[Ludi]

Raising rabbits in the backyard?

(Allusion to a Michael Moore's documentary about Flint, Michigan, after GM sent its Flint factories to Mexico.)

Wouldn't this probably represent a drop in my standard of living?

[Ludi]

You get another job in something they do want, bad luck you backed the wrong horse..

What if all those jobs are taken by all the other people put out of work?

[Wildwell]

You get another job in something they do want, bad luck you backed the wrong horse..

What if all those jobs are taken by all the other people put out of work?

Then think of another job...

For example you could teach that chicken in your avatar to say 'get out than damn SUV' and stand on the street corner for cash. Or tie it with in brethren to a cart and taxi people around to downtown Houston...

Falling that it better go on the game..

IE Use your imagination.

[EnergySpin]

IE Use your imagination.

Firefox loads faster.

[MonteQuest]

reduced sales of WHAT will have an effect throughout the economy??

1 out of every 6 jobs is tied to the auto industry.

People drive their cars to go consume or to earn the money to go consume.

Drive less=less consumption, not only of gas and oil, but fast food, convenience marts, movies, motels, tires, batteries, auto parts, car washes, and all manner of impulse buying along the strip malls that litter America.

To conserve gasoline means conserving everything else.

Connect the dots.

[MonteQuest]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear:

I am not anti-conservation nor anti-efficiency.

We must do both.

But we must realize that they are nothing but short-term stopgaps that fail to address the overlying problem. A 20% conservation ethic would be eclipsed by current population growth in 20 years. Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption.

We must acknowledge that these "solutions" have problems associated with them.

Conservation is voluntary "demand destruction."

Demand destruction causes recessions and high unemployment.

If you conserve energy, you cannot use it someplace else, to say build renewables, or provide other employment.

You defeat the purpose.

All I am saying is we need to consider and address these short-comings. We ignore the reality at our own peril.

[Wildwell]

Well there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles. You don't advise GM out of interest? I see they are just about to go down the pan still trying to sell SUVs when much better, more efficient, Japanese cars are on the market...

[Wildwell]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear:

I am not anti-conservation nor anti-efficiency.

We must do both.

But we must realize that they are nothing but short-term stopgaps that fail to address the overlying problem. A 20% conservation ethic would be eclipsed by current population growth in 20 years. Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption.

We must acknowledge that these "solutions" have problems associated with them.

Conservation is voluntary "demand destruction."

Demand destruction causes recessions and high unemployment.

If you conserve energy, you cannot use it someplace else, to say build renewables, or provide other employment.

You defeat the purpose.

All I am saying is we need to consider and address these short-comings. We ignore the reality at our own peril.

Well make up your mind! And population in first world countries in not such a problem, it's the developing countries as I keep saying...

Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption, yes, because of cheap fuels which are increasing in demand…but the economy IS becoming more efficient AND post peak you have a falling supply anyway…

I have to be honest I’m increasing finding this subject rather silly…

So now you've finally come around to my way of thinking, when are you going to Ebay that sports car?

[MonteQuest]

Well there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles.

Buying a new car is being conservative?

Conservation means using less with what you already have. If you use less by buying a more efficient car, it is due to an increase in efficiency which promotes increased use. In fact, the increase in efficiency of the new car caused an increase in energy consumption by you buying it.

[MonteQuest]

Well make up your mind!

I have not changed my position since my first post.

Efficiency gains have historically promoted an increase in consumption, yes, because of cheap fuels which are increasing in demand…but the economy IS becoming more efficient AND post peak you have a falling supply anyway…

No, efficiency gains have promoted an increase in consumption because they make the energy source cheaper.

I have to be honest I’m increasing finding this subject rather silly…

It is silly for you to ignore reality, yes.

[Wildwell]

Well there we go MQ, just proves your lack of understanding...

I said 'conservation'...which means, instead of buying 15mpg SUVs, people buy 40mpg cars, and this would actually create sales for the car company making the right vehicles.

Buying a new car is being conservative?

Conservation means using less with what you already have. If you use less by buying a more efficient car, it is due to an increase in efficiency which promotes increased use. In fact, the increase in efficiency of the new car caused an increase in energy consumption by you buying it.

Two things here: How can in promote increased use if the price of its fuel keeps going up, as it is now?

Second: Surely because I buy a car twice as efficient it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to drive twice as far?

Let’s get down to brass tacks, what are you promoting? You don’t want a demand destruction incident that will cause loss of jobs – I’d agree there is a risk of that yes. You want to waste money by fuelling inefficient cars and pollute the environment more. You want no big crash and die off, yet you don’t want to do anything to promote anything otherwise, even by changing your own circumstances. How do you know we are not post peak? I've suggested putting tax on fuel to fund alternatives and reduce demand, yet you have rejected that saying it will cost jobs...What do you want?

[MonteQuest]

What do you want?

A paradigm shift in our world view.

[Wildwell]

I think you'll get that, at least looking around at the time of writing.

[MonteQuest]

Two things here: How can in promote increased use if the price of its fuel keeps going up, as it is now?

Will increased efficiencies make the use cheaper? It had better or there is no incentive.

Second: Surely because I buy a car twice as efficient it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to drive twice as far?

History says you will increase it's use, yes.

You want to waste money by fuelling inefficient cars and pollute the environment more.

I have never said that.

You want no big crash and die off, yet you don’t want to do anything to promote anything otherwise, even by changing your own circumstances.

Not so. My personal efforts have been explained ad naseum.

How do you know we are not post peak? I've suggested putting tax on fuel to fund alternatives and reduce demand, yet you have rejected that saying it will cost jobs?

No, I said it will have consequences that will need to be addressed.

[Wildwell]

Dutch pay three Euros to drivers to leave their cars at home and reduce speed limits on roads to curb pollution and save energy

http://www.t-e.nu/docs/Press/2005/2005- ... t_tran.pdf

[Daryl]

Let's say the government takes the advice of arch conservative Charles Krauthammer and imposes a fluctuating tax on gasoline that pins the price at $3 per gallon. Simultaneously, they reduce income taxes so that the gas tax is revenue neutral. There will be no negative impact on the economy. Gas will not get cheaper due to less demand, or if it does, that means the tax revenue increases, which is offset by a greater income tax refund at year end.

I personally would like to see the revenue from the gas tax funneled into job producing alternative investments. I would accept the small theoretical net negative impact on the economy in exchange for the greater gain of jumpstarting the move to alternatives i.e. rail and mass transit. From a political realism point of view, though, it would be best to start with a tax neutral plan. At least we could start getting oil consumption down. The auto industry would start also to change in the right direction and the economy would have more time to adjust to the higher fuel prices that are coming.

In my view the major risks to the economy are from a rapid change in energy prices. It is much more likely that the economy can make adjustments to gradual changes. It is the quick dislocations that create the greateset risks. Pinning gas at $3 now would shake out all the cogs in the economy that can't survive at $3. Would clear the way for $4 and $5 down the road. Hopefully that could be done in a gradual fashion by increasing the tax.

The economy is always changing. Industries come and go. The adjustment to more expensive energy will be made without die-off. We are not organisms in a petri dish.

[DoctorDoom]

I think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources. This is clearly not the case; world GDP has risen faster than energy use in the past 30 years, as was posted on another thread. That's world, not US, so the argument that the resource-consuming activities were "outsourced" doesn't hold water.

All you need to do is perform a thought experiment: imagine a community of cavemen, where some number of them spend their time hunting to gather food for the community. Someone invents a better weapon, and now half the number of hunters are needed for the same amount of food. Sure, we could then double the number of cavemen and double the resource consumption, but even here, all the new cavemen will have to find something besides hunting to contribute to the group. Or we could redeploy the hunters to do something else. The something else does not have to consume more natural resources to expand the "GDP" of the group. They could, for example, spend their time cleaning up the camp, learning how to heal sick/injured cavemen, etc.

It's true that you can't just take 100,000 unemployed auto workers and put them to work in healthcare, but the point is that in a large and complex economy declines in one area can be made up in others, though not necessarily with the same people. We need to decrease the number of economically useful activities that consume many natural resources and increase the number of economically useful activities that consume few natural resources. Just to give a few more modern examples, movies, books, software, and medicine have a much higher GDP/resource-used quotient than transportation, heating, food production, etc. Obviously we need to keep people fed, warm, etc., this is the problem with arguments that we shouldn't worry about these basic, essential parts of the economy, but if we can do these things more efficiently it needn't mean economic decline.

Jevon's so-called paradox is inapplicable - you can't consume what you don't have, so increased consumption in response to conservation simply won't happen, it physically cannot. In an era of declining resources the price will rise and consumption will fall, and the question is whether this is manageable or whether it leads necessarily to collapse.

[johnmarkos]

I think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources. This is clearly not the case; world GDP has risen faster than energy use in the past 30 years, as was posted on another thread. That's world, not US, so the argument that the resource-consuming activities were "outsourced" doesn't hold water.

Jamais Cascio over at WorldChanging says that US carbon dioxide output (which is kinda sorta like energy use) will peak and decline soon, even as the GDP continues to rise.

I think it's possible to engage in quite a bit of economic activity without using a great deal of energy. I don't think it's true that there's some kind of upper limit to conservation. Nor do I think that more advanced technology necessarily uses more energy.

[MonteQuest]

I think the problem with the "conservation = lost jobs" argument is the assumption that all jobs/GDP/whatever needs to consume more resources.

No, it is the assumption that a 10% conservation is the same as a 10% cut in sales.

For example: If sales at company A fell 10%.

Which of the following was the culprit?

1. Conservation 10%
2. Demand destruction 10%
3. Loss sales 10%

Doesn't really matter does it?

Lost sales are lost sales = loss of jobs.

This is clearly not the case; world GDP has risen faster than energy use in the past 30 years, as was posted on another thread. That's world, not US, so the argument that the resource-consuming activities were "outsourced" doesn't hold water.

That's because 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation and debt-financed, not the result of the real production of goods and services that raised purchasing wages, thus less consumption of energy to achieve a rise in GDP.

Jevon's so-called paradox is inapplicable - you can't consume what you don't have, so increased consumption in response to conservation simply won't happen, it physically cannot. In an era of declining resources the price will rise and consumption will fall, and the question is whether this is manageable or whether it leads necessarily to collapse.

Prices will rise yes, but will they rise as much as they would have without the increase in efficiency? In a free market they won't. The lower price will increase consumption.

Look at what is happening with gas prices right now. As the price drops, demand increases.

[Tanada]

Jevon's so-called paradox is inapplicable - you can't consume what you don't have, so increased consumption in response to conservation simply won't happen, it physically cannot. In an era of declining resources the price will rise and consumption will fall, and the question is whether this is manageable or whether it leads necessarily to collapse.

Prices will rise yes, but will they rise as much as they would have without the increase in efficiency? In a free market they won't. The lower price will increase consumption.

Look at what is happening with gas prices right now. As the price drops, demand increases.

Monte think about what you are saying, if there is X of a material, in this case crude oil, and the price goes to Y so that you decide to conserve X as much as possible you can not increase overall consumption. All you can do is shift consumption to additional parties becase as you consume less you free up the resource X for other consumers to use. You have NOT increased consumption, you just spread it around to more consumers each using less than the orriginal.