This "party like it's 1999" mentality is probably reason #1 the USA has 0 savings right now.  Use it now or lose it later.

As the chemists used to say ... if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

If people in the rich world party like it's 1999 and do not conserve even a little, then the price will remain high and go much higher which will not be a problem for those who still have the cash but what about those who don't? What about those who 'need' oil just as much as you do but who will not be able to buy it because you can't even tighten your belt even a little? What about the idea behind the Uppsala protocol? Just think of Richard Heinberg working his ass off to make this idea work...no you just do what YOU want. Never mind anyone else. Fucking selfish and really sad.

We've probably all heard the story about the horse thief who was brought before the king to be condemned to death. The thief wins a reprieve by promising the king that within a year, he will teach the king's horse to sing. Day after day he stands before the horse, patiently singing scales to the oblivious creature. But when the other prisoners and guards scorn him for his futile efforts, he has a ready reply.

"I won a year of life from the king. Much can happen in a year. The king could die. I could die.

"Or perhaps, the horse could learn to sing."

The moral: the future is uncertain, and you should not give in to despair and hopelessness. Enjoy life while you have it, while you are able. The days of your life are few enough. Even if you're convinced that dark times are ahead, don't jump the gun and live life as if they are here today.

And no matter how sure you are of Peak Oil disaster, keep in mind the optimistic thief. You never truly know what will happen; maybe the horse will learn to sing.

I think that preparing society for life after Peak Oil takes priority over pleasure trips. So, if energy taxes drive up gas and jet fuel prices to, say $10 a gallon, with all that tax money going towards urban build-up, knocking down and green-meadowing of suburbia, rail service, and public transportation, I wouldn't be driving or flying much, and wouldn't be complaining either. But since this society has apparently gone on permanent vacation to La-la land and will not be able to make the necessary steps to prepare, why even waste time worrying about it? I will make my own preparations. I expect to be able to see quite a bit more of the world after Peak Oil - by sail and by bicycle.

I've learned to appreciate life more since I've realized the oil will run dry within my lifetime. I suggest relaxing and sipping on Grey Goose vodka while watching strippers undress on stage.

How timely!  This article  from the travel section in Today's LA Times discusses some of the spending and consumption patterns for Travel in the US.  Cartainly, I am thinking of doing some travel now while I can afford to do so, not sure what the next few years will bring in terms of the costs of travel.  Also, how many airlines will be around by 2010?

In any case, no one really knows what to expect in the near term or the long term.  One of the early discussions at TOD last summer was whether or not we would be able to afford travel THIS summer (2006).  So far, looks like things are going to be working in June.  But, then, a lot can happen in a few months (let alone a year).

When I was attending a meeting in midtown Manhattan in Sept. 2001, I certainly could not have guessed that two planes would bring down the World Trade Center towers that day....Wonder how my decisions would have been different had I known?  Wonder how my relationships with dear friends and family would have been different had I known?

Sometimes, you just have to live your life, I guess.  See what happens.

In my humble (LOL) opinion, everyone should immediately jump on a plane and fly like a viagra salesman behind in sales. I also advocate the purchase of Kenworth tractors to replace your regular vehicle. Instead of walking to the end of the drive to pick up the mail, fire up the Kenworth and motor down there. Buy a 1000 gallon gasoline tank and fill it with fuel then dump it in your swimming pool and set it on fire!!! What fun!!!

Leave the Kenworth idling all night in order that it will be warm when you wake.

I'm sure there are a lot of other fun ways to hasten the end of the petroleum era. If you think hard enough, or should I say watch a few NASCAR races and dumb yourself down enough, I am sure you too can become part of the great American/Western selfishness festival.

Now, some of you may think I am being ironic. I am not. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY do want us to hasten the end of this despicable era. The one thing I know for sure is nature/physics does not care about your politics, your invisible sky-being, or your family, so do not start whining and crying about the "good" parts of society, the arts, or the vast variety of cultures we will kill. TOO LATE FOR THAT, YOU SELFISH BASTARDS. The sooner we go into a Malthusian collapse, the better it will be for the remnants of humanity, the sooner we will have to deal with nature/physics on a real time basis.

Yes, vacation your ass right out to Antartica. If you can figure out a way to do it with your Kenworth mounted on a concrete barge, all the better. BURN BABY BURN.

Bring on the cull.

Having a social conscience is a handicap. Is using up a precious resource, knowing how little remains, any better than not knowing or caring how much is left and doing the same trip? I would do the trip, mourning that grandchildren will not be able to, no matter what conservation I did to offset the trip.

I think that there is far too little oil left to make a difference to how future generations will live. Any babies born recently will be unlikely to drive much by the time they are legally able to. Personally, saving a ton of fuel this year by not travelling is irrelevant in relation to what is left and how quickly it will be used up by others that care little or not believe in oil being a finite resource. To borrow the phrase Are humans smarter than yeast? I don't know. Yeast hasn't been able to wreck a planet yet.

I am proud to say that Waikato, New Zealand is doing its part to bring on collapse.  We just landed the 2008 V8 street race.  Pland are afoot to lengthen the runway at Hamilton airport to 2.5km to accomodate the heavy cargo 747s that will be used to fly the race cars in from Australia.  I am so proud.  Yeehaw!!!

I routinely extend any business or conference (hydroelectric or mass transit) visit for some local vacation.  Usually interesting cross-section of places, not all on teh typical tourist trail

I try to use local mass transit when and where I can.

I live in a wonderful city (just about to walk out the door for an early Mardi Gras parade) and can vacation here incessently, even amidst the ruin, disaster and misery.

And I routinely fly Southwest, 52 pax-miles/gallon.

If you want to see how different a country's mind set can be read this about Japan. Note three quarters of the population believe saving energy is a personal responsibility.

What thefatladyhassung said is EXACTLY the opposite way we should approach this problem(opportunity). Using Jevons paradox and the theory of relative fitness, if we conserve or make sacrifice, someone somewhere else in the system will just use our energy, perhaps my turning down the thermostat and riding my bike to work will end up in 12 more square feet of cement in China. But I will live for a long time yet - for me to replace my daily allotment of happiness and contentment( which I argue is a cocktail of evolutionary refined neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine), I should choose to replace as many as unsustainable activities as possible NOT TO SAVE THE PLANET BUT TO INCREASE MY OWN WELL BEING. (an unsustainable activity is one that will be unavailable at some point post peak oil, like flying overseas, or eating Capn Crunch w/ Crunchberries)

If I truly believe that there will be less energy and less travel available,  I am wasting an opportunity for future happiness by splurging on travel etc- I should be splurging on bicycles, greenhouses, giving up coffee, raised bed gardens, solar panels, arts and crafts materials, and whatever else is inexpensive, I enjoy and is repeatable.

Each day we wake up and are faced with an enormous smorgasbord of activities that give us feelings, both good and bad. Good ones are feelings of camaraderie, social approval, social advancement, exercise, monetary gain, sleep, sex, playing with our dogs, watching a sunset with a loved one, being elected Mayor, writing a book and getting it published, eating good food etc.  Bad ones are social disapproval, losing money, getting fired, etc.  The best things in life really are free. People that structure their current lives (based on Peak Oil foresight), to maximize the net present value of all future happiness (brain chemical mix), will be ahead of those who fly to Africa or build more concrete.  But as human animals we are conditioned to live for the moment - we have to redefine the 'moment' as 'being more fit for the future'

Think on this. The proof of what I say is apparent to coffee drinkers - when are you happiest? When you are on your way to Starbucks and walking in, ANTICIPATING your coming caffeinated beverage reward? or after youve drunk it, when in fact the chemicals are in your system? Or three hours later?

I believe we each has it in us to design our post-peak oil smorgasbords- smaller energy footprint, equal or greater happiness to what we have now. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to be in a community with like minded people - then one satisfies reciprocal altruism algorithms, camaraderie algorithms etc as well as the material benefits (more food etc) that come from these areas. Washington DC and Atlanta will not be 'feel good' places as US energy per capita drops precipitously. Willits, CA and a community near you will be.

Splurge! But splurge on your own recipe for sustainable dopamine.

1) We could consider fixed vs. variable resource consumption.

If I take an optional personal car trip, all of that extra gas consumption and incremental C02 causes resource depletion and environmental. And it is all my fault.

If I fill an otherwise empty airline seat, there's virtually no difference in environmental impact, and we get more pleasure and social utility from the same amount of jet fuel. We amortize the environmental damage across more people.

If airline travel were really elastic--and they put on more planes to fulfil more demand--then there's an environmental cost. But I don't see airlines acting like that right now.

So, consider flying on a less-than-full redeye flight that is ferrying a plane back to point of origin. Or use a last-minute website to fill an empty seat. This doesn't work if everyone wants to do it, but they don't.

2) Jet fuel is jet fuel. We get a certain amount per barrel of crude. Not much else runs on it right now. Yes, it's environmentally damaging to burn, and we should conserve. But hoarding jet fuel won't solve shortage issues with any other types of fuels. So if we continue refining crude to get gasoline, and have excess jet fuel remaining, where would we store it, and for how long is it stable?

I have been a spectator for a while on this website. I truly enjoy the balance and intelligence of the constituency, but have never posted. I believe the question put here is a simple one:
   Knowing that the end of a very liberating period of human existence is coming to a close, is it appropriate for one to "burn" this precious resource, while the infrastructure and cost structure are still at a level to support such, in a purely selfish manner.
   I do not consider myself suitable to sit in judgement of others. In fact, I believe one of the most significant needs of humanity is tolerance. I can see both sides of this argument.
   Side 1) Of the billions of homo sapiens to walk this planet, there are only a handful who will have had the opportunity to enjoy the ability we have had to circumnavigate the globe at will and see the wonderous diversity that spaceship earth has to offer. So make hay while the sun shines.
   Side 2) However, the price of such an ability seems to be at the expense of the very wonder we are allowed to examine. In addition, the resource being consumed could certainly be better used for the myriad wonders offered by our current understanding of chemistry and materials engineering (eg. pharmaceuticals). So preservation (read conservation) of the resource allows a longer term benefit.
   It has been my experience, in my few number of spins around Sol, that there are always three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. I think the truth is that there are just too damn many humans on the planet. With technology where it is today and only 100 million on the planet, someone calculate the longevity and opulence of our culture. The trouble is, who should be the ~2% left. As in all things, equilibrium will be maintained and feeder populations will eventually balance with the resource base. It doesn't matter whether you are Homo sapiens or Pan troglodytes. You cannot repeal natural laws by vote or use of the media. That is why they are called laws.
   In the final analysis, each inidividual must select their own path. Instead of looking at societal norms for guidance, examine and calibrate your own sense of fairness and see where that leads.

Human ethics is not rational. We only think it is.

They've done some fascinating research, by putting people in MRI machines and presenting them with ethical conundrums.  When asked about, say, flipping a switch to kill someone, we use the part of our brains that solves ordinary logic problems. (Should I take the train or the bus home from work?) But when the question involves killing someone with our own hands, it's the emotional centers of the brain that light up.

Neurologists speculate that, hard-wired for the Stone Age as we are, we just can't imbue pulling a switch with the emotional resonance of killing someone with our bare hands.

Another example: You are walking past a pond, and see a baby drowning. You're wearing $200 shoes, and don't have time to take them off. Do you save the baby's life and ruin your shoes?

Of course you do. If you don't, you're a horrible human being. However...isn't buying $200 shoes in the first place effectively the same choice? If you gave that $200 to Oxfam or the Red Cross, they could probably save several babies' lives with it. Our Stone Age brains don't see it that way, though.

So...maybe riding a plane is evil, because it uses up oil poor people need to live.  But then, isn't using a computer and the Internet also evil?  You don't need to be online; only a couple of decades ago, almost no one was.  Obviously, that's not a major concern of anyone here.  And it's not reasonable to expect it to be.  

Price will force conservation soon enough.  As it is, air travel is becoming more and more unpleasant.  High fuel costs have forced airlines to cut back on the number of flights as well as the number of employees.  Planes are increasingly crowded, employees ruder, amenities fewer.  And they're still losing money.  Eventually, they'll have to raise prices or go out of business.

I think travel for the reasons offered by TheFatLadyHasSung and Leanan is infinitely more important than 90% of business travel in general, and 100% of business travel to "conventions" and "trade shows". I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the fuel issues are urgent enough to justify sacrifice - otherwise there is no need for the discussion - and I still question the emphasis on vacation travel.

Why should anyone ever forgo a vacation, or bicycle to work, or do anything that might be experienced as a sacrifice, just fuel some salesperson or professor flying around the world and back again for the ego trip of delivering a quick PowerPoint in person instead of via the internet? Why should anyone lift a finger just to fuel executives and engineers flying ceaselessly back and forth between Stuttgart and Detroit in order that Daimler and Chrysler can pretend to meddle in each others' affairs? Many of these folks command huge salaries, built into the price of everything we must buy. Why shouldn't they be working productively instead of spending most of their time cooling their heels in the utter misery of our extravagantly expensive, dysfunctional, incompetently run air system?

There is a lot more to be said for interacting with folks of other cultures than there is for ego trips. Business deals will be made in any case, out of fiduciary duty; that makes the "handshake" trip superfluous. The traveling salesperson is likewise superfluous. PowerPoints can be uploaded, FTP'd, or emailed. We no longer need to ship protoplasm just to ship information.

Nonsense business flying has become so commonplace as to be beneath notice. As long as that continues, I wouldn't advise anyone to forgo a vacation trip.

Of course, vacation flight is practically free because it is paid for by exorbitant fares often extracted from  businesses and institutions, who are usually spending someone else's money, and very freely. Make business people learn how to use the internet and the telephone, take away their tax subsidies, and, voila, the subsidy to vacation flyers more or less goes away. Without that subsidy, we go full circle to the original thought: vacation flight all but ceases.

The Fat Lady feels famous!  A few thoughts:  I've only been reading TOD for a week or two, but what impresses me is that there is a wide variety of people with strong opinions here that generally get along pretty well.  I'm 55, have a Ph.D. in the hard sciences, but have been involved in the venture capital / emerging technology business for 25 years.  I invested for a major insurance company in a wide range of deal some incredibly successful and some incredible failures.  Nature of the business.  I did the first financings for a number of environmental technology companies back in the 1990's.  So I will put up my "greenness contribution to the planet" up against just about anybody, despite the fact that I'm a money grubbing capitalist.

As a complete technological optimist (meaning we will eventually be able to solve anything) I was stunned to discover a few months that ago PO can't be solved.  And that the rate of a 5-8% depletion per annum will probably result in a dieoff (we are dumber than yeast).  

In the long run we're all dead and the world runs out of oil. I guess your viewpoint is how much of a run you personally have left.  So I'm hitting the road this year, but I'm also buying as Vespa in the spring.  Not to cancel anything out, but they look like fun!

I agree with Leanan, the crucial point is that we are not rational animals. Thats how we can keep saying "we're running out, but it doesn't matter how much i use". A veneer of educated concern helps maintain our self importance, but actually taming our appetites is not at all appealing, and so endless (ir)rationalisations are produced to justify our 'thinking'.

The argument that others will simply use the oil anyway A. predicts the future, a dodgy business, & B. ignores the fact that LEARNING to live with less, adaptating, is the best, if not the only 'preparation' we need to be pursuing for the collapse in progress. The longer i rely on oils crutch, the lower my chances of saving my sorry hide and making any useful contribution. Change is hard, but business as usual will make the hardest of crashes.

I can't answer the poll.  My father was a carrier pilot, and we flew a lot when I was growing up.  We once took a commercial helicopter flight off the top of the PanAm building.  In the 90s, I flew in my firm's two-engine commuter fairly often.  I enjoyed all of it.

But I have lost so much confidence in commercial airlines that I'd be more likely to take a train than fly.  The post 9/11 security measures only make flying sound like a bigger hassle.

Right now, I'd only take a commercial flight if my job depended on it.

The point I wanted to make about "getting out of the box" (i.e., the car), is that it is not the case that your chance to enjoy travel to beautiful places will disappear when cheap oil does. Party on when the cheap oil party is over. Do it by bike and foot.

PhilM says people who don't conserve are effing selfish and sad. The problem with that statement is its underlying assumption that an effective solution to the problem of global warming and oil depletion is for people to act altruistically for the good of all. And when someone doesn't we can change that by calling them names and trying to shame them. Good luck with that. It doesn't work.

Gas is cheap right now. Motorists get a lot of subsidies. Driving is legal. To change people's behavior you have to change the incentives, not call them names. The upside of peak oil is that it will change the incentives, and break through the political inertia that makes it (apparently) impossible for politicians to change the incentives through legislation.

The Poll doesn't have any questions I could check off.

I liked the comment about how 75% of Japanese felt there was a duty to serve others.  Our (USA's) 'individualism' can really trip us up a lot of times.  We act like "Cuz I wanted to" is somewhere in the bill of rights.  Rights don't even exist, unless we agree to grant them to each other.  They're not just 'out there' somewhere.  We made them up, in an inspired moment.  But we act like they're all about 'What's coming to me', not about 'what I'm giving to all my neighbors, because I believe in these concepts'  So our mutual responsibility seems to get lost in the mix.  Self-made men, all. (Don't tell Mom I said that)

I don't think it's wrong to fly.  I think it's important for people to be out in the world, making connections and seeing that people in other places are not 'aliens'.. something America can stand to be told over and over again.

I just think that, since we ARE now looking into this Oil-abyss, that we have an opportunity and an obligation to find ways to apply what Petrol energy we can, WHILE we can, towards the development of alternates, efficiency-measures and infrastructure changes that will become increasingly essential as oil's easy power gets more restricted.

Is it something in our National mentality about planning and trusting in Long-term thinking?  Why is this discussion about 'what vacation do I still get to give myself, cuz I think I deserve it.'  Sure, we'll take vacations.  We have to, here and there. Fun trips, great places sometimes..  but deciding to hog what you can while there's still some in the ground is just glutting.  There are some critical things we might only be able to accomplish by using what we can from this remaining resource, and BEFORE the run on the bank comes.  Retooling industries, Redeveloping Railways, Researching other Alternatives, Rehashing the Highway System (Asphalt, you should already know, is a Byproduct of Petrol Distillation), Building Zeppelins??, ..  I don't think this has to throw us back to the Stone Age, but it could.  It could.  And "Let's Party til it's over, then we'll figure it out" sounds like a roadsign to the Stone Age.

"It's not over 'til I say it's over! WHO'S WITH ME?!" -bluto

Many places in the old and new testaments of The Bible refer to a seven year tribulation followed by a judgment. We appear to be in a position that many of the catastrophic events prophesied in relation to this tribulation seem downright inevitable in the wake of peak oil, climate change, declining water tables, etc. These include wars, rumors of wars, kingdom against kingdom, famine, pestilence, brother betraying brother.

A tribulation is a testing. Jesus says very clearly that the judgment after the tribulation will be based upon how we meet the needs of "the least of our brothers". What if this tribulation were something like peak oil, and the question that we may be answering is, what did you do, when you had the opportunity to take for yourself and others were left short?

You don't hear too many Christian churches looking at it from this angle, but it's all right there.

Suggestions for future polls:

Is driving a gasoline-powered auto wrong?

Is driving an electric-powered auto wrong?

Is pushing a Harley instead of riding a rice-burner wrong?

Is living in more than 320 SF per person wrong?
(I divided the area of my house by the number of people living there.)  

(We're considering an addition.  A small addition. Is that wrong?)

Is heating your house with oil wrong?

Is heating your house with coal wrong?

Is heating your house with wood pellets wrong?
(Careful)

Is heating your house with corn, instead of making ethanol, wrong?

Is heating your house with hemp, instead of smoking it, wrong, man?

Is heating your house wrong?

Is eating animals instead of plants wrong?

Is agriculture wrong?
(tip of the hat to Jared Diamond)

Was inventing the bow and arrow wrong?

Is having more than two children wrong?

Is having more than one child wrong?
(tip of the hat to China)

Is having a child wrong?

Is being alive, and using resources that someone else could use, wrong?