It's also at EB, if you find their formatting easier on the eyes.

Firefox helps a lot with accessibility. You can nuke page styles, and make it display in plain vanilla black text on a white background. It's also much easier to change the font size in Firefox than in IE.

Oh, you got me, Ron. (One more rant already went out.. I must have been ready to go this morning!)

I do agree that Population will crash with Oil.. In fact, I expect they are simply direct functions of one-another.

But I have to disagree with one thing.. You do too argue, you'll argue with ANYONE! I've tried to steer clear, usually, but today, you got me!

After the Space Solar thread a couple days back, I think I've been prime for a couple shrieks..

Best,
Bob

Darwinian,
We all owe you a big one for the work on the link to
Orlov.

I have yet to see any plan outlined that will prevent a global population collapse that is consistent with the realities of 21 century agriculture,unless it posits industrial bau on a fairly large scale.

If the big energy crunch materializes on schedule -meaning anytime w/i our life time,there is simply no realistic way to avoid a global population collapse.The various sustainable ag movements are way too little too late to save anyone not directly and wholeheartedly involved.

I hold out some hope that We here in the USA and perhaps a few other countries can survive more or less politically intact by means of severe rationing and the implementation of a war footing economic transition.

If we are able to do it,we will have to go from cars to bikes and streetcars and from turf and surf to the occasional chicken drumstick on special occasions over a period of ten years(?swag as to time frame) or so.

""We only use machines and burn fuel because they are so efficient.""

Sorry, but no. We use machines and burn fuel, because in a very fundamental sense, oil, for the last 100 years, has been basically free to the sheeple in the U.S.

Only now, are we starting to see the true cost we will pay for the future energy we "burn". And the sad fact is, most will not even live long enough to see that either.

That's an easy rant, Steve.

These people have taken a large step away from where most commuters have been.. even if they are still 'driving to work', and using the rest of that infrastructure. Taking it to extreme examples like expecting the few current Solar EV's out there try to justify the whole highway/auto infrastructure is a cop-out. It's what we have, and the way to move away from it is going to be in rational, but difficult steps. These people now have both power for their homes and their cars, power and vehicles that stand a chance of remaining operational as other options fall apart.. (Pickups and a Rav4 should be alright on many dirt roads too, BTW, not to mention E-bikes.. but we aren't even there yet.)

Who or what will convert them to 'electric'? There are 800 million autos in the world and the short answer is nobody.

Well, not you, anyway. But many others are doing it. Enough? Of course not.. but it's one BB, it doesn't have to promise the conversion of any 800million vehicles.

But it's a tool, and these guys are showing that it's simple, versatile, durable and it works.

Al- went to Poland earlier this month, as well as Germany and the Netherlands. The one thing I noticed, especially with respect to the big cities is that they really have their stuff together with electrified rail...

Polish Connection

This was especially true with Krakow, where I spent quite a bit of time. Trams are well distributed (walkable to), frequent (only 10 minutes between them) and cheap ($2/day will get you anywhere, and a $60 yearly pass is also available). Because of this environment, and the use of bike lanes, you can eaily get by without a car. Also, many of the retail stores are small mom-and-pop shops distributed around the city... The advantage of course is not having to go halfway across town to the supermarket, when the corner store is just down the block. Overall, I am impressed with the way Europe has built their cities to EXCLUDE the use of cars vs. America's layout that REQUIRES them.

Alan,

I always read your comments with great interest as you have a balanced pov regarding the possible versus the impossible or politically undoable.

I think a renewed emphasis on rail is a damn good idea myself,but I've also been thinking about just how much UNNECESSARY transportation we could cut w/o gutting the economy-I'm talking cuts that might actually create more jobs thru saving on energy,road maintainence,and so forth than are lost by truck drivers,etc.

I find it hard to believe that we need to haul our beer hundreds of miles when it could be brewed locally using waste heat from existing businesses for instance.Locally brewed beer could easily be bottled in glass bottles reusable hundreds of times if the beer is consumed near the bottling plant.
A driver's job lost would be a brewer's job gained most likely,as a local brewery would use more manpower per barrell than a far off automated beer factory.

The cardboard boxes used to ship apples across the country could be replaced with the wooden boxes used by my parents and grandparents-and STILL IN USE by our regular small local customers who bring them back like deposit bottles.Some of ours are at least sixty years old as evidenced by the logos of the original owners,and they are probably used at least four times per year each.

The cardboard boxes are reused maybe three or four times at most on average because they either fall apart and/or it costs too much to ship them empty for long distances.

A lot of carpooling and other fuel saving strategies would work a lot better if the law regulating auto insurance and the practices of the insurance industry were to be overhauled.I personally know at least five or six people who would buy a very economical car to commute and only use thier thirsty pickup trucks for business purposes if it didn't cost so much to insure the second vehicle.
It's pointless from thier pov to save twenty bucks a week on gas just to give it to thier insurance agent.

I strongly suspect that the price structure of the industry is subsidizing the one car owner at the expense of the two car owner.The discount for the second car is not so far as I can see nearly big enough,given the fact that one or the other vehicles is parked most of the time.If the rate needs to be so high to cover use by spouses,kids,etc,there could be a fee per driver added.

A good samaritian law could also ease the fears of lawsuits that keep people from carpooling in some instances.At least two guys I know are very reluctant to share rides regularly for fear of legal entanglements if there is an accident.

I'm sure others here can think of more possibilities along these lines.