The U.S. economy has been dependent on cheap oil since we first started buying it from foreign sources. We have become accustomed to a standard of living made possible by cheap and plentiful oil--a standard that almost no other country in the world enjoys.
Have you noticed that "organic" and "green" have now become mainstream media buzzwords? Time was, these were polite euphemisms for crazy, backwoods-living, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging hippies. For the last few years, the growth of the "organic movement" slowed due to consumer complaints "it's too expensive" or "hard to find".
What has one got to do with the other?
The price of food, energy sources, transportation (not just ourselves, but everything shipped in to our neighborhoods (from a distance farther than we can walk in a day) is going up due to the rise in gas prices.
In order for the gas prices to go back down, we must have alternative sources of energy that can be used to perform the same tasks: produce food, shelter, transportation, medical treatment, communication, etc... Many options have been developed (solar and wind power anyone?) and are just now being put to use in industry--solar panels on the roof to produce energy during peak hours of usage, for example--and when these options come into general usage at the residential level , we will see some relief in the price of gasoline. Hopefully, by the time the price of oil has dropped substantially, we will be at the point of needing it less.
Isn't this the law of supply and demand?
Some of the ways in which social norms may change as a result of prohibitively high oil prices if we don't pour our energies into finding alternatives--or even if we do:
1. Carpooling as a standard employment benefit offered by businesses in areas where mass transit is either underused or inadequate.
2. Neighborhood co-op gardens as a covenant in housing associations.
3. "Zero utility" design parameters as standard practice in the fields of architecture and engineering.
4. A decline in travel--and a surge in business use of videoconferencing and telecommuting.
5. A rise in mental health disorders brought on by lack of social contact.
6. Obesity problem solved! Or at least ameliorated to some extent due to increased foot traffic and the increased interest in growing our own food as much as possible...
Do you have any forecasts about the ways our daily standard of living may change?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 11
What is light rail? If it's a form of mass transit, well, I live in MS where we have city buses for daily travel and that's it. We have a train station for long-distance travel (and of course the ubiquitous airports) but that's it.
My advocacy of SAFEGE monorail is elevated (out of traffic), automated, and faster than light rail. The multi-billion dollar question is how much rail does a country with high gas prices want, and what's the alternative if they don't?
I have read that residential solar systems for about $5K will be on the market by 2015, made possible by technological innovations, like "power sheets" being presently manufactured by Nanosolar in Germany and California.
Honda and Toyota have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Honda's Clarity is being leased in California already, where there are hydrogen fueling stations. Toyota will begin leasing its fuel cell car in Japan later this year.
Re: mass transit. I also live in MS (north of Oxford), and you're right - mass transit in MS is a long way away. But for large cities, hydrogen is also being tested for that market. BTW, when my wife and I went to D.C. a few years ago, I was thoroughly impressed with the Metro there. It was clean and efficient. We were able to get wherever we wanted to go without a car. My brother, who lives outside Chicago, tells me that many of his friends don't have cars. They live in-town and ride the "L" (I think that's what it's called). No cars necessary.
Tim: "The multi-billion dollar question is how much rail does a country with high gas prices want, and what's the alternative if they don't?"
Would a rail system need to connect cities throughout the nation? - maybe just the NE US, Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC. Mostly, a rail system would IMO be best suited to deal with commuter traffic. Of course, we could continue to spend $hundreds-of-billions$ in mideast "resource wars", "protecting our vital national interests in the region."
The bicycle advocate lobbyists, and union road builders seem to have transportation beaten into submission. Automation gets done only when management wrestles for the purse.
Commuter rail has a problem. The landlord is the freight rail owners, making transit a freight priority system 24/7.
Thank you for comment on my Do you know who your ancestors are?
Steve-the development of the subway in the United States is pretty interesting. PBS recently did a special on the move to put passenger rail travel underground in New York and how an overcrowded depot accident was the spark that ignited the process.
Mississippi has had at least two derailments in the last couple of months {that I am aware of}. The truly urban areas with these systems in place will suffer in different ways than people in rural areas...Urban areas may suffer from reduced availability of varous kinds of supplies due to reduced availability of shipping. Food quality will suffer because daily pickups from farms are being cut back. Rural areas will suffer more dramatic effects of isolation, such as medical care. We already have that problem here, due to a number of factors, but when ambulance service is reduced or cut out altogether, people will start to die.
Mariah--going to go look up your mom's article now!
Thanks everyone!
Funny, some on one side of the fence would say that the picture I painted above is very negative.
Thanks for your input!