[BabyPeanut]

well?

[Ludi]

Conservation alone, without other, fundamental societal changes, will only make the problem worse.

[BabyPeanut]

Conservation changes one factor and that is time. What will happen in that time is a question. If it's worth it to conserve is a question.

[Wildwell]

Conservation just gives you time to innovate that's all. But change has to come whether anybody likes it or not. The results of that change and the processes and reactions we can only guess at.

[chargrove]

With as tight as things are right now, conservation has a very real possibility of impacting the economy hard enough to set things off just as fast as the resource issue could.

Think about a corporation where workers are already working incredible amounts of (often unpaid) overtime to get things done and keep the company afloat. Now what happens if a non-trivial number of these employees is slowed down in their commutes by being forced to use public transit? PT is a good thing ecologically, but it's hard to deny that it has an economic impact when people are already short enough on time as it is. If the time isn't taken out of work time, then it's taken out of (already minimal) personal time, impacting the workers' psychological health and probably their productivity at the workplace.

Not only is our economy at the end of its rope, but it's also wholly dependent on everything being able to be done now Now NOW. Any delays in this, as generally implied by conservation measures, may have a significant impact.

From my seat, we're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

[oowolf]

Real conservation we'll only have when we've no choice: rationing and high prices. Current "conservation" efforts are the equivalent of installing water-restricting shower nozzles on the Titanic.

[khebab]

It's really a difficult question. I believe (or hope) conservation will give us the time we need to soften the landing a bit. Most of our oil consumption comes from personal transportation and most of it is non life threatening so we should be able to change our consumption pattern. What worries me the most is the "dont'worry, be happy" attitute that most politicians and economists have. We need political courage in order to prepare and educate the population before it is too late.

[Liamj]

I voted 'd', but wasn't at all pleased when saw everyone else had too! Wheres a guy got to go to get some optimism around here??!?!

Real conservation we'll only have when we've no choice: rationing and high prices. Current "conservation" efforts are the equivalent of installing water-restricting shower nozzles on the Titanic.

Nice one, mind if reuse it? am a big fan of cute analogies..

[killJOY]

Conservation as an ameliorative measure died in 1980 with the election of Reagan. It (conservation) was disinterred and had a stake driven through its heart in 1984 when said robot was reelected.

Conservation will do only one thing: save my own ass.

It's called "living without."

The expression is "too little too late."

[Wildwell]

With as tight as things are right now, conservation has a very real possibility of impacting the economy hard enough to set things off just as fast as the resource issue could.

Think about a corporation where workers are already working incredible amounts of (often unpaid) overtime to get things done and keep the company afloat. Now what happens if a non-trivial number of these employees is slowed down in their commutes by being forced to use public transit? PT is a good thing ecologically, but it's hard to deny that it has an economic impact when people are already short enough on time as it is. If the time isn't taken out of work time, then it's taken out of (already minimal) personal time, impacting the workers' psychological health and probably their productivity at the workplace.

Not only is our economy at the end of its rope, but it's also wholly dependent on everything being able to be done now Now NOW. Any delays in this, as generally implied by conservation measures, may have a significant impact.

From my seat, we're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Conservation on the whole is a money maker for consumers and makes the economy more efficient. If people are diverted onto public transport that implies there is less congestion so overall more people would save time. A lot of people might actually be more productive using public transport. You can plug your laptop in and work or catch up with emails and paperwork, therefore again they would be more productive.

Also if oil price falls due to conservation a lot of people save money.

You Americans have some very strange ways of thinking you know, it must be all the advertising!

[Ludi]

Personally, I'd like to see a gradual transition away from our "productive" way of life. People work too hard for too little.

[killJOY]

"You Americans"

Screw you, bigot.

[Wildwell]

Personally, I'd like to see a gradual transition away from our "productive" way of life. People work too hard for too little.

There's such a thing as working smarter. Productivity can mean more time at home or more pay.

The US does tend to have less time off. Personally I prefer quality time with friends and family, life is not all about work.

[Wildwell]

"You Americans"

Screw you, bigot.

A gross over generalization I admit, it was suppose to be slightly tongue in cheek.

Oh and the only people that benefit from high oil prices and demand is the Arabs. You know like Bin Laden.

[chris-h]

Real conservation we'll only have when we've no choice: rationing and high prices. Current "conservation" efforts are the equivalent of installing water-restricting shower nozzles on the Titanic.

Yes.Exactly my thoughts.

[Ludi]

Productivity can mean more time at home or more pay.

What I mean is that the rewards we get from "productivity" in our society are very few. We get virtually no real security or support, for all our hard work. Tribal peoples/hunter-gatherers work much less than we do and have real security and support, and a sense of belonging and community, things sorely lacking in our culture. If we spent less energy on working for more material things and more on working to build community, we'd be more secure in a real sense.