Jump to content

Carfree Living / Oil Demand Destruction: The Story of Our Time


Recommended Posts

Great post. It's good to have you here, zceb.

Malco is a well-respected poster, and it would be great to see a debate arise here.

 

...when an individual oil producer passes its peak the combination of flat / declining production combined with rising internal consumption lead to a rapid collapse in oil exports. Referenced link shows case studies of UK and Indonesia where rapid ceaseation of exports has already happened; current key exporter, Mexico, could reportedly cease to be an exporter as early as 2014 due to a combination of rising internal consumption and output 'crashing' in its super-giant Cantarell field.

 

It so happens that many of the world's key oil exporters have growing populations and a rapid growth rate in internal oil consumption due in no small part to the widespread practice in those nations of massively subsidising fuel.

 

This is an excellent point: over-consumption thanks to the subsidy has lead to massively-wasteful oil use in oil producing countries, like US suburbanites on steriods. Then when the oil frevenues slide with falling exports, they are going to realise they are lumbered with wasteful habits and the wrong living arrangement. Just look at the thread on Dubai and the video from that thread to see what sort of exaggerated folly* is taking place there. Even Middle East oil will not last forever.

 

*Here are some of the new buildings going up in Dubai:

Dubai mega projects 2 1/3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnSv6yLMuE

 

This issue has been heavily debated on The Oil Drum and consensus is that oil exports could halve by 2015 and more or less 'dry up' by 2020. Currently US is consuming 21m bbls/day of which 14m bbls/day are imports; UK numbers are 1.7m bbls/day and c300k bbls/day respectively. Looking ahead to 2015 and assuming (for now) unchanged consumption required imports for US would be c16m bbls/day and for UK c1m bbls/day. You might note that, in percentage terms, UK imports are rising more rapidly - that's because production declines are running at around 3% in USA vs around 10% in North Sea.

 

I think the UK will have a bigger problem that many expect. It's finances will begin to deteriorate fast, now that the North Sea oil is in decline, and the UK is an oil importer. I am glad I do not own property there.

 

At this point I'm asking 'if exports are collapsing in key oil producing states' where are the imports for US, UK (not to mention China) going to come from? The likely answer, I feel, is 'they are not' which is exactly why those of us in UK should be preparing for a lifestyle using far less oil now...

 

I agree, and will be starting more threads on how to prepare fior these coming hard times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Carpool Anyone?

 

On CNBC right now, they are talking abour ways people are "temporarily" cutting their oil usage

 

+ Advertising for Carpools

+ High demand for Prius hybrid cars

+ Price-cutting on SUV's

 

all very superficial commentary. But the message is beginning to sink in.

 

You are not going to get that oil you want at $70, or even $100, Homer.

Better make some "other arrangements"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk carfree. Invest carfree. Get carfree.

 

no, I don't think we are going that way. Car is an excellent invention and I think burying it is a bit of excess.

for humans to evolve and become more intelligent specie they must to use tools, and discarding cars would lead to stop evolution.

what we have to do is to create an energy efficient car, thats it.

and those who can afford it, will buy it and use it, just like today some people don't have a car at all.

all this peak oil stuff is not really about OIL , it is about ENERGY

the only energy we have , endless and free, is that comes from the sun and we will have it for million years, so when we get that done, I mean, when we go solar, we will solve the energy crisis from this to the next centuries.

However, while this happens , I am going to price this oil barrel as high as I can. Without crisis and pain, people will not understand it, and thats also a small part of evolution ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, I don't think we are going that way. Car is an excellent invention and I think burying it is a bit of excess.

for humans to evolve and become more intelligent specie they must to use tools, and discarding cars would lead to stop evolution.

 

I am Carfree and very happy for it.

That doesnt stop me from renting a car, when I need it, or hiring a taxi.

But you need to live somewhere with excellent transport, or if you are in a poweful enough position to do so: even help plan better transport.

 

If more people did this, oil demand would be destroyed, and that is an important part of the concept.

 

Ask yourself, how high will prices need to go to get me to stop driving and get rid of my car?

Well that figure (whatever it is) is where they are headed, and higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Ask yourself, how high will prices need to go to get me to stop driving and get rid of my car?

Well that figure (whatever it is) is where they are headed, and higher.

My daily drive to work and back is around 16 miles, and I approximately use 1 litre per 10 miles (inner city). So, I spend something like £1.80 per day NOT counting what the actual car costs me on a daily basis. A bus ticket for the same ride is either £2.20, or with a bus card £1.10 per day.

 

This shows that oil is by far too cheap (or the bus too expensive). Taking the inconvenience factor of the bus into account (double the time, motion sickness), I would think of getting on it when my journey to work maybe cost over £5. However, I would most likely try to move closer to work as well (I would never buy where I live now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Carfree and very happy for it.

That doesnt stop me from renting a car, when I need it, or hiring a taxi.

But you need to live somewhere with excellent transport, or even help plan better transport.

 

If more people did this, oil demand would be destroyed, and that is an important part of the concept.

 

Ask yourself, how high will prices need to go to get me to stop driving and get rid of my car?

Well that figure (whatever it is) is where they are headed, and higher.

 

I personally think the car is a wonderful invention that has given people enormous flexibility when they are travelling in places / at times when public transport is unfeasible. I agree we need a lot better public transport, but my guess is it is impossible for the whole world to move to a location with good public transport. Also surely businesses and other people need the ability to move goods around e.g. via vans as and when required? When oil hits $300 or higher, will they be able to afford to?

 

My feeling is that as the price moves higher there will be inevitable demand destruction or if not that then shortages, but the push to develop better electric cars will strengthen further. I don't really know much about electric car technology (I should find out) but especially for the US wouldn't it be a better solution than the wholesale destruction of the suburbs and the wealth and development they represent?

 

Of course the technology may not be developed in time or work, so it is probably a good idea to be reducing car usage where possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent point: over-consumption thanks to the subsidy has lead to massively-wasteful oil use in oil producing countries,

like US suburbanites on steriods. Then when the oil frevenues slide with falling exports, they are going to realise they are lumbered

with wasteful habits and the wrong living arrangement. Just look at the thread on Dubai and the video from that thread to see what

sort of exaggerated folly* is taking place there. Even Middle East oil will not last forever.

The fall-off in oil exporters' revenues won't happen until they are well down the path of production and / or export declines due to the initial reductions in exports leading to a large hike in prices....as we've seen recently. Demand for oil tends to be inelastic, at least until consumers have had chance to adapt to the new price regime which can take years (or in case of infrastructure changes, decades). As a result a 10% fall in exports could lead to a doubling, or more, of prices. The combination of moderate falls in exports combined with big price rises actually result in more foreign currency for the oil exporter! It's only when their exports have collapsed by between 50 and 75% that the ongoing output declines start to outstrip the impact of rising product price.

 

This situation is most unfortunate for oil importing nations as it will precipitate an earlier, and steeper, import 'cliff'. Whatever Gordon Brown et al might say to OPEC members Gov'ts of importing nations have little influence especially as OPEC nations tend to have less stable regimes who find it next to impossible to end the practice of fuel subsidies without risking being overthrown.

 

I think the UK will have a bigger problem that many expect. It's finances will begin to deteriorate fast, now that the North Sea oil

is in decline, and the UK is an oil importer. I am glad I do not own property there.

My estimates are that UK is currently importing nearly 400k bbls/day to maintain consumption of 1.7m bbls/day. By 2015 imports required to maintain BAU will be around 1m bbls /day due to ongoing steep declines in N Sea output. UK Gov't used to issue a forecast graph of UK oil and gas production but publication of this chart ceased in 2004 (I wonder why?): DTI - UK Oil & Gas Production Forecast, 2003. The cost to the trade balance at current oil price is £10bn pa and £25bn pa respectively.

 

The position re natural gas is little better but imports are cheaper than oil (at least initially) as gas currently costs around half that of oil for the equivalent energy value. Gas reservoirs, however, face the 'gas cliff' as they approach the end of their producing life as gas flows through pores in the rock much easier than liquids but output then falls very steeply once around 80% of the recoverable reserves (URR) have been extracted. UK's initial gas imports are from Norway via the new Langaled pipeline but this arrangement will only cover just under 20% of current gas demand i.e. 20 BCM pa vs 101 BCM pa total consumption. Incremental imports to offset N Sea declines will have to be sourced either from Russia via very long pipeline runs or from ME (Qatar / Iran) by LNG shipments which are hugely expensive in both monetary and energy terms. Not least such sources are from less stable regimes with which UK (and US) does not always have good relations.

 

From the above it would appear that UK faces having to spend almost £50bn pa on oil and gas imports by 2015 even at current prices (subject to gas price escalations due to switch from pipeline to LNG). If the oil price were to reach $200+ potential import bill could surpass £100bn pa, which it most certainly would by 2020. The bottom line is that UK won't be importing anywhere near these quantities of oil and gas....it's just that the vast majority of consumers don't know it....yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My estimates are that UK is currently importing nearly 400k bbls/day to maintain consumption of 1.7m bbls/day. By 2015 imports required to maintain BAU will be around 1m bbls /day due to ongoing steep declines in N Sea output. UK Gov't used to issue a forecast graph of UK oil and gas production but publication of this chart ceased in 2004 (I wonder why?): DTI - UK Oil & Gas Production Forecast, 2003. The cost to the trade balance at current oil price is £10bn pa and £25bn pa respectively.

 

...If the oil price were to reach $200+ potential import bill could surpass £100bn pa, which it most certainly would by 2020. The bottom line is that UK won't be importing anywhere near these quantities of oil and gas....it's just that the vast majority of consumers don't know it....yet!

 

Serious Statistics! a serious problem!

 

ZCeb, why do you think that no Western governments are yet talking about MANAGING OIL DEAMND DOWNWARDS?

That seems like an obvious thing to do, if one accepts the seriousness of this challenge

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mabon, Maybe my description subconcsiously prompted you to reply as you did? I live in west Wales too.

 

Maybe huh? I feel that all folks living in rural and semi-rural communities will be looking at the clock thinking 'how much longer is this gonna go on?' I don't think they are going to like the answer.

 

It does quite concern me what has been happening and what will happen. There's a whole industry around here of building houses and not many for the natives (houses that is).......a lot of property development millionaires.

 

A few smart people have made some money out of selling holiday homes, building and developing flats, apartments etc and selling a 'lifestyle' to people who want to buy into a different way of life. One that automatically is changed culturally, financially and otherwise by them buying into a different way of life....

 

Nothing much else really aside from agriculture as you said and lowly paid tourism. I think that when the property boom really becomes a bust.....a lot of people are going to be jobless. This fuel matter is going to make things that much worse......most people cannot survive without a car.

 

With the price of agricultural land being high, most farmers here have been land rich cash poor for years. That is, if they a re a grain farmer, currently changing. Personally one of my goals is to own significant amounts of land (where? I haven't decided yet), in order to start businesses from it and use it as an income-producing asset.

 

I noticed, with some alarm that the local campaign to generate the usual seasonal interest in the town smacks of desperation to me and looks desperate too.

 

The council knows that IF they can convince people to come here and provide decent enough services then they could sustain a level of spending akin to what it has been, due to the fact that, holidays within these islands may well prove to be cheaper than holidays further afield, due to transportation costs etc.

 

 

You have a railway running through your village.....you lucky ********!

 

We do have a railway station which is underused, purely because Arriva trains are dumb enough not to let anybody know the pricing of local services. Ie what happens if you just get on and buy a return ticket, how much is it?

 

More people would definitely get the train from here if:

 

A) the pricing is clear understandable and constant

B ) the pricing is reasonable in comparison to the length of the journey

 

Opening a village shop might be a good idea. Thank you for your reply too DrB

 

I can't see me opening a shop somehow, but, never say never.

 

I've sent you a private message Panas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zceb90, your point about Jeffrey Brown's "Export Land" model is of course spot on. I frequently visit the Oil Drum and have read many of West Texas's posts. It just slipped my mind when I was writing the post. I do wonder if it will work out quite that simply though, bearing in mind the leverage that the US has. We will just have to wait and see. Plus, will the people running these countries continue to give away a resource to their people? Governments generally don't behave that way for the long term.

 

Looking ahead, the propects here in UK look gloomer than I thought - and I was not optimistic to begin with. Still, I am sick of crowded roads and noisy skies. In many ways daily life will get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something worth adding is the decline in net energy production due to the decline in the quality of deposits we are now forced to exploit. The Canadian tar sands and biofuels being notable examples. Oil is itself an oil product. If the price of oil goes up, so does the price of E&P.

 

From what I have seen of TOD, this issue is not well studied. An increasing proportion of our "all liquids" production is from unconventional sources, during flat overall production; this implies a decline in net energy production. I think this is influential in driving up the price of both oil and of food. More and more oil goes into biofuel production, which also takes more and more land from food production. It is an extremely serious situation we are drifting into, with energy shortages combining with food shortages. It's happening now, but not to the richest 20% of the world who are actually represented in the media. The 80% poor to all intents hardly exist from our viewpoint.

 

Anyway, TOD discussions indicate some confusion amongst posters about whether biofuels should be included as part of "all liquids" production. My feeling is that they should, but, there needs to be an increasing focus on how many BOE it took to achieve All Liquids production.

 

If you have a country that produces 100 barrels of oil and uses all of it to make 150 BOE of biofuel, then the net energy available to the economy of that country is 150 BOE, not 250. Both the IEA and EIA have yet to move with the times and recognise the problem of dwindling EROEI. In the past so little oil went into oil production - and there was so much spare capacity - that this point was moot. Those times are now history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious Statistics! a serious problem!

 

ZCeb, why do you think that no Western governments are yet talking about MANAGING OIL DEAMND DOWNWARDS?

That seems like an obvious thing to do, if one accepts the seriousness of this challenge

It a nutshell they are wedded to the 'endless economic growth' paradigm; also they fear (probably quite rightly) that such a message would be unpopular with voters hence any clear message / action is postponed until after the next election in the hope that it will be someone else's problem (NIMTO = not in my term of office)!

 

I listened to an discussion on Radio 4 earlier this week when a Lib-Dem spokesman stated that Gov't was assuming oil price $70/bbl in 2020 for long term planning purposes, a price which the Lib-Dem described as 'absolutely ludicrous'. I tried to find a reference for this discussion but have not found it so far. I did, however find the following extraordinary assumption in a late 2007 statement re transport from a Gov't member of the House of Lords:

 

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked me at Question Time yesterday about the assumptions made on fuel prices that underpin the DfT forecasts. Those assumptions are set out in the UK air passenger demand and CO2 forecast November 2007 report. The forecasts are based on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's central forecasts on oil prices. Its forecast is that oil prices will fall from $65 per barrel in 2006 to some $53 dollars per barrel in 2030, with most of the decline occurring from 2012. That is the basis on which those projections are made. Of course, there will be a wide-ranging debate and continued reflection on that and no doubt there will be considerable disagreement too, but that is the model on which we currently base our view.

Reference.

 

Obviously I totally agree in this case with the Lib-Dem interviewee - these assumptions are indeed ludicrous, in fact I'd go so far as to say they are totally tragic as far as UK citizens are concerned. I've seen copies of numerous Gov't responses to contstituents (and Powerswitch UK) who wrote to MP's / ministers regarding the coming oil crisis and all were hiding behind the IEA earlier position that 'oil production would not peak until 2037'. From such assumptions, of course, follows Gov't assumptions of large scale aviation expansion, further road traffic growth and such mentality shows up in the planning system which continues to permit business parks and other totally car-dependent developments.

 

The only consolation I have to offer is that UK is far from alone and countries as far apart as Ireland, USA and New Zealand continue to press ahead with major road schemes and aviation expansion. Continuing on such a path will simply increase oil dependency and make the coming cliff that much steeper and bring forward the time when industrial society falls over it. In common with folks on TOD my message is 'don't wait for Gov'ts to take action, make your own preparations by becoming less car / oil dependent'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I burst out laughing at this:

"The forecasts are based on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's central forecasts on oil prices. Its forecast is that oil prices will fall from $65 per barrel in 2006 to some $53 dollars per barrel in 2030, with most of the decline occurring from 2012."

 

Either those doing the forecasting are stupid beyond belief or else they are having a quiet jeer at their political masters who muzzle them from saying it outright: oil's going to the Moon.

 

In the same debate I did read:

 

Lord Bradshaw:

"What oil price scenario is built into the planning of the airports and the railway? If people are thinking of $20 a barrel, I can tell them that they are in cloud-cuckoo land. I am still convinced that by 2035, if not sooner, it will cost £4 a litre to put petrol or diesel into a car or lorry."

 

Which shows that some at least are in tune with reality, up to a point.

 

A little algebra. Is zceb90 = clv101?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I burst out laughing at this:

"The forecasts are based on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's central forecasts on oil prices. Its forecast is that oil prices will fall from $65 per barrel in 2006 to some $53 dollars per barrel in 2030, with most of the decline occurring from 2012."

 

Ridiculous. Dont they keep up to date on what futures markets are telling them?

With advisors like that, who needs political opponents?

 

Obviously I totally agree in this case with the Lib-Dem interviewee - these assumptions are indeed ludicrous, ...Continuing on such a path will simply increase oil dependency and make the coming cliff that much steeper and bring forward the time when industrial society falls over it. In common with folks on TOD my message is 'don't wait for Gov'ts to take action, make your own preparations by becoming less car / oil dependent'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is James Howard Kunster's article which will appear in tomorrow's Washington Post: Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster.

 

JHK Nails it.

EXCERPT:

 

The truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

 

The public, and especially the mainstream media, misunderstands the "peak oil" story. It's not about running out of oil. It's about the instabilities that will shake the complex systems of daily life as soon as the global demand for oil exceeds the global supply. These systems can be listed concisely:

 

1/ The way we produce food

 

2/ The way we conduct commerce and trade

 

3/ The way we travel

 

4/ The way we occupy the land

 

5/ The way we acquire and spend capital

 

And there are others: governance, health care, education and more

. . .

And that's the worst part of our quandary: the American public's narrow focus on keeping all our cars running at any cost. Even the environmental community is hung up on this. ...Years ago, U.S. negotiators at a U.N. environmental conference told their interlocutors that the American lifestyle is "not up for negotiation."

 

 

A must-read article / repeat LINK

 

Why isnt the US congress talking with him? If I were an Oil exec, I'd suggest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JHK Nails it.

 

Interesting article.

So what are intelligent responses to our predicament? First, we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

 

We'll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

 

I think you have been talking about stranded suburbs - would it not be just as appropriate to talk about stranded cities? too far from food producers and markets, places where what food is available is simply too expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have been talking about stranded suburbs - would it not be just as appropriate to talk about stranded cities? too far from food producers and markets, places where what food is available is simply too expensive?

 

Yes. That is an area of disagreement- the cities.

 

We agree on the suburbs, they are bound to be a disaster as oil prices soar- too much dependence on cars.

But JHK sees a total collapse of society, government, the financial system, with fewer jobs.

If he is right, the cities will be dangerous places to be: full of needy people, without a functioning police force.

 

I think we will manage to save the cities, at least in the early decades of the long emergency.

In fact, I think GREATER DENSITY, and more public transport is the way to reduce energy use, and keep the

system funcitioning.

 

JAPAN will be the model for the world, not the US. Here are some interesting comments from a piece on Light rail.

 

Public transport’s continuing market decline (in the USA) results from two primary factors.

 

• US urban areas have undergone significant commercial and residential

suburbanization. The dense central business districts (downtowns) are no longer

dominant, now representing barely 10 percent of metropolitan employment.

Downtown represents the only location to which automobile competitive public

transport service is available. As a result, public transport’s potential for reducing

traffic congestion is limited to this rather small market. People who commute to

work outside downtown areas tend to have much lower incomes and limited

automobile availability.

 

• Service has been artificially constrained: Public transport productivity has declined

markedly and, unlike much of the western world, there has been little effort to inject

competition into public transport to control excessive costs. As a result, higher

subsidies have not returned a correspondingly higher level of service.

 

Light Rail: The Reality. The spatial structure of the modern US urban area renders new

light rail systems a highly ineffective and expensive strategy for traffic reduction, mobility

and access. The new light rail systems have generally failed relative to the evaluation

criteria. They have failed to materially reduce traffic congestion and are more expensive

than express bus systems and motorway expansion. Moreover, the planning process has

been insufficiently objective.

 

/see: http://www.publicpurpose.com/nz-uslrt000131.pdf

-- -- --

 

WHERE RAIL DOES WORK - JAPAN

 

Profitable Japanese Systems

 

There are two places in the world where rail’s success is not accompanied by excess costs and is felt throughout the urban area: Tokyo (Tokyo-Yokohama) and Osaka (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto).

 

Violating the old transit myth that there are no profitable systems, data from the Union of International Public Transport (the international equivalent of the American Public Transportation Association) indicate both systems earn annual profits of approximately 30 percent over operating and capital expense.

 

In both urban areas, most service is provided by historic private suburban rail (commuter rail) companies that operate their own lines and share tracks with municipally owned subway systems. In addition, privatized units of Japanese National Railways (JNR) provide a large share of the travel. The municipally owned urban bus, rail, and monorail systems receive small subsidies, sometimes only for capital.

 

In Tokyo, with 33 million people (1.5 times metropolitan New York), 57 percent of travel is on public transit, with more than 80 percent of travel on the private railways (historic suburban and JNR East). Total travel is approximately 2.5 times total U.S. transit travel.

 

Smaller Osaka is just as impressive. The area’s 17 million residents (approximately the same number as in metropolitan Los Angeles) use transit for 60 percent of their travel. Total transit travel is 1.3 times that of all transit in the United States combined. Again, more than 80 percent of travel is on the private railroads (historic suburban and JNR West).

 

By comparison, New York has the nation’s highest transit market share at under 10 percent. Chicago is under 4 percent, Portland and Los Angeles are under 2 percent, and Dallas and Phoenix are below 1 percent.

 

Costly, Slow Japanese Auto Travel

 

Why is transit so much more successful in Japan than in the United States? There are a number of factors.

 

Historically, much lower personal income in Japan kept automobile ownership at lower levels, so transit demand is higher.

 

Unlike U.S. and Western European transit systems, profitability makes the transit systems of Japan sustainable. Westerners have yet to learn that massive subsidies are not the path to larger transit market shares.

 

Urban expressways in Japan require heavy tolls--something generally not found either in the United States or Western Europe.

 

The suburban rail systems in Japan also operate thousands of buses (more than 10,000 in Tokyo and 2,500 in Osaka), which circulate through neighborhoods and deliver people to the rail stations.

 

Downtown employment in the Japanese cities is far greater than in the U.S. The Tokyo Yamanote Loop has double the employment of Manhattan, while the Osaka Loop has three times the employment of Chicago’s.

 

The suburban rail systems of Japan were built concurrently with or ahead of the suburban sprawl (both Tokyo and Osaka sprawl extensively), and system upgrades were made to maintain their superior speeds. The dense mesh of service provided by these systems is simply not to be found in the West.

 

/see: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12887

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will this mean to people living in rural areas? There's been a massive migration to such areas in recent years from the cities in the UK. Do you guys think this trend will be reversed? Nowadays, you have to travel a few miles to get to the nearest Tesco or Morrissons if you are lucky. Most village shops have closed. Maybe that would be a good investment.......re-opening a village shop? If people decide to stay where there's plenty of public transport, then property prices will be decimated in the rural areas won't they? You really need a car if you live in the countryside!

 

That depends on how self sufficient you can become and your outlook on community living ie do you need the big cities? Unfortunately i need a car for my current lifestyle and live in a semi-rural area ie small village. But aim to be more self-sufficient, live off the land and local produce. But must admit the cities lure me for entertianment in several ways....then their are holidays, so some travel essential, whatever i pursue in future if i stay where i am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently living in 'the countryside'. I live in a village two miles or so outside a small town in south-west Wales. It's pretty rural. I don't drive a car, although I do have access to a small economical runabout if I want it (does 50-60 mpg).

 

In the last ten years or so a lot of foreigners (English, Belgiums, Dutch etc) have come her to pursue 'the rural idyll', the place has changed beyond recognition. House prices are an average of 10-15 times (or more) local average wages, many properties are empty the majority of the year as they are holiday homes, second homes etc.

 

We have a village shop, which is also a post office. I was talking to the postmaster the other day and he was saying that most of the post office services have been taken away from post offices. in fact his post office business could close, alarming a lot of folk who do their pensions, banking etc there.

 

He was wondering what to do and I mentioned to him that his shop was actually a boon, because the nearest supermarket is the one in town (about two miles or so by road) or 12 miles away for the bigger stores (Tesco, Asda etc).

 

I was saying to him to develop the shop because with the price of fuel, most people are gonna think twice before popping to tesco's 12 miles away for anything more than at least a few weeks shopping.

 

Although I don't think a lot of people get it yet, there have been a few village meetings with the local planning agencies to discuss the viability of small communities like this one.

 

I'm going to one next week, the last one I went to about a year ago discussed in detail transportation issues and the like.

 

We have a railway station here, but the train company doesn't promote ticket price information from here. It's pot luck as to knowing how much you'll have to pay to go anywhere and there are no ticket offices left at many smaller stations now, even in some of the bigger towns.

 

There are also bus services which are pretty decent, although expensive, as every Welsh person over 60 (or is it 65??) gets a free bus pass, which means that often you are the only paying punter on the bus (I know they paid for it with a lifetime of working...).

 

Anyway, what will happen to communities like this one??

 

What will happen to fairly remote areas such as west Wales with limited economic scope and an econmy that is a tourism/ farming/ power generation mix?

 

Friend of mine moved out towards West Wales in keeping with all you suggest, bought a knock-down mill and renovated it with several acres to boot. Saved a fortune on current rates as to what he could buy elsewhere, however, his nearest town seems to be Llanelli (about 14 miles or so away).

 

What would concern me, is whilst he can currently live off the land and works in an energy efficiency related field, he's so remote i don't think he's thought out transport issues linked to health needs and other supplies for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is James Howard Kunster's article which will appear in tomorrow's Washington Post: Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster.

 

Really tremendous essay, especially in defining the childish notions at the heart of American thinking and I suppose British "thinking" too. I use the inverted commas because I don't see enough sense of direction about Britain to suppose there is any creative process going on at political levels.

 

Impressive to see Kunstler going mainstream now. It is only a couple of years since he was ignored as a whacko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive to see Kunstler going mainstream now. It is only a couple of years since he was ignored as a whacko.

 

Seems they have begin to take him seriously - he's been right, and is a true visionary about many things:

 

+ Peak Oil

+ The Suburbs

+ Design of cities

+ Lack of political seriousness in the debate (until now)

 

The clowns running the US and the UK are at least 5 years behind his insights

 

The US Congress thinks they are doing their job by taking testimony from oil company execs while grandstanding,

and trying to scapegoat big oil. Meantime the legislative efforts are laughable. Talk of waiving petrol tax over the

summer (the opposite, doubkling tax makes more sense), while failing to do away with ridivulous tax incentives for

Ethanol.

 

I wish there were a better way of communicating how incompetent these efforts look, rather than just waiting

and voting "the bastards out of office."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...