Scary alternet article...

[conuly]

It's about oil.

I don't know the accuracy of the article. It doesn't especially matter, we know and have known for years that fossil fuels are nonrenewable. Furthermore, we know, or should know, that the United States has the highest per capita consumption rate in the world. And if we don't know this, we should figure it out soon, our dependency on foreign oil is crippling us.

What pisses me off is that there are so many ways to reduce our dependancy on oil. I could retrofit my house to be fairly self-sustained (okay, it'd be hard, especially as solar power is none to reliable this far north, but I could do it) and it wouldn't even kill the piggy bank. So it can't be that inconceivable for us to do something larger!

Let's see what we've got:

1. Look into alternative energy sources
a. solar
b. wind
c. natural gas/methane (which is actually renewable)
d. hydroelectric (okay, so it is hell to the fishies)
e. nuclear (eventually, we'll lack fissionable material and there is the meltdown risk, this is a last resort)

2. Reduce consumption on the main grid
a. make products more energy efficient
a1. make appliances that less energy while in use
a2. make appliances that use less energy while turned off... or simply unplug them. Most appliances use energy just by being plugged in.
b. for smaller appliances like radios, there are some which you can wind up, mostly used for camping or disasters... or you could convert gyms so that every time somebody runs on the treadmill or the bike, it produces some output :)

3. Reduce non-electric oil use in cars
a. electric cars, anyone? Or at least hybrids? Or at least NON-SUVS?
b. two words: public transportation. This also reduces traffic
c. two more words: BIKING and WALKING. This also reduces weight.

4. Reduce oil use for plastics
a. theoretically, one can make plastics (biodegradable!) from plants... but they stopped research into that
b. recycle?

This is all off the top of my head, of course. Any more ideas?

Based on that article, I think I want to start a commune to await the fall of civilization as we know it. Query. Do non-religious communes get tax breaks, or would I have to start a cult?

Comments

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

There are major problems with electric/hybrid vehicles or anything of the sort.

The oil companies, which have LOTS of money, would offer the inventor of, say, a hydrogen engine, so much money that they couldn't resist. Then oil companies would sit on the plans.

I'm a major proponent of hybrid cars. I wanted one, but mom pitched a fit about unsafe vehicles... wanted me to get an SUV, which I refused to do. My car now gets 23 - 27 miles to the gallon in the city.

In a city like Miami, public transportation is laughable. The train only shuttles up and down the main high way (and Miami spans much of South-east Florida... it's all one mass of city) and the buses... don't start me on the buses. If you don't have a car, you'll never get anywhere. And that's a BIG problem.

[conuly]

1. What problems with hybrids? Don't leave me hanging! I doubt they're insurmountable... the idea of the hybrid car is really catching on in Japan, for instance.
2. Well, yes, people in a car culture don't develop public transportation. That's why we need to spend more money developing public transportation (like in New York) and less money on roads. Tax the car companies!

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Well, that was the problem with hybrids (because they can't jump to a strictly electric/other powered car). Another is that a lot of people (especially those driving gas guzzlers) don't want a car. The hybrids are all "odd" looking cars (the Matrix, the Civic Hybrid, the Prius) and it has limited appeal-- mostly to the teenage crowd.

We could spend more money on public transportation, but then that money would be coming from something else and pissing other people off. Or we'll start drilling in Montana for those gas pockets to get the extra dough... and that would be bad.

[conuly]

You're talking about People problems. That's simple, even if it does piss people off... make it worthwhile to own a hybrid car, by offering tax breaks for owning one, and punitive taxes for the SUVs. Regular cars are middling.

As for spending money on public transportation, we could do more punitive taxes on the car companies, similar to making the cigarette companies sponser no-smoking ads. Or we could, say, spend less than half our national budget on the military....

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

We COULD do these things. But it would never happen. You come up against one problem:

Politics isn't about logic. Politics is about pleasing as many constituents as possible.

Just a note: I happen to agree with you whole heartedly. I hate SUVs with a passion, even if I myself drive a tank (Mercedes). Kind of a step up from the Matrix... but my mother wanted me to have a Sherman tank.

[conuly]

Ah, but... *huge leap here*

If we started a massive education campaign, we could change the minds of most of the country.

Or if we stopped letting big business help politicians.

...

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

Brainwashing campaigns? Let's just make sure we teach people all sides and let them choose for themselves. I hate the hypocrisy of politics. Both sides want to be heard, but if the other is heard too there's an uproar. What the fuck ever happened to the idea of unity and equality?

GOD I hate this country. I don't care. Fuck it.

sorry I'm in a mood. Since 'Rene came back all Jess has to say to me is yelling. About whatever. Yay for fairweather friends.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

That's not a huge leap. That's a quantum leap.

It's not really big business. It's interest groups. Educate the AARP and you can do anything you want.

[conuly]

It's big business too, are you kidding me? The oil companies pay Bush how much per campaign, and he doesn't do jack shit to them, he makes life easier for them. The dairy industry lobbies so that the FDA will recommend more servings of dairy per day than they'd been planning. That's not interest groups, that's big business paying cash.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

There's also big business in there, but they're really not as important as people make them out to be. No company can pay money for a campaign, however.

PACs can pay up to 5 thousand. Individuals up to 250. But a company/corporation can't fund. Same goes for labor unions. They've been banned from financing campaigns for decades. That doesn't mean they can't have dabblings on the side (why I only pay for American gas/oil) but that's the way it is.

The dairy industry counts as an interest group, same as the farmers do.

[rachelkachel]

Most of the alternatives you've listed are prohibitively expensive. And windmills are bad for birds ;)

I don't have any answers for you. I think it would be great if we were less dependent on oil, mostly so OPEC couldn't screw us over anymore. I really disagree that the war in Iraq was about oil. That idea just - it's stupid.

According to an economics book I read about half of (by Thomas Sowell, can't remember the title) all these people worrying about running out of oil within ten years or whatever are overlooking an important fact of economics: if it's not profitable to search for oil, people aren't going to. So when we start "running out" and it gets more expensive, more will be found. It's not infinite, of course, but there's a whole lot more than some scare-mongers would like us to believe.

I have to admit I've never heard of Hubbert's Peak. I can't really comment on that.

[conuly]

No more expensive than oil. And windmills are NOT bad for birds, that is a myth. I can find the studies, if you like.

As for supply and demand, that is certainly true. I don't deny it. But what, exactly, will we do for energy while oil prices rise? Would it not be prudent to start coming up with useable alternatives before it becomes unprofitable?

[rachelkachel]

I think my point was that supply and demand will take care of the alternatives. I'm a great believer in the free market. So as soon as oil is expensive enough that it makes economic sense to research alternatives, it will happen. It might be prudent to start now; it might be a waste of money. If people (not the government, preferably) want to spend the money to explore alternate fuel sources, more power to them (no pun intended). I think eventually it will happen on its own; until then, I don't think it's a big concern. For me anyway.

[conuly]

I'm not a believer in the free market. I can see it's benefits, but I think that it has some serious flaws. Mostly because the way things work now, most people are tragically apathic and/or ignorant. They may honestly believe that we're spending more money in that than we are.

I do believe that, as we'll have to switch some day, the sooner we spend the money, the better. In the long run, it's cheaper.

But then, I don't think we'll ever agree on this :) You can certainly keep debating, that's what makes life interesting.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

There are major problems with electric/hybrid vehicles or anything of the sort.

The oil companies, which have LOTS of money, would offer the inventor of, say, a hydrogen engine, so much money that they couldn't resist. Then oil companies would sit on the plans.

I'm a major proponent of hybrid cars. I wanted one, but mom pitched a fit about unsafe vehicles... wanted me to get an SUV, which I refused to do. My car now gets 23 - 27 miles to the gallon in the city.

In a city like Miami, public transportation is laughable. The train only shuttles up and down the main high way (and Miami spans much of South-east Florida... it's all one mass of city) and the buses... don't start me on the buses. If you don't have a car, you'll never get anywhere. And that's a BIG problem.

[conuly]

1. What problems with hybrids? Don't leave me hanging! I doubt they're insurmountable... the idea of the hybrid car is really catching on in Japan, for instance.
2. Well, yes, people in a car culture don't develop public transportation. That's why we need to spend more money developing public transportation (like in New York) and less money on roads. Tax the car companies!

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Well, that was the problem with hybrids (because they can't jump to a strictly electric/other powered car). Another is that a lot of people (especially those driving gas guzzlers) don't want a car. The hybrids are all "odd" looking cars (the Matrix, the Civic Hybrid, the Prius) and it has limited appeal-- mostly to the teenage crowd.

We could spend more money on public transportation, but then that money would be coming from something else and pissing other people off. Or we'll start drilling in Montana for those gas pockets to get the extra dough... and that would be bad.

[conuly]

You're talking about People problems. That's simple, even if it does piss people off... make it worthwhile to own a hybrid car, by offering tax breaks for owning one, and punitive taxes for the SUVs. Regular cars are middling.

As for spending money on public transportation, we could do more punitive taxes on the car companies, similar to making the cigarette companies sponser no-smoking ads. Or we could, say, spend less than half our national budget on the military....

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

We COULD do these things. But it would never happen. You come up against one problem:

Politics isn't about logic. Politics is about pleasing as many constituents as possible.

Just a note: I happen to agree with you whole heartedly. I hate SUVs with a passion, even if I myself drive a tank (Mercedes). Kind of a step up from the Matrix... but my mother wanted me to have a Sherman tank.

[conuly]

Ah, but... *huge leap here*

If we started a massive education campaign, we could change the minds of most of the country.

Or if we stopped letting big business help politicians.

...

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

Brainwashing campaigns? Let's just make sure we teach people all sides and let them choose for themselves. I hate the hypocrisy of politics. Both sides want to be heard, but if the other is heard too there's an uproar. What the fuck ever happened to the idea of unity and equality?

GOD I hate this country. I don't care. Fuck it.

sorry I'm in a mood. Since 'Rene came back all Jess has to say to me is yelling. About whatever. Yay for fairweather friends.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

That's not a huge leap. That's a quantum leap.

It's not really big business. It's interest groups. Educate the AARP and you can do anything you want.

[conuly]

It's big business too, are you kidding me? The oil companies pay Bush how much per campaign, and he doesn't do jack shit to them, he makes life easier for them. The dairy industry lobbies so that the FDA will recommend more servings of dairy per day than they'd been planning. That's not interest groups, that's big business paying cash.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

There's also big business in there, but they're really not as important as people make them out to be. No company can pay money for a campaign, however.

PACs can pay up to 5 thousand. Individuals up to 250. But a company/corporation can't fund. Same goes for labor unions. They've been banned from financing campaigns for decades. That doesn't mean they can't have dabblings on the side (why I only pay for American gas/oil) but that's the way it is.

The dairy industry counts as an interest group, same as the farmers do.

[rachelkachel]

Most of the alternatives you've listed are prohibitively expensive. And windmills are bad for birds ;)

I don't have any answers for you. I think it would be great if we were less dependent on oil, mostly so OPEC couldn't screw us over anymore. I really disagree that the war in Iraq was about oil. That idea just - it's stupid.

According to an economics book I read about half of (by Thomas Sowell, can't remember the title) all these people worrying about running out of oil within ten years or whatever are overlooking an important fact of economics: if it's not profitable to search for oil, people aren't going to. So when we start "running out" and it gets more expensive, more will be found. It's not infinite, of course, but there's a whole lot more than some scare-mongers would like us to believe.

I have to admit I've never heard of Hubbert's Peak. I can't really comment on that.

[conuly]

No more expensive than oil. And windmills are NOT bad for birds, that is a myth. I can find the studies, if you like.

As for supply and demand, that is certainly true. I don't deny it. But what, exactly, will we do for energy while oil prices rise? Would it not be prudent to start coming up with useable alternatives before it becomes unprofitable?

[rachelkachel]

I think my point was that supply and demand will take care of the alternatives. I'm a great believer in the free market. So as soon as oil is expensive enough that it makes economic sense to research alternatives, it will happen. It might be prudent to start now; it might be a waste of money. If people (not the government, preferably) want to spend the money to explore alternate fuel sources, more power to them (no pun intended). I think eventually it will happen on its own; until then, I don't think it's a big concern. For me anyway.

[conuly]

I'm not a believer in the free market. I can see it's benefits, but I think that it has some serious flaws. Mostly because the way things work now, most people are tragically apathic and/or ignorant. They may honestly believe that we're spending more money in that than we are.

I do believe that, as we'll have to switch some day, the sooner we spend the money, the better. In the long run, it's cheaper.

But then, I don't think we'll ever agree on this :) You can certainly keep debating, that's what makes life interesting.