordinated, world-wide response as is th current case, then how in hell is all hell NOT going to break loose?

Localized use of large farms, yes. Current agribusiness? Maybe not.

Sorry: no links, just my 2c.

Cheers

Yes but some idiots in North America commute to work the width of Sweden. Of course even that may not derail the economy, but sitting that long in one's car knowing one is burning eight a gallon buck gas may produce peak dementia and won't that be a scream.

Here in Europe/Sweden we already pay $8+ for a gallon of gas. Hasn't hurt our economy. And we have lower incomes and higher taxes too.

No, you don't understand ... at the moment both the USA and Europe (and the OECD in general) have been doing fine, we both pay the same for a barrel of imported crude, we just pay taxes on different things. (Actually, how can you be sure that the prices we pay for European fuel hasn't damaged our economies - or is that just what you want to believe/have faith in?)

However, IMO if you start with $8 gasoline and then add all our fuel taxes and duties you will find the price will be just as economically dislocating in Europe as $8 and no taxes is for the USA.

Just to even the score, I would have to ask, how much to you pay yearly for healthcare, property taxes, and education? How much paid time off do you get when having children? I bet when it's all added up, we in the USA probably pay more out of pocket than most in Europe/Sweden.

Here in Europe/Sweden we already pay $8+ for a gallon of gas.

Thanks for reminding me how worthless the USD has become ..

The real question is wether the cost to you in local
currency seems expensive to the average consumer ..

Otherwise we're just comparing exchange rates ..

Triff ..

Like I said, a big reason is probably that people automatically drive faster than the speed limit. What are your results at 65mph vs. 75mph?

My tests show
55 mph = 52 mpg
65 mph = 42 mpg

OK let’s run a road trip on these numbers. Ten hours of actual driving, just to start with a round number.

650 miles. 10 hours. 15.5 gallons.

Now try 55. 11.8 hours. 12.5 gallons.

So you save 3 gallons and lose 1.8 hours. At US$3/gallon, you’ve saved a whopping $5/hour. Woo-hoo. At $8/gallon you’ve saved $13.33/hour. That's very slightly more interesting, but without importance if it's a business trip. Not that it matters, we aren’t at $8 yet.

The big catch is that if the cost of the 3 gallons is a huge problem at whatever price, you really can’t afford the trip in the first place. After all, your total cost is on the order of $300 at customary mileage rates near 50 cents; more like $360 if gas got to $8. Oh, and if the extra hours kick you over the threshold of needing a motel room, then 55 is a big-time loser at any gas price where you'd still be driving.

I have a feeling that even $10 gas won’t slow a lot of people down much, though it might induce them to get smaller cars next time. 55 was just empty moralizing of the sort beloved by Jimmy Carter, who meant well but wielded zero persuasive power. Europeans who visited us in the 1970s thought we were schlubs for wasting so much time crawling so slowly around such a huge country, and they were right. I commend the motorways of Europe, with their 120 and even 130 or 140kph speed limits, to your attention.

Even with rationing it would depend. Odd-even rationing as in the 1970s puts a big premium on driving as fast and far as possible the days you’re allowed to purchase. It might have little effect on short-haul commuting except to catch some poor slob out once in a while. Huge lines would certainly have an effect, but keep in mind they tend to grow best in big congested cities where nothing moves even as fast as 45 anyhow. Coupon rationing would quickly turn into a cesspit of favoritism and corruption, so there’s no telling what its effect would be, except to make some rich at the expense of others; no doubt government officials with unlimited coupons would weave in and out at 75mph amongst ordinary schlubs doing 35. With a soft limit (tradable coupons), it would be the same as letting the price go up while mailing everybody a check...oh, wait a minute, we're already doing that and we save the huge cost of the vast army of Federal jobsworths the other versions of rationing require.

Am I the only one in this thread who is old enough to remember what life was like in during 1973?

They were hard times!!!!

My dad was a car salesman and sales just STOPPED! That meant that my dads salary stopped. Fights broke out at gas stations. You were afraid to go for gas. You only traveled to the store, and when you got there you bought only the essentials (if they had them). I grew up as middle class, maybe the rest of you had a silver spoon and could waste money, but not us. It was an emotionally trying time.

If peak oil is real, and those times do return, I think you are going to get a very nasty education about how every dollar you save is really important.

We didn't have the political will back when it was passed. With rationing and shortages to encourage us.

I just think that this is a waste of effort. Too much work for too little reward. Even many peak oilers hate the idea. There are a lot of other things we could do instead, that would have better returns on investment.

Staniford also came to the conclusion that 55 MPH had little impact on fuel efficiency in his TOD article The Auto Efficiency Wedge. Didn't give a source but I assume he knows who the Heritage Foundation is.

One thing that struck me as very surprising is the lack of impact of the 55mph speed limit. This was adopted in 1973, and one might have expected it to make an abrupt and significant contribution to the solution. However, fuel economy increases between 1974 and 1977 were only very slightly higher than those of earlier years and it is rather hard to discern a major effect (eg a big spike up in the fuel economy growth rate in 1974 is not evident at all - there is not even a modest response until 1975). Nor is there any sign of a decline in fuel economy when the policy ended in 1995. Overall, I find very little evidence that the 55mph speed limit had much effect at all - presumably compliance was too poor for the theoretical benefits to emerge in practice.

Never knew about the 35 MPH WWII limit.
A Top Speed of 35 Miles Per Hour? It's often suggested that we'll make a WWII effort to overcome peak oil - and, unfortunately, we'll also need a Pearl Harbor style event to get peoples' attention. In the face of brownouts and empty pumps it'll be simple enough to demonize speeders.

Don't agree that cops would rather go after serious criminals than speeders - which is less risky and provides a source of revenue?

sf, that's exactly the point. Basically, what a discussion like this exposes is a strange phenomena where people assume that the conditions they grew up around are unchangeable constants, the norm. This isn't the case at all, talk to anyone from a rural background who is 60-70 and you learn that nothing about our current norm is normal at all. It's a peak condition, and it will not survive the passing of the peak.

When faced with this type of issue, there is only one rational solution: begin to immediately conserve everywhere you can to avoid full social collapse. If something yields 1,2%, great, do it. This is not complicated, unless you live in a fantasy world. First you conserve as much as you can, everywhere you can, picking the lowest cost and easiest places first, then you work on padding the decline with realistic alternatives. Believing in techno-utopian fairy tales will end with a very unpleasant picture, as the Hirsh report, and pretty much every other realistic study, is showing.

This is basically what the Nazis did as the rest of the world was massing on their borders, some last magic fix would take care of the fact that they were beaten. That's not an example I am looking forward to emulating, attractive as it seems to be for some.

It's more than a little ironic to see the US Air force and Navy start on the very same coal liquification plant technology that the Nazis depended on in WWII to meet their energy needs... If that's not a huge red flag, I don't know what is.

Stuff like this has nothing to do with being right or wrong in a discussion thread, it has to do with facing reality and being practical and picking the easiest targets first, not looking to some future fairy land.

However, again, I do agree with the drumbeat editor that it is sadly very unlikely that Americans will accept toning down their consumption patterns until reality forces this act on them. And it's not going to be a Prius with a cute gas mpg gauge that pushes that onto them, sadly. Just look at current coal prices, for example, it's quite safe to say that worst case scenarios at this point are the most reasonable guess for what's really going to happen. At some point the political system will need to deal with this, and if nothing goes really wrong, then TOD is totally wrong in all its fundamental premises. Which I don't believe is the case.

With all due respect, your comment is incorrect.

The fuel power required to overcome aerodynamic drag increases with the cube of relative air speed, but the fuel consumption only increases with the square of the speed. And, there are also other factors, one which varies directly with the speed and the other which is a constant. For a car (or SUV) the aerodynamic term begins to be large above 30 mph or so. The other important point is that the efficiency of the gasoline engine is greatest at wide open throttle, thus, the best efficiency occurs when the transmission is in the highest possible gear. For an automatic transmission, that means the torque converter must be in lockup mode. All that comes together to produce the best mpg at a speed near 45 mph.

E. Swanson