Though not the most important factor in our giving up the car, the threat of peak oil and fast-rising petrol prices is definitely one of my/the considerations.
Despite the occasional optimistic report declaring world peace is only just around the corner - and the price of barrel of oil will sink to a 'normal' level of $40 - I can't see it myself.
It's not a case of 'why is all the oil found in the world's trouble spots', it's more a case of 'why the world's trouble spots are found where there is oil.' The answer is patently obvious: money, greed, guns.
Coupled to this, charts showing oil discovery slowing and extraction rates growing make oil's finite nature all the more stark.
And all those 'viable' alternatives, which sanguine economists believe we will calmly transition to, well I'm not sold on that either.
So in a scenario of ever-increasing and accelerating proportion of your household budget going on petrol, any steps you can take to insulate yourself from this ought to be taken.
If you can access services, shops, education and employment, all without use of a car, then your vulnerability to rising prices is reduced.
It may not be necessary to take these steps just yet, but being prepared is better than not.
Of course it doesn't reduce your vulnerability to the rising price of goods and services, driven by additional costs in the manufacture and distribution.
It doesn't insulate all the people who I rely on to stock my shelves, teach my kids and drive my train.
When these people are faced with crippling transport bills, because they cannot afford to live within walking distance of a station - or worse - their place of employment is not near public transport links - then we are all in trouble.
But at least we have governments prepared to make the hard choices about what kind of infrastructure will meet our needs in the future. I'd hate to think they were simply going to throw all our money on giant road projects.
West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil $/barrel
2 comments:
G'day,
I have put a story about this blog on our site and have also added you as a link on our sidebar
http://sustainable-transport.blogspot.com/
Tristan
Community Action for Sustainable Transport
Here are some articles challenging "peak oil". Has anyone bothered to question this theory?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58682
Links to the articles are listed beneath the one this link is to.
There is no need for the U.S. to fight the Middle East for its oil. They have large reserves in their own country.
Some of it, such as in Alaska, is locked up by environmental legislation. The legislation is phony, since the oil fields occupy only a very small part of the Alaskan wilderness being preserved.
Even if it were genuine, why would Bush prefer to fight for Middle Eastern Oil when he could just scrap his own environmental legislation? Not should he - why doesn't he? Wouldn't he do that first? Then he could negotiate a much lower price for Middle Eastern oil.
"Peak oil" is being used to drive "sustainable development". It is one of the main (fabricated) pretexts for SD. SD will give governments (Bush in the U.S.) extensive control over every detail of every area of our lives. Do you believe they DON'T want that?
Question: If Peak oil is a fraud, protected by the establishment, then could it be that the other pretexts they are using for SD are protected fabrications also? What lengths would the establishment go to to get the enormous power SD will give them?
The articles show that there is at least another side to the issue of peak oil. But it is not even being discussed. If our governments were reluctant to adopt SD, wouldn't they at least pretend that there is something to this other side in their own interests? Instead, peak oil is publicly assumed (consensus) on all sides.
Post a Comment