Rug Burn Junky on 19/4/2006 at 21:09
Quote Posted by Starrfall
blahblahblah(Mostly by Rug Burn) blahblahblah(mostly by Rug Burn).
I take a subway to work everyday, and walk the three miles home (over the big fat honking hill that is the Brooklyn Bridge), and expressly didn't get one of those big SUV thingies just so I wouldn't be a dick and rape the environment, and this is the thanks I get?
I'll tell you, missie, that's it. The kindler and gentler Rug Burn ends right now. I'm taking a big fat Lincoln Town Car to and from work every day from now on.
Then you'll be sorry.
Stitch on 19/4/2006 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Starrfall
I still think that at this moment in time, a certain level of consumption (and I think it's not overly low) is guarunteed. (Mostly by Rug Burn) There's only so far you or I or anyone can reduce energy use. It might vary, but until alternatives are easier to get, gas will be bought because plenty of people don't have (reasonable) options, and it'll be bought despite increases in price (mostly by Rug Burn).
I'm not arguing for a gas free country, as it's completely unrealistic, at least within my lifetime. People are going to have cars and they are going to drive them, which is fine. Even gasoline-conserving alternatives like public transportation usually run on gas.
But what we
will see is a change in the amount of gas we consume as individuals. Carpooling and public transporation usage will skyrocket. SUVs will rot in used car lots like beached whales. Fast forward a generation or two and I'm guessing you'll find tightly-designed cities and communities that don't hinge on commuting suburbanites.
All of which is idle speculation on my part, of course, but
something is going to happen once we reach the breaking point where gas is simply too expensive for us to continue our current way of life.
Gingerbread Man on 19/4/2006 at 21:24
Just like something happened before... Children and adults alike still shudder at the whispered name of what happened. They say it was a period of horror unlike any other, they hint at terrible colours and fabrics that stretched beyond the laws of sane physics... There are rumours of narrow ties with keyboards on them, lapels as thin as the legs of tapered jeans, and an unhealthy obsession with aerobics.
Many of us who lived through What Happened Next are still scarred and cannot look at Jennifer Beals without the skin on our legs crawling under phantom leg warmers. We do not speak it aloud, but we know that the social catastrophe of the 1980s was the direct result of the gas shortages. It is too horrible to contemplate it happening again. We, as a species, cannot withstand a renewed assault.
:(
Stitch on 19/4/2006 at 21:32
China's going to result in a world where keytars are permanently cool :cool:
Azal on 20/4/2006 at 05:44
Quote Posted by tungsten
I'll leave it to you to make the barrel oil per capita calculation.
The snippet from your post makes me think that countries like Japan or Europe are much richer than the USA - at least they can afford this
expensive alternative. Or in other words: it's not really more expensive but it takes an effort in the beginning.
Uh, that's exactly what I was pointing out. The initial outlay is currently prohibitive for switching from petroleum-based fuels to anything else.
For tiny little countries with effecient public transport systems, such as are found in Europe, is it really so surprising that their fuel consumption is lower than large nations?
Also France uses a lot more nuclear power than the US and doesn't have all the red tape associated with building such infrastructure. If memory serves, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US since before the Three Mile Island incident.
Such a state of affairs wouldn't be solely due to the nuclear boogey man, but rather endless bureaucratic financial burdens faced by US companies that are not mirrored in their European or Aisan counterparts.
After all, companies exist to make money. If building nuclear plants isn't going to turn a profit, then they simply won't be built. In America.
So, for poor countries, countries not so prone to nuclear hysteria, countries with decent public transport, or small countries it really isn't saying anything to point out that they use less fuel than large countries with poor public transport and nuclear-phobia.
Quote:
The oil consuption of the US is just way off the scale. Of course the long range thoughts circle around the problem that we do not want to let other countries follow the path we took (the dirty but cheap industrialisation). Imagine China and India with an oil consumption/person like the US!!
No argument there. The US is infamously wastefull of natural resources.
Quote:
My point is, the US can afford to (slowly) change their policy/consumption like Europe does/did. Without that, it will be even harder to tell China and India not to take our path.
And my pont was that, compared to petroleum, the other options are more expensive to get going and, due to petroleum still being a cheaper alternative, there is no great incentive to switch.
As the price creeps up, of course, that situation will change - even in the US.
PigLick on 20/4/2006 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Stitch
China's going to result in a world where keytars are permanently cool :cool:
This can only be a good thing, right? Roll on price hikes!
tungsten on 20/4/2006 at 12:29
Quote Posted by Azal
And my pont was that, compared to petroleum, the other options are more expensive to get going and, due to petroleum still being a cheaper alternative, there is no great incentive to switch.
As the price creeps up, of course, that situation will change - even in the US.
I agree with the rest, but that part is as wrong as many (industrial) leaders of the US are (depending on the subject of course). Toyota is already supporting (saving?) GM. And it will get much worse, because Toyota actually invested lots of money in research
before it is
necessary/the cheaper alternative And they are and will be ahead for this. So at least the researchers and companies should switch now. Which also makes the change cheaper for the consumer (mass market). So yes, there is a big incentive to switch - at least for the producer side.
I predict that much of the west will go under, and eastern Asia (China, Korea, Japan...) will be the economic superpowers. No, I don't take bets on that one ;)
Convict on 22/4/2006 at 12:37
D'Juhn I have fixed the graph labels etc and hopefully made it easier to understand by adding colours (I assume that you didn't do economics).
Inline Image:
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6619/oilsupplyanddemand2ym.pngFigure 1 shows that as the price of oil goes up, there is less demand for the oil (note that increases and decreases of supply or demand are a different thing), represented by the demand curve (line) showing more oil bought at lower prices and less oil bought at higher prices (the line is formed by the amount of oil bought at each price of oil and hence to find the amount of oil bought at any given price simply draw a line from the price you are looking at across to the demand curve and then down to the quantity that will be sold).
If local oil companies are artificially hiking up the price of oil (as Enchantermon suggested) to the "Artificially high price" then the amount of oil sold will be "Amount sold" which is less than before. This is simply restating the obvious that at higher prices of fuel less will be bought.
Since Australia (and most other countries) import nearly all their oil, then if it is only the local companies putting up the price at the pump and the import price of oil remains constant, then less oil will be sold and less money will be transferred overseas (to the Middle East). Therefore Australia's current account deficit is reduced (assuming other things stay the same).
Did this explain it? :erg:
jstnomega on 22/4/2006 at 14:39
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Is that all we've established so far?
+ adjusted for inflation, here in The States anyway, it's still cheaper today than it was in 1980
D'Juhn Keep on 22/4/2006 at 14:54
Quote Posted by Convict
D'Juhn I have fixed the graph labels etc and hopefully made it easier to understand by adding colours
Are you doing this deliberately? Thanks for adding the colours so that my feeble brain can comprehend the graph but what I want you to show to me is the PROOF THAT THIS IS IN FACT WHAT HAPPENS
All I want to see is one graph showing real life data that indicates that if the price of fuel rises by x, demand drops by y and that y is a significant enough figure to change the amount of oil imported by a country and therefore affect its current account deficit.
