Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not coincidence that just about every major auto manufacturer is putting at least one 100% electric vehicle on the market in this decade. Oil will only get more expensive, and it presents a major challenge for our world to overcome, being that cheap oil is literally the "achilles' heel" of our civilization.
But still, it's not time to build a spam bunker out in the woods. Peak oil means change, not armageddon.
My question is, how will that change effect the economy? Will it crash and burn, or bloom when as-of-yet unrealized opportunities are opened by new technologies? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
How do you see the game changing as a result of ever-increasing fuel prices?
The answer depends on a few things. If we continue to embrace auto-dependent suburbia and the Interstate Highway system as our major lifestyle, then we're screwed. If we continue to try to re-inflate the economy with another real estate bubble and all nature of bailouts, then we're screwed. If we continue to have a wide open door to immigration--especially illegal immigration, then we're screwed. If we continue only to think about our present comfort and not even worry about how the next generation is going to survive, then we're screwed.
If we quit, both directly and indirectly, subsidizing suburbia, then we've got a chance. If we start rebuilding our rail transportation system, both conventional rail and freight, then we have a chance. If we quit subsidizing financial irresponsibility and unproductive speculation, then we have a chance. If we close to borders to all but those we Americans actually want to immigrate to this country, then we have a chance. If we start thinking about how to start saving something--money, resources, land, the environment--for the future generations, then we have a chance.
If want to know the future, look at what we are doing right now, compared to what I believe that we should be doing, and ask yourself what the outcome is going to be.
The answer depends on a few things. If we continue to embrace auto-dependent suburbia and the Interstate Highway system as our major lifestyle, then we're screwed. If we continue to try to re-inflate the economy with another real estate bubble and all nature of bailouts, then we're screwed. If we continue to have a wide open door to immigration--especially illegal immigration, then we're screwed. If we continue only to think about our present comfort and not even worry about how the next generation is going to survive, then we're screwed.
If we quit, both directly and indirectly, subsidizing suburbia, then we've got a chance. If we start rebuilding our rail transportation system, both conventional rail and freight, then we have a chance. If we quit subsidizing financial irresponsibility and unproductive speculation, then we have a chance. If we close to borders to all but those we Americans actually want to immigrate to this country, then we have a chance. If we start thinking about how to start saving something--money, resources, land, the environment--for the future generations, then we have a chance.
If want to know the future, look at what we are doing right now, compared to what I believe that we should be doing, and ask yourself what the outcome is going to be.
We're in trouble, but I just don't buy the Kunstler-esque Doomsday for Suburbia argument. It is not acceptable, nor practical or particularly intelligent to completely abandon our entire way of life all at once and move to the big city, not to mention Kunstler thinks big cities are the most unsustainable places of all and would do away with any building more than 5 stories tall.
Of course, there are plenty of places already that have crammed millions of people in tight quarters without skyscrapers a huge upgrade on the infrastructure to handle them...
Is this really best solution?
I've argued this before, but electric cars CAN take up the slack. The Nissan Leaf goes up to 100 Miles w/out a charge, which means you could theoretically live as far as 40-50 miles away from work and still get there and back everyday. Plus, promising work in rapid charging could make it possible to charge an electric car in minutes instead of hours, though it is a few years away from being practical.
Interstate travel would require railroads again instead of trucks, which could even be run on a retro-futeristic coal fired boiler engine.
The power grid as it is would not support 200 million electric cars, but we could fill in the gaps with more nuclear power, solar power on private homes, and even more coal fired plants as a stop-gap measure. It would be difficult, but not impossible...
How do you see the game changing as a result of ever-increasing fuel prices?
Ironic that just about every single thing in day to day life is touched by oil, directly or indirectly...
I'm trying to think of one single item in my house or office that wasn't touched by oil at some point, in the sense of production and distribution. I can't come up with anything...
I figure day to day life is going to get much more expensive to maintain the 'status quo' for those unwilling to downsize and simplify.
The economy follows the price of oil exactly. If you do not believe it Google the correlation between oil prices and economy and look at the charts.
Between oil prices, stagnant employment, rising interest rates, inflated commodities, and a double dip in the housing market, and State and local governmental debt fiasco's, 2011 looks to be a rough road ahead.
IMHO: As a country pointing towards the "thieves" in DC couldn't get out of their own way if their lives depended on it all for the sake of their unethical behaviors on the whole.
In other words for the sake of BS that goes on there planning ahead is not their middle name in as well as to "wait until the flames consume the house then call the fire department".
We could have done the correct things long ago to head this potential commodity to "choke" us. Now what and how is up to debate, but actions (of whatever) should have been taken and not await "for the house to burn down first".
It will effect the economy as consumers will purchase less of whatever meaning demand for such will drop even more as well.
Couple that with the unemployment situation and that makes for a REAL mess.
The $147 a barrel oil was the death nail in 2008. A fragile recovery cannot handle high oil prices. OPEC knew it wasn't in their best interest to push oil beyond $100 because it would accelerate exploration of alternatives and conservation.
If it spikes to $5 most Americans will scream like they did last time.
The economy follows the price of oil exactly. If you do not believe it Google the correlation between oil prices and economy and look at the charts.
Between oil prices, stagnant employment, rising interest rates, inflated commodities, and a double dip in the housing market, and State and local governmental debt fiasco's, 2011 looks to be a rough road ahead.
It could be that it's the other way around - that the price of oil follows the economy.
It could be that it's the other way around - that the price of oil follows the economy.
The price of oil is usually (not always) inverse to the dollar. The dollar is a bit toppy here, due to the failure of the Euro, and as it settles back down, oil will tend to rise - just as gold and silver will, also.
None of this is good for "the economy" as most people think of that meaning.
My question is, how will that change effect the economy? Will it crash and burn, or bloom when as-of-yet unrealized opportunities are opened by new technologies? Maybe somewhere in the middle?
How do you see the game changing as a result of ever-increasing fuel prices?
You have to remember oil is inelastic in the short term but elastic in the long term.
People will pay the costs in the short term, and then seek alternatives. With respect to oil as transportation, there are many alternatives, and people (in the US) generally employ them incrementally.
What you always see is people start combining trips and going out less often. That has a negative impact on retailers and restaurants. Then they begin car-pooling or using public mass transit, and then they seek more efficient vehicles (that's usually 18-36 months down the road from the start of rising fuel costs).
Not much has changed. There are the same slew of "fuel efficient" autos, and then now there are hybrids.
I don't see hybrids as the alternative. They might be cheap now, but as more people get them, don't think for a moment utility costs will remain static.
A lot of regions in the US are maxed out electric wise. Extra energy is brought in from competitors, which ain't cheap. Sure, you can build windmills, but that will take a few years and you won't reap the benefits for a few years more after that, and then start-up costs are horrendous and you'll pay for that, naturally, so you don't really win (or wind).
Outside of personal transportation it's far more serious. Businesses will eat higher transportation costs in the short term, but after that those costs start getting passed on to you in the form of higher prices for goods and services. UPS and Fedex don't wait even a minute before adding the fuel surcharge to the cost of shipping.
Pharmaceutical costs will rise, since medication is almost entirely oil, especially imported light oil. Liquid detergents too. Liquid laundry detergent is about 80% imported oil, everything from the plastic cap, to the plastic bottle, the dyes that make the plastic the pretty orange-color for Tide, the adhesive on the label, the inks for the label, the neodol (an organic oil-based alcohol) in the detergent and the active ingredient, which I'm at a loss to remember, which makes the detergent work. You use oil-based solvents for things oil, right? That's why your car leaking oil on your asphalt driveway destroys it. Trienthanolomine I think is what it is.
What we saw before is that at $3/gallon about 12%-15% of the population is forced to alter their life-style, and by the time you get to $4/gallon it's about 60% of the population has to alter their life-style in order to pay for fuel and absorb the increased costs of goods and services associated with it.
$5/gallon is kind of uncharted territory, although I think we came close at $4.50/gallon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
