THE Gas Rationing Thread (merged)

VMarcHart · **Posted:** Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:17 am

V-M,

Does the Alladin Lamp use more, the same, or less energy for the same amounts of utilit and comfort than a regular light bulb? Does it ration, use the same, or more?

Thanks.

mos6507 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:55 am

vision-master wrote:

I have 14 Aladdin working lamps. :razz:

Just for show or do you actually use them? I certainly hope you don't think it's a smart idea to waste kerosene on lighting.

vetusfirma · **Posted:** Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:24 pm

lper100km wrote:

jlw61 wrote:

lper100km wrote:

IMO, trying to maintain a ‘free’ market in this scenario will merely accelerate the global economic freefall.

Not as fast as putting government controls onto the distribution of the product. Only the free market can adequately provide the fairest price. FREE MARKET that is, and yes, the oil market has some definite problems on that count, but adding to it with more controls will cause more problems than it will solve.

I’m not sure why you think that a free market will solve the problem. It’s the free market that has brought the world to this situation by not fully understanding and caring about the implications of consuming a finite resource. When you’re on the sustained depletion side of the resource curve, as opposed to the growth side, the economic model cannot be the same. This is something no one has ever faced, especially in a global economy. Why would you think that a continuation of the free market model will get us out of it? A reversal of the economic model probably requires a reversal of approach. More likely a controlled market has a greater chance of success of conserving the resource and prolonging the transition period. That can’t be a bad thing. It buys needed time for a transition to alternative societal structures and economies. It won’t be pretty, but neither will a distorted decline to zero which a free market will surely bring on, and very quickly.

Frankly, I don’t think anyone will get the choice. As the economy declines and civil unrest builds national governments will introduce all sorts of emergency legislation which will culminate in totalitarian regimes. It will start in ‘necessary’ areas, say with reserving supplies for the military, police and emergency services. Then maybe extend to ‘essential’ trucking, such as food supply. Of course, these will be backed up by enforcement regulations and appropriate penalties for cheating. And so it will go. Each new crisis will be met with stricter controls until, before you know it, your life is constrained in ways you have never before experienced. But it will be accepted because you can still get food and you are ‘secure’. There will be enforced conservation of course. Permits for this and that. Gasoline rationing for sure. You can’t holiday in Mexico because discretionary travel is severely curtailed and in any case the few airlines that remain are all government owned and operated. If you manage to sell your house, you can’t find a moving van for your possessions because the trucking companies are bankrupt. The only job you can get is part time with some obscure government agency at minimum pay and no pension. One day you wake up and realize there hasn’t been an election in six years. Well, what the hell! By this time you are so demoralized, on welfare, sick and fatigued you won’t care. So it will go. Welcome to the totalitarian state, step by little step, all perfectly logical, legal and necessary. You think it can’t happen? Of course it can and likely will with everyone’s support into the bargain.

jlw61 wrote:

lper100km wrote:

At some point, the ‘rights’ of individuals to access oil simply because they have money will become an outrageous concept.

Only if socialism takes over. And thanks, but we've seen how that works out.

Regarding outrage against conspicuous oil consumption, you don’t have to wait for anything. It’s already happening. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... suv07.html

A well thought out rant, but while I like some of the incites into your world, I must object to your position that government control of oil will result in better use.

I can find no historical example where government control of a resource resulted in a more efficient or 'better' use. If we look at the fact that most of the oil in the world is controlled by governments right now, then the concept fails on the surface. Even governments that don't 'own' oil have the ability to control use though taxation.

Perhaps a benign world dictator could take control of all the oil, for our own good, but that would just mean it would be used for Mr. dictator and friends.

The oil is going to run out. Nothing will stop that. Nothing could have stopped it.

nocar · **Joined:** Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:00 am **Posts:** 727

Quote:

I can find no historical example where government control of a resource resulted in a more efficient or 'better' use.

I know one historical example, Sweden in WWI and WWII.

In WWI, many basic commodities suddenly became scarce. Some businessmen were able to make lots of money from the situation, while other, particularly workers in cities were starving. There were ' bread riots'. At the end of the war, some rationing was introduced, but too late to have an impact.

In WWII the government had learned a lesson and rationing of basic foods and clothing was introduced from the start. You got coupons that entitled you to buy things like eggs, milk, bread, butter, with different coupons. The number of coupons depended on the number of people in the household. Underweight children got extra coupons.

Overall, the rationing system was perceived as fair. Certainly there were loopholes, like some produce escaped the rationing system and was sold on the black market. And city people with country relative might get some extra produce that way. There also was an extensive trading of coupons. As I understand it, just exchanging different types for coupons with someone else was legal, outright selling was not.

So although the rationing system in WWII did not work perfectly, it ensured that everyone got their basic needs met, and it was generally considered a success compared to the chaotic free market situation in WWI just 20 yrs before.

Btw, petrol was not rationed in the same way. It was just not available for ordinary citizens, but reserved for emergency vehicles and the military. Everyone bicycled for their daily travels. Actually, the army had a specialty: A big truck would drive with equipment, and the soldiers were transported by riding bicycles holding on to a long rope after the truck. A very energy efficient way of moving a large number of people.

Btw, less butter but no starvation and more bicycling made the Swedish population very healthy in WWII. Not that it was a happy time, with all the worries of a possible German invasion, no international travel opportunities, and all the horrible war news.
I was not yet born, but I have heard many stories from my parent generation.

nocar

energycity · **Joined:** Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 122

HEADER_RACK wrote:

Rationing constrains and kills economic growth. It won't work

Economic growth? Nice idea but is this realistic if the world really is facing peak resources?

DomusAlbion wrote:

As always price will enforce rationing. Those who can't afford the cost will drive less or not at all.

I agree it's the simplest system to operate; the trouble is that some of the most essential workers are amongst the low paid. They would be priced out and I still want the sewers maintained, nurses doing their stuff, agricultural workers able to get to work etc. Some degree of non-cost related rationing would probably be necessary.

Plus I could sell my ration on the black market. :roll:

mos6507 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:50 pm

nocar wrote:

Btw, less butter but no starvation and more bicycling made the Swedish population very healthy in WWII. Not that it was a happy time, with all the worries of a possible German invasion, no international travel opportunities, and all the horrible war news.
I was not yet born, but I have heard many stories from my parent generation.

Seems like the countries that are the most level headed in a crisis are those that are very culturally/ethnically homogeneous. When the going gets tough, that's when ethnic clashes start up.

vetusfirma · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:18 pm

Don’t ration gas, ration oil. We need to make sure the oil we have goes to the sole purpose of perfecting replacement energy sources. To that end, as the bad guys in the world, we should take all the oil and be the worlds broker. The more fruitful research a country does, the more oil they will be allocated.

Or

Either all people must be forced to live at a lower standard of living or the number of people must be reduced, and kept at the higher standard of living, to stretch the useful life of fossil fuel. If you don’t want to force the issue then I want to know who here will volunteer to be in one of the four following groups:

1. The group that lives without oil.
2. The group that drinks the kool aid.
3. The group that makes everybody live without oil and drink kool aid.
4. The group of subsistence survivors who didn’t do anything meaningful.

energycity · **Joined:** Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 122

nocar wrote:

Btw, less butter but no starvation and more bicycling made the Swedish population very healthy in WWII. Not that it was a happy time, with all the worries of a possible German invasion, no international travel opportunities, and all the horrible war news.

It was the same in the UK; it's often said that we were never healthier than in WW2; hungry mind you, but healthier.

Like you we worried about "a possible German invasion" but according to my grandfather there were LOTS of "international travel opportunities" !!

vetusfirma · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:45 pm

energycity wrote:

nocar wrote:

Btw, less butter but no starvation and more bicycling made the Swedish population very healthy in WWII. Not that it was a happy time, with all the worries of a possible German invasion, no international travel opportunities, and all the horrible war news.

It was the same in the UK; it's often said that we were never healthier than in WW2; hungry mind you, but healthier.

Like you we worried about "a possible German invasion" but according to my grandfather there were LOTS of "international travel opportunities" !!

The problem with comparing before and after wars is that we tend to kill off a lot of our best reproductive age males and reproduce with the shirkers who stayed behind. When that happens enough times, the gene pool become weak. I personally think that is what happened to the Romans. Too many wars too quickly.

The Brits have had a lot of human expenditures maintaining the empire, and I think its taken a toll. I am not being disrespectful. I wish they would have kept the empire together. Would be alot different today.

nocar · **Joined:** Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:00 am **Posts:** 727

"The problem with comparing before and after wars is that we tend to kill off a lot of our best reproductive age males and reproduce with the shirkers who stayed behind."

In the Swedish case, we have not fought any war since 1809. The Swedish soldiers never had to fight in WW2, they just prepared for defending Sweden, due to the 'shirker' policies of the government.

In the USA, and many other countries many more young men have died in car accidents than in war, at least since WW2. How does that affect the gene pool?

nocar

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:12 pm

joelcolorado wrote:

I dont think rationing will cause the working man a problem honestly.

Oh? I am a general contractor. I have to buy as much gas as I need each day to run my business. Rationing means some days I don't work.

Quote:

If you cut out the millions of miles driven by schools and fans to sporting events, multiple vacations, trips out of town to shop and generally stupid stuff, we would have enough fuel.

People live way above where they need to live.

I have friends who spend $500 a week going to sporting events just for their kids in high school. So there is alot of waste out there.

Enough fuel, but no jobs.

Waste? In a capitalist economy, as in nature, there is no such thing as waste.

What do you think happens to that $500 spent on sporting events? It goes to support someone's job.

This "generally stupid stuff" employs millions.

Conservation is a self-induced recession that results in higher unemployment and business failures.

Conservation and capitalsim are like oil and water; they do not mix.

HEADER_RACK · **Joined:** Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:00 am **Posts:** 499

energycity wrote:

HEADER_RACK wrote:

Rationing constrains and kills economic growth. It won't work

Economic growth? Nice idea but is this realistic if the world really is facing peak resources?

No it isn't realistic. Our entire system is set up on growth.You have to have growth in order to move foward. You can not have growth with declines of energy. Thats a fact. You can't gain weight by eatting less food.
Rationing kills economic growth by limiting and in most cases reducing energy imput therefore making the system contract.
Peak resources does the same thing forced contraction due to declining energy input.

I'ts a no-win situation. Whether the decline in energy is artifical (rationing)or natural (peak then decline) it eventualy leads to the same conclusion. The system is Farked!!

yesplease · **Joined:** Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 3655

MonteQuest wrote:

Conservation and capitalsim are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Except in Europe.

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:18 pm

yesplease wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:

Conservation and capitalsim are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Except in Europe.

Not.

yesplease · **Joined:** Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:00 am **Posts:** 3655

MonteQuest wrote:

yesplease wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:

Conservation and capitalsim are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Except in Europe.

Not.

Don't tell those Europeans that. :lol:

Quote:

For decades, European countries have imposed high taxes on fuel to encourage conservation and fuel-efficient technologies while funding public transportation. In England, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the taxes on gas are more than twice as much as the underlying cost of the fuel.

The only thing noticeable about liquid fuel use in the states is that for the most part, it's use has been as wasteful as possible.

To the point where newer semis, that weigh about fifteen times what the average American vehicle weighs can get ~12mpg, while the average American passenger auto gets ~17mpg.

It's not that conservation and capitalism can't mix, it's that conservation and high oil prices which are hugely profitable due to conspicuous consumption can't mix.

THE Gas Rationing Thread (merged)

Who is online