Your faithful blogger was surprised to find himself representing part of the environmental blogosphere in a New York Times article on Sunday, "Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization." It's very much worth reading, and prior to writing the article the reporter, Larry Rohter, talked with me about my first installment in this series, "Globalization death watch, Part I."
In his article, after noting the recent collapse of global trade talks, Rohter writes:
Some critics of globalization are encouraged by those developments, which they see as a welcome check on the process. On environmentalist blogs, some are even gleefully promoting a "globalization death watch."
Now, look at the dictionary.com definition of "gleeful":
full of exultant joy; merry; delighted.
Well, maybe the births of my sons called forth such feeling, but I'm not usually full of exultant joy, particularly when I think about global crises.
However, Larry Rohter may be forgiven his choice of words, considering the title of the blog post. I and, if I may be so bold as to speak for some other environmental bloggers, others think that the decline, even death of globalization would be a good thing. But just as the rise of globalization led to much suffering, so will its decline, and that's certainly not something to be "gleeful" about. To paraphrase Barack Obama's pithy phrase about getting out of Iraq, "we've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
I'd like to go over some of the points Rohter highlights, and then explain later in the post why there is a better alternative to globalization.
Rohter summarizes the changes this way:
Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.
To which New York Times environmental blogger Andy Revkin responded, "Maybe the world is not as flat, or small, as it once seemed" (he doesn't seem gleeful about this).
Economists are neither exuberant nor joyful about this state of affairs, some assuring us that globalization won't be reversed, with others claiming that "companies looking to keep prices low will have to move some production closer to consumers." In fact, Jeffrey Sachs refutes the idea of the death of globalization, stating that, "It would be a mistake, a misinterpretation, to think that a huge rollback or reversal of fundamental trends is under way. Distance and trade costs do matter, but we are still in a globalized era" ... or a flat one ...
It seems that large, heavy products, like steel or furniture, will be the first to be relocalized, for example, from China back to North Carolina; eating avocados in January might become less likely. Some economists talk about the "neighborhood effect":
Instead of seeking supplies wherever they can be bought most cheaply, regardless of location, and outsourcing the assembly of products all over the world, manufacturers would instead concentrate on performing those activities as close to home as possible.
Other economists warn that relocalization might not help the United States.
Economists are most comfortable thinking about a global economy, because in their worldview political limits, such as boundaries between countries, can only interfere with the smooth functioning of the market. Therefore, the market in its most perfect incarnation would be global and unfettered (there are some exceptions, Dani Rodrik being a good example).
The problem is that production systems, such as manufacturing, services, and agriculture, work best as regional systems, not global systems. We normally think about the world as a set of continental or subcontinental regions, such as Europe, North America, Latin America, etc. These regions, which are often continental in size -- think Africa, for instance -- or subcontinental regions -- such as the Indian subcontinent, China, or the former Soviet Union -- have always been, and will always be, "natural" economic systems, simply because that is how the planet's tectonic plates have deployed the various continental pieces at this moment in time.
Which leads me to try to coin a new word, "continentalization," to label a group of ideas that would serve as an alternative to "globalization" (I know, even more syllables). In a world of 10 or so regional economies, each should have a thriving manufacturing and machinery economy. Each should have a renewable energy system, based on its particular geography, a modern rail system knitting it together, and democratic processes binding it together. Each region would have to have free trade within its boundaries (and fair trade outside). And each region would have its own population of engineers, scientists, and skilled production workers that are needed to create the technological innovation that will be used to make the transition to a sustainable economy.
Continentalization is the natural state of economic affairs because it is very important for all the parts of the economic system to be close to each other. Think of an office, or a factory, or an ecosystem, for that matter. Why do people need to be able to interact in a face-to-face way in order to conduct business? In a factory, not only do you need face-to-face interaction, you need human-to-machine-to-human interaction. Engineers need to be able to tour factories, "kick the tires," get a "feel" for how a particular manufacturing process works.
One of the many problems with the American auto industry is the tradition whereby engineers create their designs, then "throw it over the wall" to the guys running the factory. Without the feedback of the factory floor, engineers and managers lose crucial information and critical opportunities. It's even worse when engineers "throw it over the wall" all the way to China.
In fact, as Paul Craig Roberts recently detailed:
The idea is nonsensical that the US can remain the font of research, innovation, design, and engineering while the country ceases to make things. Research and product development invariably follow manufacturing. Now even business schools that were cheerleaders for offshoring of US jobs are beginning to wise up.
In other words, the economy is an ecosystem, and tearing it apart and hurling it across oceans can only lead to a decrease in innovation and wealth. We need as much innovation as we can get now, because we are entering an era in which the human species either learns how to produce sustainably or endangers its very existence.
A continentalized global economy would probably have quite a bit of trade, but no region would be dependent for its survival on trade with another region. Trade would mostly be in terms of innovative goods and services. Because every region would be independently wealthy, international power would be distributed more evenly, and war would be less likely to bring victory to the aggressor.
It is perhaps the greatest irony of the idea of globalization that the very people who most sing its praises, those in economics departments and financial firms, work and live in two of the geographically smallest environments, the college campus and downtown Manhattan. All they need to do is look around them to see that innovation depends on proximity.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Flat
Cjenki01 Posted 2:18 am
05 Aug 2008
Permalink
GreenHick Posted 2:47 am
05 Aug 2008
I would, yes, be grateful for further exposition on the connections to Aristotle, who is rarely, I suspect, at more than about three degrees of separation from any thinking we might do.
Good quality of posts on the lists, though I think the population boilerplate is somewhat discourteous, and thus self-defeating.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:38 am
05 Aug 2008
Now that someone has finally called me out on this, I'll do my best: Aristotle talked about four main "causes", although today we generally think of "cause" as in "cause and effect", as something "causing" something else, for Aristotle "cause" really meant something else -- or at least, I'm emphasizing the something else. He talked about what causes a statue, for instance, to be a statue. Now, from my perspective, he's not so much talking about what causes it, as he wondering how is it produced.
What are the different categories that we must use to describe a statue? So, first, he talks about its form, say, the statue is a person, probably the part of the statue that most identifies it (the difference between Michalengelo's David and Pieta, for instance). In my metaphysics, form is created by machinery, most importantly by machine tools, which form the different pieces of a machine.
Next, Aristotle talks about the substance that makes up the statue, say clay; in my scheme, we are talking about how different materials, such as steel, are made.
Aristotle's third cause is closer, or I think scholars would say closest, to our definition of cause -- I believe he calls it the process of making the statue, which I used for my own purposes as the category of energy-conversion, as in electricity-making or using fossil fuels.
Finally, the most difficult part of his quartet, my interpretation anyway, is his categorizing the design of the statue as a cause; this had to do with his idea that, for instance, when you shoot an arrow, it gets to its destination because of the final cause, that is, it was somehow part of a plan that the arrow should get there. At any rate, my fourth category of production is information-processing, such as computers, which are used to design and keep track of the entire manufacturing process.
So, my categories of production are structure-forming, material-making, energy-converting, and information-processing, which are similar to Aristotles' causes of form, structure, process, and design. Glad you asked? (cc, please feel free).
Also, GreenHick, I don't know what your reference to "population boilerplate" is about.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 5:00 am
05 Aug 2008
A couple of thoughts. First, as I wrote on Revkin's blog, it takes much more energy to move a heavy atom than it does an electron. In other words, if we recognize that energy available to do useful work is the real currency of the (global) economy, then costs accrue from the amount of energy consumed in each stage of a product/service production. Seeking the lowest (true) cost solution does end up suggesting that the further you have to move some mass the more the (true) cost to the whole economy. [It is possible to show that a local optimization can lead to a global sub-optimal solution, so what might cost a manufacturer less, say in labor, ends up costing society more. Its actually the tragedy of the commons kind of thing.]
So move electrons, through the Internet for example, but conserve on moving atoms unless it is absolutely necessary. This last issue is what will make absolute compartmentalization impossible. Different regions will possess different resources in different amounts. Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) reminds us that not every region will have equal access to all resources needed to have a full function civilization. Hence trade.
If we use the energy cost of trade as the rational pruning device we should be able to determine which atoms actually need to be transported and which probably shouldn't. Food production and distribution on a strictly local level, while a wonderful image for some, is probably not really feasible in any strict sense. OTOH, do we need to ship tomatoes from Central America so I can enjoy my full-complement salad in mid-January? Nice to have, but not necessary.
Information, on the other hand, seems essential for there to be globalization of what is important. Eventually we will have to act as a single global population when it comes to coordinating our activities so as to not destroy the planet. We will find ways to share ideas, knowledge, and data that facilitates that coordination without having to have endless rounds of meetings in exotic locations.
So contenentalization (or smaller scale) for that which needs to be localized at that scale, appropriate trade for essentials, and globalized information. Seems like a rational approach.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:58 am
05 Aug 2008
Still, in my vision of utopia, people would spend much of their vastly expanded leisure time traveling around the world in renewable electricity-powered high-speed trains (how to get over the oceans sustainably, I'm not sure). So maybe a "sustainable" globalization would have more people movement than goods movement, the reverse of what we have today.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:10 am
05 Aug 2008
However... social changes don't occur because they are efficient or reasonable.
One has to look at the underlying trends in economics, political power and natural systems. Is the time ripe for the new ideas? What political forces can be mobilized to support them? How should the ideas be presented?
Globalization didn't occur because it was a good idea, but because it was very profitable for certain entities and because they did a very good job of pushing their program forward. Cheap fuel and the dominance of capitalism were preconditions.
Is it time for Jon Rynn's return to continental economies? Maybe so, with cheap fuel coming to an end and a growing concern about global warming.
The question remains - what are the political forces? Who would benefit, who would fight it?
Personally, I'm much more enthusiastic about bio-regionalism and relocalization.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:11 am
05 Aug 2008
Water shipping is much cheaper than trucking, and it's even cheaper than rail, so it will continue to grow.
Further, innnovation is likely to bring the cost of water shipping back down: wind power can provide 10-30% of propulsion, PV is economical, heavy & cheap batteries can be carried economically on big ships, etc, etc.
I'm not even convinced that globalization is bad: global trade is a much better deterrent to war than evenly balanced economic power. For instance, I can't imagine the US going to war with China or Japan (even aside from many other reasons, such as nuclear weapons) due to their close economic ties.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:44 am
05 Aug 2008
Balance of power, on the other hand, has a long pedigree, generally on the conservative part of the political spectrum, but not always. For instance, even though the US and USSR hated each other, they joined together to balance out and defeat Nazi Germany, and then they didn't go to war with each other afterwards, because they were balanced.
As for water-borne shipping, on that I am much less of an authority, but I would argue that oil is going to keep getting more expensive, forever, and this will greatly impact all forms of oil-based transport.
Bart -- There's always an advantage to having a set of ideas in place, if not for use now, then when the economy hits the fan. Perhaps the premiere example of this was in Cuba, when the oil ran out, and they pulled out some plans that had been developed to survive without oil. So we need some plans, at least.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 7:46 am
05 Aug 2008
That was then, now is now. We've painted ourselves into a corner that will be hard to escape by decisions as usual. Now we may fail to recognize this and continue on with trying to find local optima while the whole system declines. That would certainly fit in with my thesis that humans have not yet evolved sufficient sapience to make globally wise decisions (that especially goes for our so-called leaders).
In the not-too-distant future I suspect we will not have the luxury of 'political decisions' as the way to fix things. But that doesn't mean wise rationality will prevail either. In the latter case we will be a very small blip in the evolution of Earth. An important blip, like the meteorite that hit Yucatan 65m years ago, but short in terms of geological time.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:18 am
05 Aug 2008
That's a key thing to learn about, in order to make compelling arguments about global vs continental trade.
"oil is going to keep getting more expensive forever"
It certainly will for at least the next 5 years. After that, it's a race between substitutes and depletion. That's not at all clear.
"this will greatly impact all forms of oil-based transport."
Here's the fatal flaw: water shipping isn't necessarily oil-based. As I noted, modern forms of wind power are very feasible, PV power is now cheaper than bunker fuel, and heavy & cheap batteries can be carried economically on big ships. This is important. The only form of transport that is fundamentally hard to free from liquid fuels is by air.
"you got my political science hackles up there with the trading vs. balance argument. "
Thanks for the info - I'll freely admit to not being an expert there. Let me ask: what do you think of the "democracies don't attack democracies" argument?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:34 am
05 Aug 2008
Id be interested to know if you have any examples of using wind or pv or batteries on cargo ships , or is this another case, as in autos, of not developing the technology until oil is horribly expensive, or is like plug=ins that seem to be "real soon now"?
Permalink
Nickz Posted 12:22 pm
05 Aug 2008
The straightforward theory, to me, is that citizens are more likely to restrain governments from arbitrary aggression - where both parties have such restraint, war is much less likely. Where the US has been too aggressive, typically deception of the public has been necessary - Iraq is a prime example. Sadly, 1954 Iran is a decent example of the US attacking a budding democracy, so clearly the theory isn't foolproof.
Wind is being used right now on ships - I'll find some examples. PV and batteries aren't yet on a large scale, but the cost-curves of PV & batteries vs bunker fuel crossed only very recently (though convincingly), so that's not surprising.
I'm surprised your skeptical about plug-ins. It's very clear that GM, for instance, is (literally) dead serious.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:45 pm
05 Aug 2008
first, plug-ins will be available from GM and maybe others not until the end of 2010 at the earliest. I'm not sure who else is serious. And GM's, I believe, is only a 2-seater, and we don't know it's price
second, it doesn't seem like there are any great breakthroughs -- you can go for 40 miles on electricity alone, which is about the level of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). So, basically at this point plug-ins are NEVs with a small gas engine. Which makes me actually wonder why NEVs shouldn't be pushed more -- except that it's difficult to drive NEVs on roads over 30 mph, and certainly on highways.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:57 pm
05 Aug 2008
What is it that is hard to understand about local maximization of (say) profit, and global sub-optimal results. Of course GM is looking at this solution. Who is looking at where the electricity is coming from. I'll give you a hint. The coal companies love this idea. Does that give you encouragement?
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:29 pm
05 Aug 2008
Neither are about 90% of the people on this list. They are all doom and gloom. I have come to the conclusion that their lives must really suck, they don't know how to seize the day, they are like the little guy in the Gullivers Travels cartoon who always moaned "we're never going to make it."
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:45 pm
05 Aug 2008
I really appreciate your honesty when you don't buy into the plugin vehicle bandwagon. Like you, I am not convinced about their superiority over a mix of trains and NEVs. It is unfortunate that Obama's energy plan makes no mention of trains at all.
Oil prices are going to rise and they will make transporting stuff expensive. But they might not make it so expensive as to encourage local production. Further, oil has nothing to do with the outsourcing of white collar jobs such as services. This will increase further.
It is a highly abnormal thing that the working class of the industrialized countries are at the mercy of the superrich who ship jobs overseas for meagre profits. Something is clearly wrong. And that is not trade or globalization.
Imagine a world where each human has a robot associated with him. Imagine that this robot is powered by your favorite source of energy, and that this robot does all the work for the human. What does the human do ?
Have fun. This is what everybody in the world should be doing. Atleast, this is what everyone in the industrialized countries should be doing.
In reality, there is no one robot for each human. There is a huge automation network which works for a lot of humans. And some parts of this network use other human beings for replacing either the robot or the energy.
Several people already enjoy benefits of this automation network. We call them the rich people , who don't bother to do any work at all. Why can 't this circle of people be increased to include the whole of humanity ? Is there a constraint on the robot or on the energy ? The answer is no and no . Then, why is this not being done ? Persisting stupidity of the human society, where inequality of opportunities or leisure is considered a norm.
Human beings are a very precious resource and they can replace either the robot or the energy part. So huge numbers of Chinese or Indians begging to be part of the automation network should bring bemused smiles to Americans. If Americans are not happy about it, the root of the problem is not trade or globalization, but continuing inequality in the American society itself.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:05 am
06 Aug 2008
I find your complaints about the grumpiness of the people on this blog somewhat ironic, considering that your comments tend to be very grumpy, including the one above. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it adds to the mix. But please consider the following proposition: this website has the great advantage over most other progressive websites in that there is a constant barrage of proposals about how to make things better. That is a profoundly hopeful behavior. I mean, if you think we're grumpy, go look at counterpunch.com. Most of my posts proposealternatives, and I usually, but not always, spend most of the post proposing something.
And here's another reason why you and I sometimes enjoy being very critical -- it's easier to write in an amusing way if you're critical. I don't know if you're familiar with Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Hitchens, but they've made a career of using their British wit to destroy ideas and people. What movie review would you rather read, a scathing pan or a thumbs up?
vakibs, I believe you are talking in a general way about the "distribution of power", a favorite concept of the international relations types that I was pontificating about a little further up. In international relations, one can predict who is dominating who (whom?) by assessing relative political (or economic/military) power. Similarly within a society, or the entire planet, you can make certain predictions about who dominates who according to the wealth that they have accrued.
Since at least agriculture we've had hierarchical societies, in which the masses have been enslaved or hired, as in your robots, and the surplus has gone to the top. The interesting question, to me, is to envision a society were this distribution of power is decentralized.
Now, some people here talk about decentralized solar power vs. solar farms in the desert, and we've talked about relocalized food, and I've talked about relocalized manufacturing. But that's all part of the idea, it seems to me, of redistributing power away from the top.
The other obvious, but so far infrequently done, way is with workplace democracy, so that at least within the firm, there is power distribution.
And just one more thing, I've always thought that India has a large advantage over China right now, because as flawed as Indian democracy is, it is far superior as a political system to the current Chinese one, and I think that is a precondition for other kinds of decentralization of power.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:56 am
06 Aug 2008
I don't know much about the electric power production based on the decentralized grid. But I don't put it as a precondition for the decentralization of political power. In my opinion, the biggest tool we have for decentralizing politics is the internet. Here is an amazing lecture by the French philosopher Michel Serres, summarized by me in English.
Centralized systems have certain advantages. With proper planning, they take lesser materials and can facilitate recycling. One good example would be centralized sanitation systems.
For power distribution, a decentralized grid might be a good idea by itself (such as less energy losses etc), in that case we should adopt it.
In our current electoral representative democracy, what really plays a huge role is the mass-media. This is especially true for uneducated people who are very gullible.So decentralizing information is more important than decentralizing energy distribution. This is where the internet comes into play.
For all its democratic framework, India has more poverty than China. If you are extremely poor, you would prefer to live in China than in India. If you are middle-class, India is obviously a better choice.
About who enjoys the goodies of the civilization, I think we should clearly distinguish industrial society over agricultural society. Before industrialization, the whole world was poor. Only very few people had guaranteed access to food, health and finer comforts in life. With industrialization, this started to change.
When you can supply energy to a robot and make it work for you, you don't have to make any human suffer at all. There is no need for this. The only questions to pose are (a) do you have enough money to make the robot (b) do you have enough energy to supply to the robot
I contend that the answer for both (a) and (b) is yes .
I go further and say that this automation of society is even beneficial to the environment, if done in a smart way. Not only will it eliminate human suffering, but also will it preserve the biodiversity of the planet.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 2:33 am
06 Aug 2008
"plug-ins will be available from GM and maybe others not until the end of 2010 at the earliest"
Well, GM's Vue plugin will be here in summer of 2010, in addition to the Volt. Toyota's plugin is promised for 2010, though I'm sure they're hoping to one-up GM by making 2009. Others planning plugins by 2010 include VW, Tesla, and Aptera. Mitsubishi's MiEK will be available in 2009 in Japan, and Nissan is planning EV's for 2010.
"GM's, I believe, is only a 2-seater"
No, it's a 4-seater, comparable to a Prius.
"we don't know it's price"
It will be priced as high as GM can manage, while still selling 100% of production.
"you can go for 40 miles on electricity alone, which is about the level of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV)."
Except, as you point out, NEV's are golf carts, and the Volt/VUE/Plugin Prius (etc) are real highway capable vehicles. More importantly, having 400 miles of range and the ability to use either electricity or fuel makes the vehicle infinitely more useful.
Plugins are better in every way than pure ICE vehicles, can reduce fuel consumption by 80-100% (depending on your travel choices - treat it like a NEV with an ICE for emergency backup purposes only, and you'll get 100%), and will be no more expensive with comparable mass production. Their only drawback is that it will take several years to ramp up production.
George,
"Who is looking at where the electricity is coming from. I'll give you a hint. The coal companies love this idea."
Nah. It's really wind that will benefit: wind's biggest problem is it's unneeded output at night, and charging would happen at night. It's 2nd biggest problem is intermittency, and charging could be responsive to variable output, and compensate for wind's variability. There's also the value of V2G, which would help wind.
vakibs ,
"I am not convinced about their superiority over a mix of trains and NEVs"
I think trains are great. NEV's, though, are not nearly as valuable as plugins. Now, a nationwide network of rail combined with carsharing NEV's, plugins and EV's would be great, and I agree that rail needs more emphasis. I don't really see a need to choose between rail and plugins. Further, if you make people choose, they'll stampede to personal transportation.
Why? Perhaps because personal transportation decentralizes power - we usually put it into terms of convenience and speed, but decentralization of power is what it comes down to. With mass transit, you're at the mercy of the system. Heck, have you noticed the trend towards mass transit smart cards that centrally track your every movement?
BTW, I like the rest of your ideas.
Permalink
GreenHick Posted 2:48 am
06 Aug 2008
As for the remark regarding population boilerplating--apologies. The remark had been in response to several formulaic insertions of a Malthusian perspective by someone apparently representing a population control organization that I had been seeing on the GristMill discussion boards. By the time I'd created a Grist account in order to participate in this thread, I had misremembered one such boilerplate comment as among the responses to your posting.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:06 am
06 Aug 2008
Walking and biking also give you the anywhere anytime decisionmaking, but unfortunately from my perspective driving a car literally gives you physical power, a feeling the car companies have been exploiting in advertisements from day one. This combination of factors is obviously not just American, but extend to a very large percentage of the world's population -- for instance, in Venezuela they pay about 25 cents per gallon, and there would be riots if the price went up.
However, walking and biking also give you back some power that the car takes away -- particularly when, in reality, you spend so much time in traffic, worrying about parking, or dealing with repairs. But walking and biking make most sense in a dense urban area, thus they have to be linked with "denseness" and mass transit -- mass transit also gives you back much of your time, assuming you like to read. So the whole thing works as a system, that is, you can't really look at it as separate pieces, you have denseness/transit/walking/biking, vs sprawl/cars.
But since most of America at this point is in sprawl/cars, we need to address that issue, which is why I hope the plug-ins work.
Vakibs, fossil fuels have provided lots and lots of energy "slaves" that used to be human, so I hope that, as fossil fuels fade, slaverey doesn't rise back up. Robots, or more generally automation, are here, but they are in factories, and make manufacturing production much less unskilled-labor intensive, even as they increase the need for skilled labor, which has always been a positive trend, as long as the fruits of automation have been spread among the population, not just ripped off by the elite. Which brings us back to the original problem -- that everyone must have some form of association and decision-making power over the "means of production", or the power to create wealth. this could literally mean that most people should have some form of association with the manufacturing sector -- I'm not sure how that would work, but that's the general idea.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 3:26 am
06 Aug 2008
But your complaint that taking a train feels like living in a dictatorship is wildly off the mark.
I live in France, and I assure you it is quite a nice feeling that you get when you can go from Paris to Nice in 5 hours, with the knowledge that you are emitting no CO2 in the process (80% of French electricity is nuclear and the rest has a lot of hydro-electric).
I think people can rent cars whenever they need to use them, like going on a long trip into the mountains or visiting a remote village. It feels nice doing this trip in a car, it is nicer doing on a bike or on horseback.
And we don't need to use cars in day-to-day life. There is no element of blissful freedom in going to work by your car, sitting through a traffic jam, and inhaling clouds of obnoxious smoke.
..that everyone must have some form of association and decision-making power over the "means of production", or the power to create wealth..
This is pretty much also what I think should happen.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:47 am
06 Aug 2008
I hope that when tourists go to NYC, for instance, they see how liberating it can actually be, that in a sense the automobile can also enslave you...maybe the Big Enviros should organize "liberate yourself in the city" trips?
Permalink
Nickz Posted 5:20 am
06 Aug 2008
Very high density, walkable living is very expensive: have you priced housing in any really dense city, like NY, Paris, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco? As far as I can tell, the only affordable high-transit areas are those that used to be expensive, like parts of those cities, and New Orleans, which is really a non-replicatable fluke.
Walking and bicycling are very limited - bicycling especially is no good for people with disabilities, and is very unsafe almost everywhere - it requires a lot of planning to create exclusive corridors, etc to make safe.
No, we need a nice mix of electric rail and PHEV/EV personal vehicles.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:46 am
06 Aug 2008
So part of the problem is to create walkable communities, which is much harder than "just" building a bunch of plug-ins. Which is why I hope plug-ins work.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:01 am
06 Aug 2008
Yes, but they're still expensive.
"If other areas were made really walkable, then lots of people would be happy to live there"
And then they would become expensive.
""Affordable housing" has been a big issue forever in dense cities. "
Because it doesn't happen by itself - it has to be subsidized, or extremely high density in the form of Single Room Occupancy hotels.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:09 am
06 Aug 2008
You might want to haunt http://www.gm-volt.com , to get a feeling for plugins. IIRC, the FAQ is pretty good. The comments are extremely variable in quality.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:22 am
06 Aug 2008
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:56 am
06 Aug 2008
I think there is more potential in your ideas than that. Both continentalism and bio-regionalism are set for a resurgence.
Rising fuel prices are part of it, but also the likely prospect of an Obama Presidency and a growing disenchantment with globalization.
What I'm suggesting is tying the ideas in with trends and political movements. What groups might be interested?
The ideas fit in with relocalization and bio-regionalism, as well as with the labor movement and some businesses/industries.
I think this is more than just a pipedream.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:06 am
06 Aug 2008
It saddens me when otherwise intelligent environmentalists jump on the anti-globalization bandwagon.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:21 am
06 Aug 2008
In any case, I don't think Joseph Stiglitz is particularly on an anti-globalization bandwagon, but it should be clear by now that millions of jobs have gone overseas, which I would think it would be easy to classify as a product of globalization. Those people certainly suffered. Also, the export of pollution to less regulated countries, say from Germany to China, is another example. Plus, the loss in the United States of manufacturing competence, and even arguably the loss of much of the middle class -- it depends how far you want to go with this, I wouldn't blame it all on globalization, I'd also blame a military-obsessed Federal government, short-sighted financial industry, an anti-union attitude, etc.
As for foreign direct investment (FDI), the record is mixed on that as well. Do you mean FDI in east asia? Because the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese either wouldn't allow it or controlled it carefully -- while China has embraced it, with mixed results, in my opinion. Open markets were very helpful to Japan, Taiwan and Korea, certainly, but they didn't need open FDI.
The US probably needs FDI now because, for instance, we couldn't make our own high-speed rail. But FDI in China to make goods that led to closing factories in the US so the goods could then be shipped back to the US, won't survive the rise in oil prices, was bad for the US, and at a certain point, isn't even good for China, if all they get back are soon-to-be-devalued dollars.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:24 am
06 Aug 2008
I think we're in agreement that it's not something that can be done quickly - it would take decades to move most people out of their current housing, and be enormously costly.
More importantly, are we going to try to extend rail to all communities, as we did in 1900? Is it worth the expense? Or, are we going to try to move everyone into dense cities, with property values 2-5x as high as they are currently (not) affording? Are we going to subsidize 75% of homeowners and renters??
Do we need to? We can replace most ICE VMT in 20 years with electric personal transportation, so we don't need this to deal with Peak Oil. I agree that walkability is a great way to live - that's how I live now - but does it make sense as a general prescription for the general population?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:27 am
06 Aug 2008
I would certainly hope that a program of rebuilding the economy by transforming the economy to a sustainable system would be an attractive agenda for most of the progressive part of the spectrum -- and much of the conservative one, as well. I mean, the "Reagan Democrats", the "white working class", whatever you want to call them, would be thrilled if manufacturing was booming again. So I certainly think it could have wide appeal.
So, we could have unions (including their members, even), environmentalists, African-American/Hispanic communities, mayors and governors -- that leaves business. Here, we have the sclerotic effect of oil, autos, utilities, military firms, agribiz, etc. to deal with, and it is less clear where the industries are that could counteract them. Maybe Pickens going into wind, Warren Buffet going into rail, is a sign. Also, for better or worse, the more that European/Japanese machinery makers set up shop here, the more they may actually help push the Feds in a renewable direction.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:44 am
06 Aug 2008
I think we're going to have to eventually construct an intercity rail system like that of 1900, because the price of oil will preclude the kind of air-based intercity system that we have now, and it will also mean that driving between cities will be too expensive. This is the top policy proposal that James Kunstler keeps harping on, that we need to move now, and move fast ("rail here, rail now"?).
if you build enough housing in cities, the price moderates -- not that you could get 3000 sq feet for the same price, but you could have a more reasonable, say, 500 sq feet per person. In other words, you'd go back to the normal space circa 1970 (about 1200 sq ft) instead of 2000 (about 2500 sq feet). Again, as oil goes higher, the demand for urbanity will increase, but since it takes such a long time to move the distribution of buildings, it should be on the agenda, at least, for now.
Will electric vehicles allow the current sprawl to continue just as it is, in other words, will the only thing that will change will be the thingy that's under the hood -- and the fact that you'll have to plug your car into a socket? I don't know -- all I can say is, using current technology, that would work if you "only" drive 40 miles or so a day. So what it seems like now, the outer suburbs, however defined, will be in big trouble, which will lead to a "densification" of the inner suburbs, which might otherwise survive fairly intact. Sound reasonable?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:23 am
06 Aug 2008
It's nothing less than delusional to think that the enormous freighters that now ply the oceans could be powered by PV or anything similar. Do you have any idea how much water these ships displace and how much power it takes to move ships that heavy at the 20-25 knots at which they now travel? You can't even power a personal sailboat at 7 knots for more than a short while on PV alone, and not much longer on PV plus a wind generator, and they displace a small fraction of what freighters do.
And if you wanted to power freighters strictly by sail, you'd have to have huge sails, lots of them, and be willing to deal with late shipments because of lack of wind. And in operating those all those huge sails, you'd either have to eat a lot of maintenance and repair for the high tech systems to raise, shorten, and lower them, or you'd have to hire a large crew.
The only way that ocean freight can be shipped as it is now with current technology is by using fossil fuel or nuclear power. If you want to power these ships with PV, they'll first have to be a lot smaller and lighter.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:29 am
06 Aug 2008
But how much residential living space was added to the downtown? Did the town try to move a significant % of it's residents to the downtown?
"I think we're going to have to eventually construct an intercity rail system like that of 1900"
That would be enormously expensive - that network went to a lot of very small towns, and was very, very extensive. Much of it was for freight, especially agricultural, which could be moved at the time in no other way. Short-haul PHEV trucks and passenger vehicles that fed long-haul rail would be much more cost-effective.
"driving between cities will be too expensive"
Oil is priced out of most uses over about $70-100/barrel (IOW, substitutes like solar/wind are cheaper, either directly or via batteries - one can only hope bio-fuels don't get expanded dramatically (as they aren't essential), but they probably will, and they too will cap the market price of oil which probably won't include the cost of externalities like extinguishing half the biosphere...) so in the long term oil is not going to stay expensive (certainly not over $200/bbl). Oil will have niche uses for long-distance air and small-vehicle travel, where it will still be cost-effective.
I hate to say it, but it needs to be said: James Kunstler really is not a good source. He's a good writer, but the section on renewables in "the long emergency" can only be described as creative fiction.
"if you build enough housing in cities, the price moderates"
Yes, but in the long-run it's much, much more expensive than simply moving to PHEVs.
"using current technology, that would work if you "only" drive 40 miles or so a day"
That covers about 80% of all personal driving and commuting. Double the batteries, at a cost of about $5,000 (what it will cost in 5 years), or add a plug at your workplace (for about $200), and you cover about 95% of commutes. $5,000 is a lot cheaper than, say, $100,000 for more expensive housing, not to mention expanded rail.
Don't get me wrong: I think rail and walkable housing are really good things (that's how I live), but I don't think you can cost-justify them on fuel costs. Trying to do so will put them on an extremely weak foundation.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:45 am
06 Aug 2008
Sure. The Emma Maersk uses about 300 tons of fuel a day, with 80MW rated engines.
"if you wanted to power freighters strictly by sail,"
I said 10-30% of power consumption, not 100%.
"huge sails ...raise, shorten, and lower them"
No, I wouldn't use sails. Modern wind power in shipping uses kites mounted on the bow.
PV is certainly cost effective on the deck, hull and superstructure. The question is how much of the power needs it could provide - 5% or 50%? It would require creative ways of deploying PV - probably on flexible towed structures.
In any case, if wind & PV can only provide 25% of what's needed, then you'd very likely slow down by 20% to cut consumption by 50% (fuel consumption is the cube of speed), supply the rest with very large batteries, and stop for recharging more often (like the olden days of coal).
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 9:49 am
06 Aug 2008
As to your point that there are downsides to globalization so what? There were downsides to refrigeration because the ice shops went out of business but no one is saying that we should've protected those jobs? Life is change. How we manage it is the key. A decrease in trade, FDI, and cultural exchange is a really crappy way to deal with transition- it's like trying to beat inflation by going into recession- yeah, it works, but the cure is worse than the disease.
Seriously, globalization is a good thing and entirely consistent with environmentalism....
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:36 am
06 Aug 2008
Oh goody gumdrops, now I have an excuse to try an outline of a theory of trade. Notice in my post that I wasn't "anti-trade", and also notice that I advocated free trade within regions (continents/subcontinents).
Now if trade is primarily intracontinental, there are three main benefits:
As I explained, there are "advantages of proximity", that effect the production system, that is, an economic advantage
You avoid the emissions and pollution of long-distance shipping, an environmental (and eventually, as oil prices rise, an economic) advantage
You don't export pollution and emissions.
So, there would be lots of trade among regions in new gizmos, or better gizmos, or geographically-specific items, if the transportation costs didn't swamp the value of the good -- but the wholesale importation of large segments of a regional economy would no longer take place. In fact, most commodities like steel wouldn't be traded, interegionally.
This would all work much better if firms were employee-owned-and-operated, because then not much off-shoring would occur, particularly with high transportation costs. But if some critical sector, say a machinery sector in manufacturing, was being ravaged, then it would be the responsbility of the government, as an economic "steward", to nurse it back to health, not just shrug and say, "oh well, the market decreed it". Sort of like being steward of a national park. How's that sound?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:51 am
06 Aug 2008
Now, as Leinberger points out, it took decades to build up suburbia, but built up it was. the city and town centers either will be or could be built up, which will take decades. In other words, if you can build suburbs,you can build centers. (and while Kunstler is not always reliable, he at least tries to come up with alternatives that would avoid his "long emergency". And when he argues that suburbia was the biggest waste of resources in world history, I would say it was the second biggest waste, the US military industrial complex being the worst).
I'd like to research a little what are the percentages of people that drive particular distances, because that 40 mph is an average -- so a lot of people are driving hundreds of miles per day because of where they live, which is why I think outer suburbia (exurbia) might not make it.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:12 pm
06 Aug 2008
Second point: Industries are born and die every decade- there is nothing inherently wrong with that- look at the Fortune 500- every decade firms are knocked off and others enter.
The key issue is making sure people can get the training they need to transition from one job to the next since few people will stay with one firm during their career. Also, we need universal healthcare so that people don't lose healthcare when they change jobs or are out of work for a period.
And let me also make clear that I walk the walk on this point. I work at an institute that does not have tenure. If I don't do a good job or if the economy changes and my institute is no longer profitable I will lose my job. What does that mean? 1. I had better strive for excellence and continually upgrade my skills. 2. I had better be fiscally prudent and not make decisions that will come back to haunt me if I am out of work sometime in the future. 3. I should also make sure that I develop skills that are transferable to other places if the need arises.
And by the way, if higher fuel prices discourage trade fine- that's exactly how it should be. Economists have been arguing for higher fuel prices for decades. But hopefully renewable fuels will come on line soon that reduce transport costs and trade will increase but in a clean way.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:37 pm
06 Aug 2008
So just as in an evolving ecosystem individual species go extinct, but the niches maintain, so it is in an "industrial" ecosystem.
Now as to how Africa would do in such a system, many have been calling for Africa to be united for a long time (or maybe I'm just too influenced by reggae). I think you'd agree that Africa would benefit from a free trade area, as would the Middle East.
But I think the key to any region "developing", or becoming rich, is to establish a vibrant manufacturing economy. That's why we are paying attention to China. Imagine if Africa put together a free trade zone, and had a good plan -- and probably capital would have to come from the developed countries -- to develop a core of engineers and skilled production workers to establsih the basic foundation of a manufacturing economy. Never mind the cocoa, gold, oil, and coffee, which haven't gotten Africa anywhere.
In fact, I can't remember the scholar's name, but in the case of Africa there is a concept called "structural disarticulation", or just disarticulation, that is, the economies of Africa have been torn apart and what is left are little fragments of a whole economy, which are only there to service the developed world. So Africa needs to "rearticulate", and create a holistic economic system.
Global trade has importance for all regions, but only if they have their production system set up and functioning. In fact, having, say 10 regions that have thriving manufacturing sector would probably improve global trade, because you would have 10 centers of innovation. I never understood why economists would sing the praises of competitive markets and then argue that the global economy would benefit when only a few areas would have expertize in various kinds of production.
As to what countries would be in what regions, we can play Churchill et al after WWI carving up the world, as I did in gory detail here, but what I'm saying is that geography would be the main consideration. That way, transportation is minimized, communication maximized. So North America is a natural unit,as is South America, the Indian subcontinent, the European subcontinent, Africa, China, Southeast asia going to Australia probably makes sense, maybe "northeast asia" with Japan, Koreas, and Taiwan, maybe a "central eurasia", basically the former soviet union, and then the middle east. It might even be useful to debate these boundaries, which would at first be the boundaries of free trade zones.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:41 pm
06 Aug 2008
"And when he argues that suburbia was the biggest waste of resources in world history, ............."
This point of view essentially is saying that you reject the idea that people should be allowed to determine how they are going to expend their resources as individuals. That someone else is going to decide for them what housing they can and can not have, rather than allow individuals to make that choice.
"the US military industrial complex being the worst)."
Not if you wanted to win the cold war.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
enki09 Posted 5:36 pm
06 Aug 2008
You can produce synthetic CH4 (methane/natural gas) from any carbon source and water. So agricultural waste, coal, etc could be used to produce local fuel.
If you include a steam reformer/partial oxidation reactor with the CH4 fuel you cut both the CH4 requirements and CO2 emissions by 30% and are running the vehicle on hydrogen.
This is possible NOW not in 10 or 20 years!
http://www.myspace.com/enki09
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:17 pm
06 Aug 2008
There are limits to the notion of "going local" in total independence from the economic systems around you.
However, if people would start investing their own wealth into solar and wind generating systems (or others - whichever make the most sense for where they live) then they could generate their own power independent of a power grid - or largely independent of it.
Lastly, it's fine to oppose the negative aspects of corporate globilazation with opposing the positive aspects thereof. We want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:21 pm
06 Aug 2008
There are limits to the notion of "going local" in total independence from the economic systems around you.
However, if people would start investing their own wealth into solar and wind generating systems (or others - whichever make the most sense for where they live) then they could generate their own power independent of a power grid - or largely independent of it.
Lastly, it's fine to oppose the negative aspects of corporate globilazation with opposing the positive aspects thereof. We want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:46 pm
06 Aug 2008
Pray, how did creating walkable urban spaces become expensive ? What is making it expensive ? What are those costly resources that are needed that make this process expensive - gravel, trees, .. ? What exactly ? It is dumb American institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae which make this expensive.
Just because you have a plan, it doesn't make you a communist.
Urban planning is a science. It is one of the oldest sciences of human civilization. If you do no planning and leave the whole business to the mercy of real estate developers, you get disastrous results. Now, the utter stupidity of this kind of development is visible for our viewing pleasure on Google Earth.
Sprawling cities are the result of total lack of planning. They are the curse of modernization. They consume a lot more energy than is needed. Even if you electrify your cars, they still need energy and all forms of energy production have their problems.
Don't waste resources - whether that is land, or energy, or water. It is this wastage that makes Americans the object of ridicule of everyone. There are no excuses for stupidity - there is no point defending this "American way of life".
It is possible to provide affordable and well-ventilated housing in cities. It is possible to create walkable communities. It is even possible to create urban forestry. It is possible to have clean air in cities.
Just try to delete all kinds of crap that you here from Mr.moneybags. If you are not convinced, travel around - in Europe and even in China. You will see for yourself what is possible.
@Jason D Scorse
As Jon has already explained to you, there are two forms of trade. One is the trade of finished products amongst wealthy nations. This is what accounts for the trade between Europe and USA. The other is the shameless plundering of raw materials. This is what we have seen in colonial times, and what we see to this day in Africa.
Automation brings prosperity to everyone, if only the results of automation are evenly distributed. A society which is completely automated has high indices of well-being. But you need capital to commence the process of automation. This capital is concentrated in Europe and USA. This is why China and India are working overtime to get a share of the global capital.
If global capital can be distributed smartly for automating production worldwide, this obliterates the no need for trade to tackle poverty. Poverty will be eliminated immediately by automation. Ofcourse, trade is good for several other things - such as getting to know each other better.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:35 pm
06 Aug 2008
Sprawling cities are the result of total lack of planning. They are the curse of modernization. They consume a lot more energy than is needed. Even if you electrify your cars, they still need energy and all forms of energy production have their problems."
Spawling cities are not a bad thing. Have you ever lived in Bagngkok? A massive sprawl with enormous challenges and enormous fun as well. I love that crazy place. It certainly wasn't planned. That's not to say I am oppossed to planning of the urban environment per se. But that's not what you want. You want someone to tell everyone else what kind of housing they can and can not live in. I grew up in Newton Mass. That was a planned city which is a suburb of Boston. It is well laid out into thirteen villages - but it is composed of private homes almost exclusively. Why? Because that's what the residents wanted. What you want to do is say "I don't care what people want - we should make them live in housing suitable for the environment" based on your standards.
"Don't waste resources - whether that is land, or energy, or water. It is this wastage that makes Americans the object of ridicule of everyone. There are no excuses for stupidity - there is no point defending this "American way of life"."
It is raw power that makes people object to America. Don't fool yourself. The only people who ridicule America are Europeans, because they are arrogant pricks who think they're smarter than the rest of the world. I lived there for 16 years - got a good look up close.
"It is possible to provide affordable and well-ventilated housing in cities. It is possible to create walkable communities. It is even possible to create urban forestry. It is possible to have clean air in cities."
"It is possible to provide" - nice use of passive voice here. Who's doing the providing??? Nobody objects to cities that are laid out with walkways (like the one I grew up in) and urban forestry (there was a protected wet lands of one square mile right down my street as a matter of fact) and so forth. But that's not what you want. Be honest.
"Just try to delete all kinds of crap that you here from Mr.moneybags. If you are not convinced, travel around - in Europe and even in China. You will see for yourself what is possible."
As I said I lived in Europe for 16 years and served in a German Army unit for five. MOST of my colleagues commuted anywhere from 20-60 minutes EVERY DAY to get to work. Try driving a German autobahn at eight in the morning and check your ill informed theory out. Listen to the German traffic reports in the morning and throughout the course of the day. You think they are walking to work? Get off the crack. I was the ONLY member of my unit who did not live on post that walked to work.
Oh by the way, I live in Thailand and have lived outside the continental US for 21 of the last 24 years. I think I've had a pretty good look at the rest of the world. Most of it is MUCH worse off the than US environmentally with the exception of emissions.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:02 am
07 Aug 2008
We don't know what people would have preferred had cities been rebuilt following World War II. For various reasons, the financial and elite machinery moved very quickly and forcefully to expand suburbs. Part of it was a fear of the liberal tendencies of the cities -- as I heard a scholar say recently, the more space between houses, the more Republican. and Levitt, of Levittown fame, said that someone in a single family home would not turn into a Communist. That just gives a flavor of the political side of the coin.
The cities had plenty of problems, including stultifying political machines. The point is, we don't know what people would prefer if there was an adequate amount of good housing available in walkable cities.
And may I also stress, we're not necessarily talking about cities, towns have been devastated as well.
So if people want to live in suburbs, fine -- but if the price of gasoline goes toward $10/gallon, then what? Let people drive toward a cliff, but stop them before they go off? Should we just let suburbanites rot, that's what they wanted, right? The best I can see to do now is argue, as is argued at grist, that suburbia is becoming less affordable, let's work now to encourage walkable communities. If most people still don't want to do it, well, they were warned.
As for the military, it could have been funded at 1/4 of the funding level it got during the Cold War and we still would have "won" it -- actually, the USSR lost it, by ignoring their manufacturing economy and pouring all their money into the military. I just don't want the same thing to happen to us. Of course, people who are serving and have served were doing the best they could, and deserve our support. But history is history, we need to shore up the manufacturing sector and infrastructure, or else eventually the military will collapse as well.
And I am very critical of the Europeans. Their living patterns and use of energy is better than the US, but they are also unsustainable, and they also need a major transformation.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:12 am
07 Aug 2008
This is my point as well. First provide the people with the options and then let them choose. You never deny anyone the right of choice. The price of suburban housing should rightly reflect the cost to the environment. This cost should not be subsidized out by stupid economic policies.
There will always be certain things that need to be outlawed in human society. Smoking in a public place is outlawed for this reason. One person's freedom of choice should not be detrimental to another person's wellbeing. For the same reason, wastage of energy and resources should be prevented. The right way to do this is to make the market reflect the true cost to the environment.
It is raw power that makes people object to America.
No, you are wrong. Americans think too high of themselves. In reality, outsiders don't care about what America does unless it affects them directly. This is why India was concerned about Enron, and why Europe is concerned about greenhouse gases .
I love America and its spirit of liberty. I have lived there for a while and have made several great friends. What I don't like about America is the wastage of resources that they do. As I said already, there are no excuses for stupidity.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:24 am
07 Aug 2008
Suburbia didn't just happen. It was a result of corporate lobbying and government action. Washinton Post gives some background: Gas Prices Apply Brakes To Suburban Migration: Cheap oil, which helped push the American Dream away from the city center, isn't so cheap anymore. As more and more families reconsider their dreams, land-use experts are beginning to ask whether $4-a-gallon gas is enough to change the way Americans have thought for half a century about where they live.
"We've passed that tipping point," U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said.
Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries.
In sum: MM ignores corporate pressures and vilifies government - the net effect is to dis-empower popular political action and let big business have its way. This gambit is an intellectually dishonest cornerstone of modern conservative propaganda. If you want to bitch about interference in market processes, fine -- but be honest about it -- look at how businesses and industry dominate policy and interfere in the market.
(Note that this blindness is only a characteristic of current dogmatic conservativism. Many traditional conservatives have a more honest and balanced view of government action.)
Bangkok. Just finished talking with a Thai woman about Bangkok -- traffic jams aren't considered serious unless traffic has been stopped for at least an hour. Problem is so bad that some policemen are now trained in delivering babies (for women undergoing childbirth and stuck in traffic). I haven't been to Bangkok, but these details flesh out MM's rosy view. The traditional settlement patterns in Thailand sound appealing though. The best thing about Bangkok seems to be the Thais, rather than their urban planning, or lack thereof.
In one way, though, I agree with MM. Urban patterns that spring up spontaneously often have a vivacity and ecological sense that are lacking in the last 60 years of urban planning. The problem is that cheap gas distorts the process. And when cheap gas is gone, we're stuck with an infrastructure that sucks.
Odd that Jim Kunstler is taking hits on this list. He has been right about the effect of gas prices on suburbia, and the common wisdom has been wrong.
The world loves the US (or does it?). It would be reassuring to think that we're such a lovable country and it's only those snooty Europeans that get in the way of our getting the unstinting admiration we so richly deserve.
In my experience, it's more of a mixed picture. On the one hand, there is an immense reservoir of good-will and admiration for America. On the other hand, US government policy is often very unpopular. Especially under Bush, the US has lost a lot of the respect that it formerly had.
MM says that Europeans can be pricks. True, but Americans can be pricks too - in a different way.
Funny thing though, when I'm living abroad, I realize how American I am in my outlook and personality. And I get to appreciate the U.S. for what it has been and what it could be.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:18 am
07 Aug 2008
"Since the end of World War II, government policy has funded and encouraged the suburban lifestyle, subsidizing highways while starving mass transit and keeping gas taxes much lower than in some other countries."
Suburbia was not "subsidized". The interstate highway system was going to be built regardless of whether or not suburbia was. It was quite clear in 1945 that the truck and automobile were the transport of the future. This isn't a big buisiness conspiracy like you crazy people here make it out to be. This was the logical market response to the demands of the market. Anyone who thinks Americans didn't REALLY want cars, and would have preferred "walkable" cities if the option were available, is smoking too much weed. There is ZERO reason to believe this.
"Just finished talking with a Thai woman about Bangkok -- traffic jams aren't considered serious unless traffic has been stopped for at least an hour. Problem is so bad that some policemen are now trained in delivering babies (for women undergoing childbirth and stuck in traffic). I haven't been to Bangkok, but these details flesh out MM's rosy view. The traditional settlement patterns in Thailand sound appealing though. The best thing about Bangkok seems to be the Thais, rather than their urban planning, or lack thereof"
I haven't just "seen" Bangkok, I've been there many, many times - as I live in Thailand. Bangkok is insane. The air quality sucks, the traffic is horrible, there's a serious problem with crime.......... but it's still a hell of a lot of fun. There is NOTHING you can't do in Bangkok - OK you can't go on a nature hike, there's no nature. But everything else is available there. I am not saying we should work to transform New York City and LA into Bangkok, but it does point out how cities like this can be great places and they are not walkable in the slightest (in fact, the sidewalks are horrible - crowded with vendors).
"In sum: MM ignores corporate pressures and vilifies government - the net effect is to dis-empower popular political action and let big business have its way. This gambit is an intellectually dishonest cornerstone of modern conservative propaganda. If you want to bitch about interference in market processes, fine -- but be honest about it -- look at how businesses and industry dominate policy and interfere in the market."
Business responds to the market to make money. You can live with Big business and it's influence in the political sphere, or you can have a directed economy. They suck and still trash the environment. The current model you see if the best out there - both from an environmental perspective and a political one - warts and all. You guys want what doesn't exist.
"The world loves the US (or does it?). It would be reassuring to think that we're such a lovable country and it's only those snooty Europeans that get in the way of our getting the unstinting admiration we so richly deserve."
I'm not saying that at all. I am simply saying that Europeans aren't any better than Americans and that Europe isn't any better than America. Both have plusses and minuses. I was responding to the "go look at Europe" quote (as if living there for 16 years - 17 if you count Bosnia - isn't enough).
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:24 am
07 Aug 2008
The notion that all developing countries only export raw materials and that this is somehow exploitative is wrong. First, many developing countries export a mix of products. Second, you need to differentiate between raw materials because some can be processed in country and some not- i.e. natural gas versus coffee. And even in countries that are exporting raw materials, which you may not like, they are generating much needed foreign exchange.
Where there is actually exploitation is in the little known world of tariff escalation, where developed countries imposed higher tariffs on processed goods than raw goods- i.e. more on refined sugar than raw cane- even if both of the absolute levels are low, say 10% and 5% respectively, the ration is 2:1 which greatly biases exports from the developing country towards the raw material. As we know, value-added is concentrated in processed and finished goods.
The way to deal with this?
The only organization directly attacking this exploitative practice is the WTO. But I would guess that people like you and probably Jon are opposed to the WTO (correct me if I'm wrong), which gets us back to the place we started: most people have a simplistic and knee-jerk aversion to globalization and don't understand the actual policies that would make for a fairer trading system (unintentionally of course, but still).
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:28 am
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:33 am
07 Aug 2008
The "terms of trade", as the debate has sometimes been called, which generally have favored rich manufacturing countries over poor developing countries with raw materials, is pretty well established, I think (unless it's oil), and the obvious remedy is to industrialize the developing countries -- as I indicated above, and it would help if, say, Africa had a free trade zone so that they could get economies of scale for manufacturing plants -- and it would also help if the developed countries would help set up engineering schools, etc., although that might be as likely as Nigeria using its oil money to do the same thing.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:11 am
07 Aug 2008
It doesn't mean that suburbia was a conspiracy. As usual, it was a combination of factors: cheap fuel, pent-up demand after the War, consumer preferences, the national highway system, lobbying. Business people saw an opportunity and took it.
You can live with Big business and it's influence in the political sphere, or you can have a directed economy. They suck and still trash the environment. The current model you see if the best out there - both from an environmental perspective and a political one - warts and all. You guys want what doesn't exist. Okay, good, now we're starting to talk about reality.
You say either we have to choose between big business corruption or a directed economy. And of the two, we now live in "the best of all possible worlds."
But wait a minute! There are more than two choices! We can think, discuss, choose -- we don't have to be puppets either of Big Business or of Centralized Rule.
It isn't an either/or choice.
It is possible to put brakes on special interests when they threaten the common good. And to encourage markets where they make sense.
In other words we've got to think, rather than rely on dogma.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:15 am
07 Aug 2008
"how did creating walkable urban spaces become expensive ? "
First, it's not walkability I'm talking about, it's density, the kind of density that makes cars unnecessary. Density is expensive: look at any dense area where cars aren't necessary: NY, Paris, Chicago central area, etc. We can debate why this is, but it is the reality.
"Even if you electrify your cars, they still need energy and all forms of energy production have their problems. "
Yes, but the wind energy needed to power a PHEV/EV costs about $2,000 (12,000 miles per year at 5 miles per KWH = $2,400 KWH's, 2,400 KWH/8,760 hours per year = 270 watts, 270W/27% capacity factor = 1KW of wind power - 1KW @$2/watt = $2,000). Transmission and distribution might raise this to $3K. That's infinitely cheaper than moving to dense urban housing with double the cost/square foot.
Jon,
"if the price of gasoline goes toward $10/gallon, then what? "
Then suburbanites buy PHEV/EV's. If PHEV/EV production can't be ramped up for a few years, they carpool in the interim. Not such a big deal.
Again, don't get me wrong: I like big cities, I live in them, I use rail to get to work, I love dense city living. It's just that I pay a big premium to do it, and many people can't or are unwilling to do so, and Peak Oil isn't going to change that. Look at the difference in housing costs between Gurnee and Evanston, and Evanston and the Loop/Lincoln Park - those cost differences are much, much greater than the cost of transportation ever will be.
Bart,
"Odd that Jim Kunstler is taking hits on this list. He has been right about the effect of gas prices on suburbia, and the common wisdom has been wrong. "
No, he hasn't. We're seeing the effects of the housing bubble on exurbia, where the newest houses were built for the poorest people. Despite a lot of speculation about fuel costs, there really isn't any evidence besides simple correlation that fuel prices are causing exurban housing problems. The fact is, JK simply hates suburbia, and did so long before he latched onto energy problems. He also is a died in the wool millenarian - litererally - he predicted that Y2K would be the inevitable end of civilization (he didn't say "might be without preparations and good programming", he said "inevitable").
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:27 am
07 Aug 2008
Lots of newspaper articles and several housing experts are pointing to high fuel prices as a cause of the pain. R-e people say that the fall in housing prices is proportional to the distance away from jobs/cities.
Where it really is a problem is in the far-off exurbs. Put that together with the housing slump and people just making ends meet, and you have the beginning of the end of suburbia.
As usual, it is hitting the poor first. But as current trends continue, it will affect more people.
I don't see oil getting cheap again, and prices will probably go much higher. I think electric vehicles are over-hyped and won't be a long-term solution. The American economy is in trouble and will probably be in the dumps for years.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:30 am
07 Aug 2008
But wait a minute! There are more than two choices! We can think, discuss, choose -- we don't have to be puppets either of Big Business or of Centralized Rule.
It isn't an either/or choice.
It is possible to put brakes on special interests when they threaten the common good. And to encourage markets where they make sense."
Where we can discuss things is with the eaches. Policy "X" is bad, policy "Y" is good - although I am challenged to find quotes about much good here on the Grist. But yes, no problem there. But the direction much of these threads takes is one in which many people here want out entire politico - economic system thrown out the window. Nobody comes right out and says it, but they all hate big business, without which there would be precious few jobs, and many other extremely negative consequences. Big business MUST be the solution to environmental issues. If it is simply attacked constantly as an enemy, it will be tone deaf and not respond to the desires of environmentalists. Ditto the population at large, which is getting sick of hearing "the end is coming now".
In other words we've got to think, rather than rely on dogma.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:34 am
07 Aug 2008
"As usual, it is hitting the poor first. But as current trends continue, it will affect more people.
I don't see oil getting cheap again, and prices will probably go much higher. I think electric vehicles are over-hyped and won't be a long-term solution. The American economy is in trouble and will probably be in the dumps for years."
Oil is not going to get cheap again, but we probably have about 7 more years of affordable oil.
Where you and I disagree is that SOMETHING will replace the automobile and people will retain mobility. You don't WANT that to happen. You want people FORCED to move into the cities. That clouds your analysis. Why will something replace the automobile? Because people want independent mobility, big business knows it, so they will develop it to feed the market. Big money to be made.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:50 am
07 Aug 2008
For instance, I hate cars (I mean, they're beautiful machines, many of them, but I hate the effects they have). Even so, I'd gladly welcome electric vehicles that could let any Republican sit smugly in their exurbia home, oblivious to any climate catastrophes that might have been averted because of said electric (renewably supplied) cars. Why? Because I realize that that would be much easier to pull off than trying to convince most of the population, before gasoline becomes too expensive, to push for decent housing/education/infrastructure in cities and towns.
So I don't see what our individual preferences have to do with it, I'm just trying to apply logic and data.
As far as big business making the necessary moves before crisis strikes, good luck. It's not because I hate big business, although, again, I think employee-owned-and-operated businesses would be much more efficient in the long-run, but looking at it historically, big business has very little compunction about ignoring everything except expanding profits and power -- and that attitude is what a large segment of the policy intelligentsia is hired to justify. So I wouldn't go looking for salvation there.
As for NickZ's point about plug-ins vs. density, as I just argued, sure, plug-ins would be great. However, I have to point out that we have some very old, tried-and-true ways to vastly cut down on transport expense -- that is, most everything that was built before the age of the automobile. So we know that dense, mixed use cities and towns, with walking and rail, works. We don't know how the electrification of the automobile will work -- hopefully it will, but I think we should still push for as much density as we can.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:19 am
07 Aug 2008
Yes, and they're saying it based on absolutely no evidence, except for their seat of the pants guesses, and a few anecdotes. I've read the articles, like the one in the Atlantic - speculative and based on very limited info - they're really, really not serious, peer-review, evidence based articles.
"R-e people say that the fall in housing prices is proportional to the distance away from jobs/cities. "
Of course it is: the newest housing and the poorest people are in the exurbs, precisely because housing and living costs are lowest there.
"you have the beginning of the end of suburbia. "
That's entirely wishful thinking.
"I don't see oil getting cheap again"
Nor do I, for at least the next 10-15 years.
"prices will probably go much higher"
Nah. That would be unaffordable. Before that happens, people will reduce their consumption (aka "demand destruction").
" I think electric vehicles are over-hyped and won't be a long-term solution. "
Do you have any evidence for that at all?? EV's have been around for 100 years (there were 10's of thousands of them on the road in the early 1900's, and there are ten's of millions of small ones around the world), and they work just fine. They just haven't been able to compete with really, really cheap oil. They're now cheaper than oil, and as battery costs continue to fall they'll get ever more competitive.
"The American economy is in trouble and will probably be in the dumps for years. "
Yes, it will take a while for us to kick our oil addiction, and in the meantime we're sending a lot of our income to oil exporters. This won't be easy or comfortable, but neither will be the end of civilization, or even the suburbs.
Jon,
"I hate cars "
I realize that you're trying very hard to be open minded, and I respect that. Still, I really think that kind of attitude is going to make anyone vulnerable to wishful thinking - i.e., "cars are bad, therefore fuel prices are going to do them in".
"big business has very little compunction about ignoring everything except expanding profits and power "
Markets (and that's what we're talking about here, really) have a lot of imperfections (as Stiglitz argues), but they still work pretty well. In this case, PHEV/EV's will come really very quickly. For instance, GM is deeply comitted to the Volt, and bringing it very, very quickly (as new vehicle launches go).
" we know that dense, mixed use cities and towns, with walking and rail, works"
hmmm...not very well. It's a great way to live, but a very, very slow and expensive way to get rid of cars or save energy.
"We don't know how the electrification of the automobile will work"
Oh, sure we do. See my earlier comment. Electric motors are older than ICE's, work better, and are now racing away from them in cost. This isn't rocket science, it's very, very basic engineering.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:25 am
07 Aug 2008
also, to "It's a great way to live, but a very, very slow and expensive way to get rid of cars or save energy. " let me add: "I strongly support expansion of rail, and alteration of the various subsidies (like "free"ways, and pollution/CO2 externalities) and regulations (like some zoning rules) that have distorted housing and transportation markets, but we shouldn't exaggerate the effects that will have".
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:28 am
07 Aug 2008
I worked in big corporations for about 20 years and I don't hate big business. They are very good at some things like large engineering projects.
However, they should NOT be allowed to set policy, nor to dominate government. In the long run, the corruption that results is unfavorable to them as well.
I think what most of us are reacting to is the growing dominance of US government by business interests, in particular by some of the less enlightened business interests.
About capitalism I'm ambivalent. Personally I have done very well with it, and I enjoy playing the game. But with unrestricted capitalism come big problems with the environment and social justice. And so I'm critical.
It is not a radical position to be critical of business and capitalism, MM. It has been widespread in much of the world, and in the US for many decades (not now though).
This criticism may sound strange if most of one's ideas come from contemporary American media. I think, though, that we in the US are undergoing a leftward shift, and there will be an influx of new ideas.
MM: You want people FORCED to move into the cities.
Are you talking to me? Let's get real, MM. What is this fantasy about Red-starred Commissars putting hapless citizens into sealed trains and shipping them off to walkable neightborhoods? Force-feeding them organic vegetables.
Oil prices are rising, we both agree on that. Government policy has a lot to do with how society responds. Is it a wise policy to continue to subsidize cars and suburbia? Suburbs by their very nature are energy-intensive.
Businesses will pursue their own immediate self-interest. They will dominate policy, if allowed to. You have said this.
This is the real issue to talk about, about which people may have different views. It's fine to disagree, but please be careful with your accusations.
MM: ... people want independent mobility
Boy, this sure sounds like an industry talking point.
Yes, independent mobility is nice, but people also want a family life, they don't want to be in debt, they don't want their children sent away to foreign wars.
And mobility does not necessarily mean cars, not at all. Walking, mass transit, bicycles - there are many ways to be mobile.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:48 am
07 Aug 2008
The best evidence now available is from people in the field. And the evidence of the market itself. I have a half dozen friends who cannot sell their houses (at the prices they want). However, the one person who had a house in a close-in suburb had little trouble selling her house.
nickz: EV's have been around for 100 years Still not convinced that they will be able to substitute for the cheap-gas autos that made suburbia possible. As you said, they have not been able to compete in the past. Limited range, problems with the electrical supply. Sure there will be some EVs, but the economics of suburban living will be changed.
"prices will probably go much higher"
Nah. That would be unaffordable. Before that happens, people will reduce their consumption (aka "demand destruction"). Wait a second, I thought you wanted scholarly, peer-reviewed articles? ;-) Seriously, this is not at all a sure thing. There is evidence that supplies could drop more quickly than assumed. Even with demand destruction, there are many uses of oil for which there is no substitute. Lots of internal combustion engines which will need fuel. So, the final answer is - who knows?
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:19 am
07 Aug 2008
Not really. First, it's very easy to make existing homes somewhat more efficient. It's as easy to build highly insulated, efficient houses (i.e., PassivHaus/zero net energy kinds of buildings) as it is to rebuild housing in big cities - heck, it's probably easier.
Suburban homes have roofspace for PV, and yard space for geothermal heat-pumps (though the newest air heat-pumps will serve most people better). Suburban vehicles can easily run off wind electricity - nothing inherently fossil-fuel based here.
Finally, suburbs can be walkable, and have rail - they, like Europeans, would still need cars for some uses, but there's nothing fossil-fuel intensive about that, or even especially energy intensive: EV's use fewer KWH's per mile than does rail.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:31 am
07 Aug 2008
We're agreed that exurbs are having a harder time. The question is why? I see no evidence that it's primarily fuel prices, and a lot of evidence for the causal link between distance from city-center, and low income (and marginal quality mortgages).
"As you said, they have not been able to compete in the past"
Not precisely: they were very competitive before cheap gasoline arrived, and now they're competitive again.
"Limited range"
Which is solved by Plugins.
"problems with the electrical supply"
No, that wasn't a problem with EV's. Per the FHWA, 90% of vehicles have off-street parking, and parking garage and street electricity is done widely - take a look at engine pre-heaters in Canada and Minnesota.
"the economics of suburban living will be changed."
Not much. Have you tried quantifying this??
"There is evidence that supplies could drop more quickly than assumed"
Yes, this is possible. It's based on some shaky assumptions, like the idea that Saudi Arabia would allow net exports to go to zero by continued subsidy of domestic consumption, but it's possible.
"there are many uses of oil for which there is no substitute"
No, though I agree that there are a few that would be very inconvenient - principally long-distance air-travel.
"Lots of internal combustion engines which will need fuel."
In the medium term, though in a real emergency commuters could cut their oil consumption by 75% by the simple expedient of carpooling.
"the final answer is - who knows?"
Yes, there are a lot of uncertainties, and risks - I strongly support aggressive measures to reduce our dependency on oil.
I think what I said represents the likeliest course of events, however.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:41 am
07 Aug 2008
Multifamily dwellings are inherently more energy efficient because you have less roof space per person, and so you lose less heat/cold. It should also be easier to retrofit a big building, per person
To keep suburbs going, you need a large truck-based system, using up lots of miles to deliver goods to a distributed retail system. So you'll need the energy for the trucks
I'm not sure what you mean by "walkable" if you think some suburbs are walkable. I'm not talking about being able to walk 20 minutes to get to a store -- I've done that, it's certainly possible. I'm talking about walking, say, 5 minutes. That's just not possible with a group of single family homes.
There's an article on theoildrum.com somewhere about suburbs growing much of their food. That's possible, assuming again you can get any inputs to suburban homes with trucks.
I'm not sure where you're getting 5 miles/Kwh, I tend to use 3 miles/kwh; we really don't know how that will work out
It seems to me, and I think we can agree, that if people were using NEVs, and there were fairly centralized shopping areas close by, and there were transit lines that were about 5 minutes drive via NEV, that such a suburb would probably do just fine, even in a very energy-constrained world. We just don't know how energy-constrained we will be.
I see what you're saying -- worry about plug-ins, not redensifying -- I guess the disagreement is, I think we should be pursuing both. Right now, even big enviros are pretty much pursuing the plug-in variety (look at Romm's proposals, for instance), and ignoring transit and densifying. So we shall see.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:44 am
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:53 am
07 Aug 2008
Your local municipality, right now, is in a tizzy about the cost of asphalt. Your county is having even worse problems. It's highly likely that some of the rural roads near you are becoming a network of patches and a few will be converted back to gravel roads entirely.
Concrete is a possible replacement but requires a different subsurface infrastructure than asphalt due to the difficulty with breaking and patching it once installed. For areas outside city and town centers it will be simply too expensive.
A minimum density of houses and property values will be required to make asphalt feasible to maintain and that density is climbing every day. As that density goes up light rail or personal rapid transit schemes will become more feasible than multi-lane roadways.
Ultimately the maintenance costs of our infrastructure may dictate our means of transportation. Rails are far cheaper to maintain than roadways and overhead trams cheaper still in hilly areas. Our living and working spaces may end up being dictated by their ability to be served by transit and freight pods delivered on some sort of rail system. Spaces outside of the paved zones or distant from transit stops will be subject to decay or alternate use than our current suburban model provides for.
Suburbia started as clusters of housing surrounding light rail stops originally placed to serve farm communities. It could be that that will be it's ultimate shape.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:20 am
07 Aug 2008
Permalink
Nickz Posted 8:56 am
07 Aug 2008
This needs finetuning: where people are seeing more serious problems in exurbs, it's in poorer and newer exurbs. Read the articles, like the Atlantic one, carefully - they're talking about poor areas, which have suffered from sub-prime mortgages the most, and had the most new construction. Barrington doesn't have sub-prime problems, or significant new construction, and it's not suffering.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:03 am
07 Aug 2008
Yes, but it's much easier for ships to carry large weights efficiently.
"lower power density of batteries vs. gasoline "
This is often exaggerated: the lower efficiency of ICE's partially compensates for the lower density of batteries.
"Has anyone even theoretically outlined how a modern cargo ship could be powered by today's (not future) batteries?"
No, because bunker fuel was dirt cheap until very, very recently. Wind, PV and batteries are all cost-effective in ships now - the only question is what % of fuel consumption they can replace before it's necessary to reduce operating range and speed in order to optimize costs. OTOH, coal worked just fine - it just required more stops.
I'll try to work it up - it's not easy get all of the operating parameters for the analysis.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:04 am
07 Aug 2008
This discussion reminds me of other discussions about capitalism. The term "globalization" also has a very fuzzy definition. "Bound Together" documents the fact that humans have had global trade for tens of thousands of years. It's all a function of how much, how far, and how fast. It's no revelation that energy costs will affect these factors. Big whoop.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:23 am
07 Aug 2008
Of course there has always been global trade, and probably always will be. The question is not trade, as such, but production. When you have supply chains that are going all over the world, that's globalization. When the supply chains are confined to one region, that's continentalization. I'm not saying all supply chains will be that way, but that would be the norm -- in fact, and part of my point was, it is the norm, because that's the best way to produce if you want technical innovation, and often for efficiency.
The books you describe, BioD, may not make that distinction because very few economic-oriented books stress production, as opposed to trade. So if you're just looking at trade, it looks like the globe has always been "globalized", and it's hard to analyze the difference in periods, except by measuring trade as percentage of output, for example.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:45 pm
07 Aug 2008
Well Gar, that is the problem, powering a ship all the way across oceans with batteries is going to be heavier, until they approach 1/3 the energy density of diesel fuel. Because electric battery propulsion will be 3 times the efficiency of diesel propulsion.
Since the weight is not as much of a problem on ships, will that become feasible as batteries are 1/6 the energy density of diesel fuel? Maybe.
This is why kite sails with ducted fan wind turbines to power ships would work now. You would only need enough batteries for a fraction of the trip, they would recharge in favorable winds.
The best possible course could be plotted considering wind direction and speed, which would include mainly reaching and running (going across the wind or with it) and going sraight upwind on battery power to save time tacking into the wind in a zig zag course.
This system could work really well for freight at slower speeds or higher speed passenger ships employing hydrofoils to reduce drag due to displacement. Remember those multiple wind speeds at altitude, compare to the surface winds, and the exponential increase in power. That would power a ship.
Batteries could charge and electric thrusters could run, from the kite mounted turbines, while the kite sails provided forward motion directly to the hull.
This could make global trade 100% GHG free. And cheap to boot.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:18 pm
07 Aug 2008
Nickz -- you sound like a lawyer, able to make a case out of anything. A valuable skill, but if you push it too far, you lose credibility.
BA: "there are many uses of oil for which there is no substitute"
Nickz: No, though I agree that there are a few that would be very inconvenient - principally long-distance air-travel. Plastics, air travel, the entire stock of internal combustion engines, pesticides - it will be more than "inconvenient" to replace these. Given unlimited energy, wealth and time, there are workarounds, it is true. Is it a problem? Yes, and the issue deserves real consideration.
BA: "Suburbs by their very nature are energy-intensive. "
Nickz: Not really. Yes, they really are energy-intensive, for all the reasons given in the posts above. This is not a controversial claim.
Again, there are things that can be done to mitigate the problems. But it diminishes your credibility to make dubious assertions like this. You make a good case when you stick to solid arguments.
About the reason for the problems the in the far-out suburbs, I think what you say is interesting. I kinda agree with what you say about them in your last post. Gas prices are only one factor among several.
However, let me make a case for why gas prices will become more significant over time.
First, the move to the suburbs has been a cultural phenomenona, and like all cycles, this can go in reverse.
Gas prices may be the factor that sets off an inevitable cultural backlash.
When our family moved to the suburbs in 1954, everyone else was doing it. TV programs featured suburbanites. Mad magazine made fun of suburbia. Living in the suburbs has been the default decision for more than 50 years in the US. After so much time, the costs and problems to suburbia have become more apparent.
For example, when I was growing up, a working class family could buy a house in a close-in suburb. Now, some of my engineer friends were buying homes 2-3 hours away from work. Are the gas prices killing them? No, not really. But people feel the pain of gas prices every few days. Add that to the long commute times, the stress of the traffic, and having to take care of a yard on top of a busy schedule...
Well, after a while, suburban life doesn't look so appealing.
Newspapers begin to describe the wonders of walkable neighborhoods. The "cultural creatives" are hanging out in hip urban or semi-urban areas.
Cultural patterns begin to shift, and soon people wonder why anyone would want to live in the suburbs.
Second, personal experience - anecdotal to be sure. My friends and family seem to be gravitating back towards urban centers. They seem to be enthusiastic and happy about it, while those who are stuck in suburbia are having a hard time, financially and psychologically. I don't know why this is exactly.
23 years ago, my wife insisted that we move somewhere that was within walking distance of stores, libraries, etc. I resisted at first, but every day proves the wisdom of her decision.
Third, demographics. Baby Boomers are growing older and who wants to be stuck in a far out suburb when you're 65 and having trouble getting around?
Fourth, the uncertainty and psychological stress of oil prices.
Fifth, the ?? about EVs. You think they are a slam-dunk, I don't. I agree that they will appear and provide a solution for some people. Enough to change the cultural shift? We'll see.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:35 pm
07 Aug 2008
In his book Kicking Away the Ladder (which won the 2003 Gunnar Myrdal Prize), Chang argued that all major developed countries used interventionist economic policies in order to get rich and then tried to forbid other countries from doing similarly. The WTO, World Bank and IMF come in for strong criticism for this kind of ladder-kicking which is, according to Chang, the fundamental obstacle to poverty alleviation in the developing world. This and other work led to his being awarded the 2005 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought from the Global Development and Environment Institute (previous prize-winners include Amartya Sen, John Kenneth Galbraith and Herman Daly).[1][2]
Following up on the ideas of Kicking Away the Ladder, Chang published Bad Samaritans: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the Threat to the Developing World in December 2007.[10]. Chang argues that unregulated international trade (free markets) has very rarely succeeded in producing economic development, and has a far worse record compared to interventionist policies. He cites evidence that GDP growth in developing countries was higher prior to external pressures recommending deregulation and extends his analysis of the failures of free trade to induce growth through privatisation and anti-inflationary policies.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:22 pm
07 Aug 2008
In order to completely reorder our infrastructure in the way that many here want done, the ONLY way that's going to happen is through coercion.
Markets respond to what people WANT. That's how they make money. To eliminate our existing infrastructure would be incredibly costly. It could only done through force.
Now, some here have mentioned not eliminating existing housing, but rather put more emphasis on quality inner city housing and infrastructure, and put mass transit systems to service the suburbs. Indeed I think the oil situation is going to compell this course of action. But again, that's market forces driving solutions, not a government run by Idi Amin Green making it happen.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:10 pm
07 Aug 2008
Careful, Mac! You're hyperventilating again.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:30 pm
07 Aug 2008
I am just pointing out the obvious really.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:13 pm
07 Aug 2008
I have deep respect for your profession as an economist. I also appreciate your articles very much. I mean to show you no disrespect in my comments. If I have done so involuntarily, I apologize.
What I wanted to say is that the effects of the trade are not uniform. Trade is the driving force of economic growth, but its benefits might be accrued to only very few people.
For example, an African dictator might get rich by selling iron ore to Chinese companies, but if he buys all his products from European companies, nobody else in Africa is going to benefit. This is what I described as "plunder of raw materials".
Unlike simple trade, the well being of a society can be directly measured by the degree to which the modes of production are automatized. If I see a country employing automatized production for all its needs, I can confidently say that the people will not be suffering from extreme poverty. This society might not be economically equal, but it provides its citizens with bare minimum food, health and education.
Ideally, the need for humans to work should reduce with increased automation and energy efficiency. Global capital should be deployed in such a manner to accelerate this automation in the best possible way.
You see I am not a communist. I also don't have anything against WTO. I know there might be some scoundrels in there, but I think most guys who work for these organizations have good intentions.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:45 pm
07 Aug 2008
All we can do at the moment is sit back and watch as events unfold. It doesn't matter what we want or don't want.
Two recent articles:
Expert: Foreclosures forcing commuters from San Joaquin Valley back to Bay Area (Modesto Bee)"We believe that there is going to be a tremendous shift back to urban areas, led by those who bought homes in the outlying areas who lose their homes to foreclosure. They will choose to rent near work to save money," wrote John Burns, a national real estate consultant in his July building market analysis.
The Future of Shopping Malls (WorldChanging) Mall culture in the United States -- at least as we know it -- is coming to an end. Last month, the fall of Steve & Barry's became the next addition to a series of recent retailer bankruptcies we've been witnessing across the nation. This trend is likely to continue, as the U.S. economic downturn causes people to reduce their trips to stores and to shop less, forcing more shops to close and leaving malls deserted.
I wonder how quickly the End of Suburbia (if that is what it is) is taking place. Normally trends in the real estate market take place very slowly compared to the stock market.
And yet sometimes cultural truths are turned upside down faster than we can imagine. The Sixties were such a time.
For 50 years, a big house in suburbia was the ideal. Could that ideal be on the way out? If so, that will accelerate the trouble in the suburbs.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:27 am
08 Aug 2008
2) what really worries me is that while everyone sings the praises of the market and, counter to the move into suburbia decides that the government can't even help people go back to cities and towns, the situation deteriorates rapidly. And do you know what people will choose when they and their neighbors are about to starve because an emergency has landed on their door? They'll tell the government to take over everything, it's an emergency, just keep me alive.
So actually, by doing some moderate government intervention now, we can avoid some totalitarian-style intervention later, not necessarily undemocratic, but probably pretty scary nonetheless.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:34 am
08 Aug 2008
As I said at one point, one scholar has used the phrase, "The further the houses are from each other, the more Republican the neighborhood". The suburbs are the Republican base, and they'll fight tooth and nail to protect it.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:53 am
08 Aug 2008
If you look at the actual history of how nations developed, you will see these arguments flying around, really since the beginning of the American republic, as Alexander Hamilton argued that "infant industries" need protection, and indeed I believe that to this day economists will make an exception for them. Hamilton influenced Freidrich List of Germany, who was an important voice arguing for protection in the 19th century.
I think the positive point here is that governments have throughout history used many methods to bring about a constructive change in the economy of their nation, and that all of the tools in those toolboxes should be examined.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:26 am
08 Aug 2008
For the first time in the history of man, famine disappeared. Health-care became affordable to all, and death rates plummeted. For the first time ever, all the population became educated.
The era we are living in has nothing to do with conventional economic wisdom and practices.
What is needed to automate the modes of production ? The knowledge to do so is already here (and improving enormously). What is needed are two things (a) capital to make the machines (b) energy to run the machines
Both the above posed significant constraints in the process of industrialization. To begin with, nobody the world had the capital to make the machines. So the capital was obtained by robbing other people (colonialization, ethnic cleansing..). At one stage, the struggle for capital precipitated into the 2nd world war.
Now the world's economic output is so high that capital is no longer a constraint. This is first demonstrated by the USA during the Marshall plan when it pumped in significant capital to the war torn economies of Europe and Japan, and the countries industrialized rapidly. This was 50 years ago, and this marks the era of plenty : global economic product became so high that capital is no longer a constraint for further industrialization.
Lack of capital prevents industrialization in a major way. The erstwhile soviet union had not much capital to begin with, so its industrialization suffered a lot of hiccups. Iran has a lot of oil, but not enough capital to exploit its own energy resources. Countries which isolate themselves and refuse to allow foreign capital suffer due to this reason.
This is where global trade comes into the picture, where capital is being exchanged for profits. The unfortunate thing is that the profits are going entirely into the pockets of the super-rich. It is a shame that significant sections of the population cannot enjoy the benefits of this automation, within the industrialized countries themselves.
What still poses a constraint is energy. Until very recently, we had abundant fossil fuels. Now these are disappearing. But we have discovered alternative modes of producing energy (solar/nuclear), but both of them need capital to be invested in. But again, the current economic output of the world is so high that capital is not a constraint.
In the current era, capital is distributing freely and increasing the pace of industrialization everywhere. But this is not being done with the best regard for the environment. And the benefits of this automation are not being spread evenly.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:56 am
08 Aug 2008
I'm sure you have heard of the "resource curse" which is associated with what you describe. Countries with lots of oil, diamonds, gold, etc. tend to lead to very corrupt and despicable regimes who plunder the wealth of their people. One of the few exceptions is Botswana, which is one of the best-run African nations.
Let's examine whether free trade exacerbates this or not.
I don't think it does. The question we need to ask is whether the Nigerian government, one of the worst regimes in the world, would change if we somehow tried to ban oil imports from them:
It would be very hard to enforce and likely many countries including China wouldn't honor it
It would lead to a massive increase in the price of oil, which would harm the entire world economy (including many other developing countries)
There would be a huge incentive for illegally selling the oil, which would only increase the the price
The Nigerian regime might crackdown even harder against its opponents (or maybe not, hard to tell)
The little benefit from the oil revenue that the Nigerians now get would disappear, making them potentially even poorer
Bottom line: these situations are some of the most difficult in the world to deal with and no one has figured it out. There are efforts to set up systems whereby revenue goes directly into accounts for the people or where the revenue is closely monitored by the world community.
A deal was put in place by the Chad government to do this and guess what happened when the ruler wanted to use the money for weapons instead? He simply ignored the agreement and diverted the money.
I think you are absolutely right to highlight these problems but they have very little to do with free trade and a lot more to do with a lack of democracy. Economists have some ideas of how to beat the resource curse in democratic regimes but we don't know very much (nor does anyone) on how to deal with despots intent on robbing their people.
P.S. Vigorous debate is good- no offense taken.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:08 am
08 Aug 2008
Plastics and pesticides account for 6-7% of petroleum consumption. We're going to have some petroleum for a long time, and coal and bio-fuels can also be used. Transportation and HVAC are the important things.
"the entire stock of internal combustion engines...Given unlimited energy, wealth and time, there are workarounds"
Well, time helps - it might take 20 years to electrify most oil-powered light vehicle VMT. Keep in mind, Prii are cheaper than the average car, and PHEVs won't be more expensive (with volume), and cars less than 6 years old account for half of all VMT. So, it can be done with very, very little additional cost (maybe a couple billion R&D), and in a reasonable time. Now, if oil production falls off a cliff then we're in for a lot of pain: increased current account deficits, accelerated ICE obsolescence, inefficient rush ramping up of PHEV/EV's, etc etc.
"it a problem? Yes, and the issue deserves real consideration."
I agree. I think it's a big problem - I just think it's solvable, with the proper attention. I think the "market solution" as it's evolving now is insufficient, though probably not disastrous.
"(suburbs) really are energy-intensive"
No, I disagree - they're not inherently energy-intensive. Read my responses again. For instance, structural design is much more important than the ratio of surface area to interior cubic space: windows, insulation, etc. The actual, quantitative evidence is that urban housing uses about the same BTU's per sq foot as suburban housing. Further, apartments, condo's and townhouses can be built in suburbia, and work can be there as well.
"the move to the suburbs has been a cultural phenomenona"
Perhaps, but it has a solid economic base. Let's take a look at an article you cited: http://www.modbee.com/1526/story/378296.html, where we find that home prices fall about $5,000 for every mile of commute. Well, the average worker has 225 days of work, and paid $.10 per mile when gas was $2.00 in today's dollars, so they traveled an extra 450 miles and paid $45 in fuel costs per year to save $5,000 in purchase price. Now, they pay $90, and if they buy a Prius (at less than the average cost of a new vehicle) they can knock it back to $40 per year. Why would fuel costs send anyone back to the city?? The only answer I can see is zoning: perhaps the suburbs don't have small rental apartments for the newly impoverished (which would certainly be proportionately much cheaper than city apartments). In that case, they're not going to the city because of economics, they're doing it because of economic apartheid.
"My friends and family seem to be gravitating back towards urban centers"
What's their average income, compared to the averge in the US? Is it substantially higher? If so, that would explain it: they can pay more for the nicer environment of the city. That's what I do.
"those who are stuck in suburbia are having a hard time, financially and psychologically"
The city is nicer...just more expensive. Heck, there's a selection process going on here - someone who can afford to move to the city is more likely to, and those left behind are a little more likely to be having financial problems.
"the ?? about EVs. You think they are a slam-dunk, I don't"
Yes, but why??
Oh, and I read the article about malls. I found it puzzling - overall consumer sales aren't down, so where are they? They're not likely to be over in the big city. Probably they've gone to the internet, which is part of the answer to the question of retail shopping by suburbanites: UPS is very efficient, and will certainly go to PHEV/EV's. OTOH, this kind of mixed-use conversion is very likely a good thing - just not an overwhelming % change.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:47 am
08 Aug 2008
In other words, having more square footage, a yard for the kids, "quiet", an occasional racist desire not to be near "those people", etc., are personal preferences, they are cultural. Now, NickZ, if you're saying that most people actually prefer an urban/walkable area, but they don't move there because it's too expensive, then as we originally discussed way-back-when, it's a question of getting enough housing stock into the city (with attendant stores, transit, etc) so that the price comes down. That's what housing advocates have been saying for decades, it's not a new story.
By the way, there's also "infilling", putting walkable areas into sprawl. But really, that's turning a suburb into, or back into, a town, which is something very different from an all-residential, single family home neighborhood. So if you are talking about retrofitting the 'burbs, we might be talking about something pretty similar -- making town and city centers easily accessible and the center of public life.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:18 am
08 Aug 2008
Recent article/video from CBS News: The Decline Of Suburbia?
Suburbs being energy-inefficient. I agree that technology can make suburban housing units more efficient. Yet we still have... an existing stock of inefficient houses an infrastructure (roads, pipes, cables) which is more expensive to build and maintain than the corresponding urban infrastructure The permanent problem of having to move people and supplies over long distances since employment and stores are elsewhere. It's instructive to look at traditional housing patterns, which were much more subject to constraints in energy and resources. We see urban centers and rural farming, but we don't see suburbs. That should give us a clue!
In a way, the debate is moot. The suburbs are there, and people will cope with the situation somehow. I'm sure there will be some ingenious approaches. (Retrofitting the suburbs for sustainability by permaculture co-originator David Holmgren).
Our family has talked, half-jokingly, of buying several properties and forming a family compound. The Washington Post reported on this phenomenon: Relative Comfort. So re-discovering extended family living is one possibility.
Nickz: "Why would fuel costs send anyone back to the city??"
I think we're seeing something bigger than the dollar cost of fuel vs housing prices. You are unusual in your quantitative approach to making a housing decision. Impulse and feeling count for much more, in my experience. For most people under stress, the regular pain of higher gas prices is an emotional flashing red light. Plus, as herd animals, we tend to follow fashion. Before it was suburbia, now it's back to walkable neighborhoods. (I notice that you seem to ignore the economics and choose to live close in!)
As to condos in the suburbs, I think that would be the worst of both worlds. Isolation and cramped quarters. That brings up ...
The psychological cost of the suburbs. I'm beginning to think there's a lot to this - haven't seen much written about it though. Suburbs can be great for those years when one is raising a family. But when one gets older, or when hard times come, one really wants to be around other people. Or after a divorce and you're looking for potential partners and more of a social life than the PTA.
I'm thinking of the mother of a friend who slowly went crazy living alone in an isolated resort town. Or the pinched faces of friends as they bravely talk about their hour-long commutes. Or the tech writer friend who got a cheap house in Tracy, but who lost his job and could only find work there as a security guard.
What do other people think - are there psychological problems with living in suburbia?
Is it just a matter of money? In my family, the key to whether people are in suburbia or urban centers is not money. The factor seems to be whether they are conventional or not. The conventional family members have the big houses, designer kitchens and big mortgages. The unconventional family members are not rich, but they found older housing in 2nd or 3rd tier cities (Napa vs San Francisco), or small units (e.g. condos) in big cities.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 12:11 pm
08 Aug 2008
The bottom line is this: The great preponderance of surveys finds approximately one-third of the current U.S. market wants neighborhoods that are multiform, mixed use and walkable. Nearly all (90+ percent) of new residential development is conventional suburban sprawl or otherwise hostile to pedestrians. Ergo, a market failure is taking place, and a pretty massive one at that.
That was written a year and a half ago, and I believe the market demand for walkable urban neighborhoods and towns has increased somewhat since then, as mentioned in some of the articles above.
Furthermore, the demand is projected to increase, even in the absence of high gasoline prices. Demographic and cultural shifts are changing the market landscape. Twenty years from now the market for new, large-lot, exurban McMansions will likely have vanished.
Some of this relates to Bart's question. Suburbs may not be so great for older folks, especially when they have difficulty operating cars. Increasingly, seniors are looking for safe, walkable communities.
And so are younger folks, even young families, reversing decades of standard operating procedure. Really a confluence of trends signaling shifts in the real estate market.
In deference to Mad Mac, however, I will say the last thing cities need is for people to be forced to live in them. Cities need people who love the urban lifestyle -- from small town Main Streets, to leafy streetcar suburbs, to dense downtowns. Cities need people who are willing to protect the best qualities of urbanism and work to make it better, and even come up with creative new ideas for future visions.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:33 pm
08 Aug 2008
I'm thinking of the mother of a friend who slowly went crazy living alone in an isolated resort town. Or the pinched faces of friends as they bravely talk about their hour-long commutes. Or the tech writer friend who got a cheap house in Tracy, but who lost his job and could only find work there as a security guard."
Bart, how many times have you heard of some elderly person who was dead for months in their apartment building before it was discovered? One guy in Australia was dead for a year before it was discovered! A year! Yet these people are living in apartment buildings. Close living proximity does not mean neighbors are close. In the neighborhood where I grew up the neighbors are close. They have all lived there more than 30 years. They know each other well. You can be close in the suburbs or isolated in the city, and it has nothing to do with how the towns and cities are laid out.
The problem I personally have with the suburbs is for me they are the worst of both worlds. I like nightlife. I want to be close to some sort of nightlife where I can knock back a few beers on a Friday night and not get a DUI or wrap my chopper around a telephone pole. So I live in a city.
But some people prefer the suburbs and we are just going to have to face the fact that that architecture isn't going to go away. Whether one thinks it should or not just doesn't matter.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:04 am
09 Aug 2008
And it was supposed to be nicer, because in large part because land was cheaper - you get land of your own, which was unaffordable in the city.
" at a certain point it was quite the reverse(the 1970s in NYC, for instance)"
Could a family on a median income ever buy a quarter (or eighth, or 12th) acre of land in Manhattan in the 20th century?
"the price per square foot was/is cheaper in the 'burbs"
That's all I'm saying. Land is cheaper, interior SF are cheaper, and overall living costs will continue to be lower in the suburbs, and higher fuel costs won't change that significantly.
"it's a question of getting enough housing stock into the city (with attendant stores, transit, etc) so that the price comes down."
That will only increase the price of land. Urban food is more expensive, taxes are higher, and as far as I can tell, construction is more expensive. How much would it cost to overbuild in the city to lower prices? How high would the subsidies have to be? How densely would you have to build high-rises? In the chicago 5 county area there are 7M residents and probably 3M housing units. To move 1,000,000 households into the city might require 1,000,000 condo units. At 1,200 SF and $200/SF that would cost $240B: there's no way to justify this on energy grounds: you could build wind to power PHEV/EV's for these households for only $3B!!
I like city living, and walkability - it's just not justified by energy/FF savings.
Bart,
"we still have... an existing stock of inefficient houses "
And yet, city housing isn't more energy efficient!
"an infrastructure (roads, pipes, cables) which is more expensive to build and maintain "
Do you have data for this? Why are city taxes higher??
"The permanent problem of having to move people and supplies over long distances since employment and stores are elsewhere."
Yes, suburbs require more travel, but this is much, much cheaper to fix with PHEV?EV's than with new residential infrastructure.
"You are unusual in your quantitative approach to making a housing decision."
I'm just making it really clear - the difference in housing prices is clear to anyone in the market for a house. Have you talked to any realtors who deal with both city and suburban buyers? They know: lots of people would live in the city if they could buy the same housing, for the same dollars. Lots and lots. Yes, there's demand for city living, but it's suppressed by the prices.
"The unconventional family members are not rich, but they found older housing in 2nd or 3rd tier cities "
Places which are less expensive, and not nearly dense enough to do without a car.
Laurence:
" one-third of the current U.S. market wants neighborhoods that are multiform, mixed use and walkable."
Yes, but what are they willing to pay for it??
My point is, dense urban living is more expensive, and fuel costs won't change that much.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:06 am
09 Aug 2008
Wait, is this really MM? Hesitant to disagree? ;-)
Close living proximity does not mean neighbors are close. In the neighborhood where I grew up the neighbors are close. They have all lived there more than 30 years. They know each other well. You can be close in the suburbs or isolated in the city, and it has nothing to do with how the towns and cities are laid out. I think you're right - it's not exactly urban vs suburban living that describes the problem. It's more social isolation. I do think there is a definite connection, though.
For example, if people try to buy the most house for the least money (Nickz's economic logic), this will usually take them away from friends and family in a far-out suburb.
I dunno, it's a big question. Enough for an academic career and a half dozen books. Anybody else have ideas?
The problem I personally have with the suburbs is for me they are the worst of both worlds.
Why are we arguing? It looks like you, NickZ and I all agree - we've all voted with our feet to live away from the suburbs.
*
By the way, MM, I've been trying to think of some greens who operate out of a conservative context. Not too many in America, though there is Rod Dreher.
My favorite is Republican US Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland. A grandfatherly figure, he's as conservative as you please, but as a trained scientist he is much better on energy and global warming than most Republicans, and better even than most Democrats.
Like a modern day Don Quixote, he lectures Congress on the truth about energy (the chambers are usually almost vacant when he speaks, but still he soldiers on, so that his talks appear on C-Span). We post his speeches on our website, and they also appear in video versions on the web.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:31 am
09 Aug 2008
NickZ, you bring up an interesting point about how much it would cost to build new housing in the city -- 200 dollars/sq ft sounds a little high, though. And it usually is more expensive, and certainly more difficult, to build in a city, which are two reasons why suburbia took off as it did.
But I still say, if we had the wealth to build suburbia over the past 50 years, we should have the wealth to rebuild cities and towns over the next 20 or 30 years. I think we're only at the beginning of the process of figuring out how to encourage that.
Amd I have to take one more shot at Evs-- eventually, when oil becomes expensive, they will have to be,not hybrids, but all-electric. And then the suburbs will have to connect to each other and to cities, not with cars, but with trains. So at the very least, the time is now to figure out how to "townify" the suburbs, and to map out an efficient rail system.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 8:47 am
09 Aug 2008
I think there's a definite connection: medium density, where people run into each other when they walk out the front door, when they're walking the dog, getting the mail, definitly promotes connections. This describes suburban towns, medium density portions of large cities, but not suburbs with large very large property, or high-rises. High-rises are especially sterile, and yet (to return to the energy-car theme) they're probably necessary to the kind of density needed to support car-free living.
I would like to see more car-free living: I have hopes for ride-sharing (aka carpooling - see goloco.com) and car-sharing (zipcar.com, etc).
"you, NickZ and I all agree - we've all voted with our feet to live away from the suburbs"
Yes, in fact I think we all agree explicity that city living is better. What I objected to were unrealistic ideas: one in the lead post: "fuel costs will significantly reduce global trade" and two in the comments: "fuel costs will substantially shrink the suburbs" and "moving to new urban forms is an important solution to energy problems".
I see these ideas all of the time (just recently in another gristmill post, talking about the importance of promoting new urban forms to deal with energy problems), and they need to be addressed.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 10:10 am
09 Aug 2008
That leaves me..breathless. agape, agog. Jon, have you thought through how much this would cost? What else we could do with that money? I calculated a cost of $240B for just 7M people. Reduce it to $180B to reconcile it with your intuition on building costs (which I think is unrealistically low), and multiply it by 40 to account for the whole country, and you get $7.2T, and that doesn't include any infrastructure to accomodate all of this new housing. Plus, it puts everyone in sterile mid and high-rises, not nice front-porch bungalows and townhouses. And, you only deal with 50% of travel costs, based on a recent study which found that NYC used 50% as much energy as sprawling cities - you've only dealt with 50% of the problem! It's killing a fly with a sledgehammer.
We can deal with energy costs with much, much more cheaply with PHEV/EV's and renewable power production. Heck, with that kind of money we could completely eliminate FF's in electrical production & HVAC, and 90% of FF's in transportation. If we can't muster the national will to do that, we certainly aren't going to remodel our urban forms.
"eventually, when oil becomes expensive, they will have to be,not hybrids, but all-electric."
Not really. A PHEV-40 eliminates 80% of fuel consumption. A PHEV-100 would eliminate 90%, which is all that's needed. It would be far more cost-effective (vs a new urban form) to replace that last 10% with almost anything: ethanol, CTL with sequestration, hydrogen, liquid hydrocarbons synthesized from air & water (using renewable electricity)....anything. Finally, it's about 99% certain that an EV with 300 mile range will be feasible and cost-effective in 40 years, when oil might really start to run out.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 10:12 am
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
Nickz Posted 11:32 am
09 Aug 2008
"The Aptera Typ-1 will be the most efficient passenger vehicle in the world. The first production models are planned to be available in December 2008 with the production rate increasing throughout 2009. With a coefficient of drag literally one-third of a subcompact car and less than half the weight, the all-electric version will get up to 120 miles per charge, while the hybrid version, which will follow in about 12 months, will achieve close to 300 MPG. With these results, Aptera Motors aims to change the way the world thinks about personal transportation. Interest is already high as Aptera has received over 3,300 deposits from California-only buyers eager to be among the first to drive this new vehicle. With its commitment to efficiency and safety, Aptera Motors is positioned to be a leader in the new era of efficient vehicle design and production. California residents can reserve a vehicle now by placing a fully refundable $500 deposit at http://www.aptera.com."
Here's the article.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 12:22 pm
09 Aug 2008
Second, it's an excellent replacement for medium-distance air travel, in part for energy reasons (rail can be electrified).
Third, rail is an excellent replacement for commuting by car, mostly not for energy reasons, but it would certainly help a bit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:22 pm
09 Aug 2008
And hey! look at this, residential structures investment -- basically, residential buildings -- was about $600 billion in 2007, so it gets even easier!
And there's still plenty left over for all the windmills we want, considering the level of investment in electricity in this country yearly -- I don't have those figures in hand, but just for refernce, over $1.4 trillion per year is spent on nonresidential investment, equipment is basically $1 trillion -- and we haven't touched that fun threesome of potential revenue, military spending, taxing the rich at a pre-Reagan level, or taxing corporations at a 1950's level (be like Ike!), which could easily yield $1 trillion...so I am encouraged by your numbers.
As for EV's...we'll see. It's like cellulosic ethanol, there's always some gee-whiz announcement being made, hopefully something will actually happen.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:04 pm
09 Aug 2008
It's not. That didn't include the cost of the rail/mass transit, municipal infrastructure (schools, sewers, etc, etc, etc), and really, it would take $200/SF in any major city (unless you're going build a whole lot of Cabrini-Greene's, which the city just finished demolishing). Think at least twice that.
I'm not an expert on housing, but it seems like there are a few flaws here: when you're finished building this gulag of Soviet era high-rises, who maintains them? Or, if you actually build high-quality structures and succeed in crashing the market value of urban housing, who rescues the 50M home/condo owners who've just lost their equity, and are upside down on their mortgages?
"there's still plenty left over for all the windmills we want"
Sigh. It would only take about $1.5B to completely eliminate coal generation, and replace it with wind. Problem is, it would obsolesce very roughly $1.5B in coal investment. That would be a much, much more worthwhile, effective investment than this residential Marshall plan, and yet we don't yet have the national will to make it happen. YouI don't seem to have any intuition for the magnitude of the numbers you're talking about, and the kinds of tradeoffs you're suggesting.
"EV's//It's like cellulosic ethanol"
No, it's nothing like that. Cellulosic ethanol is completely unproven, EV's are completely proven. Have you read any of what I've written? Have you really thought about it? GM's EV-1 was completely feasible, for instance. There were 10's of thousands of commercial EV's 100 years ago, before dirt cheap gasoline arrived, along with the ICE vehicles to use it.
Talk to me - tell me something new, that responds to what I've said, that suggests you're really thinking this through...
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:07 pm
09 Aug 2008
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 4:35 pm
09 Aug 2008
The cost of housing can be higher in the city, but when you add in the costs of transportation, the total cost of living in central areas can be cheaper than the suburban outskirts. The Center for Neighborhood Technology's Housing + Transportation Affordability Index maps this effect in 52 metro areas in the U.S.
When households can skip the expense of an extra car or two because they live in walkable and transit oriented neighborhoods, that savings can be considered extra income for lending purposes. That means they can afford higher priced housing. Mortgage companies in four metro areas recognize this, and offer Location Efficient Mortgages in locations where borrowers can save on transportation costs.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:43 pm
09 Aug 2008
Just because I don't like the suburbs and just because they are wasteful doesn't mean I think they should be eliminated. People need to make their own choices and not be coerced by fanatics. And let's be honest, these pages have a serious dose of fanaticism. I'm waiting for Wolverine to advocate that 90% of the humans should be eliminated in order to preserve the planet.
And I didn't just move away from the suburbs, I moved away from the continent. I am a violent person who needs a violent and exotic edge to life in order to enjoy it. I am not a "kumbaya" kind of guy. I boxed for over a decade, and soldiered for over two - I am not interested in giving peace a chance, because I'm not peaceful.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:36 am
10 Aug 2008
For instance, just to push it even further, let's say 200 dollars/sq foot, and let's say every person in a city needs 500 sq feet, so a family of four gets 2000 sq feet. qualification: I'm not proposing that everybody do this!. So, that' s $100,000 per person. So $7 trillion gets you 70 million people in an urban area. Now, let's say 1/4 of the population is already there -- although I think that's an exageration, much of urban areas are not walkable, including I must say, much of Chicago -- so if half the population wants to be in an urban area, pace Laurence, then 14 trillion would do it, according to this calculation.
Then of course, there's all the transit, etc., which we could probably make wild guesses about based on NYC. But I think it's an interesting question, and certainly something worth pursuing --- and again, I'm not advocating that anyone be forced to do this!
Mad Mac -- I think Wolverine has already suggested the benefits of humanity's demise, you must have missed it. I told him that he was part of a mustelid conspiracy, but nobody seems to have appreciated my biological wit. And thanks for your wit, it makes the morning on this continent more amusing.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:15 pm
10 Aug 2008
"High rises are definitely not required to support transit."
That wasn't my argument: I said mid & high rise density appear to be needed to enable "car-free" living. Why the distinction? Because most of the costs of car-ownership are fixed, and not related to fuel. You don't really save very much if you own a car and use it less, and to me the proof-of-effectiveness for walkability is the viability of living car-free. I'm hopeful that car-sharing will shift this threshold, but it's pretty far from the critical mass needed.
"The cost of housing can be higher in the city, but when you add in the costs of transportation, the total cost of living in central areas can be cheaper than the suburban outskirts. "
I looked at the website, and I don't see what you're talking about. All of the cities I reviewed (NYC, Chicago, LA, NO, Detroit) are portrayed as more affordable than their suburbs regardless of whether the costs of transportation are included or not. That makes no sense to me. Also, I see little difference in the overall patterns between the two alternatives (housing vs housing & transport). Am I missing something?
"When households can skip the expense of an extra car or two because they live in walkable and transit oriented neighborhoods, that savings can be considered extra income for lending purposes."
I agree that walkability and TOD should reduce costs, and this mortgage program is an excellent idea. I'd like to see the same thing for energy-efficient homes. It doesn't change my point, however: an increase in fuel costs isn't going to change the existing balance between city and suburbs much. If someone is in the 'burbs now, they can cope with rising fuel costs much more easily and cost-effectively by buying a Prius (and eventually a PHEV) than by moving to the city.
Jon,
Peace is good!
"I'm not advocating that anyone be forced to do this!"
No, I didn't think so. I just don't want anyone to think the world (or their corner of it, including those in the suburbs(!) or dependent on global trade) is coming to an end.
"this is all written in the spirit of brainstorming, throwing numbers around. "
Yes, I like to think that way too. I suppose I just like to chase a discussion to a resolution...
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:25 am
13 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:37 am
13 Aug 2008
For instance, if foreign companies build factories here instead of the products being imported, that's good for the balance of trade; on the other hand, if exporters from the US build factories in the destination markets, that's bad for the trade balance. Anyway, thanks for the link.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:42 am
13 Aug 2008
That being said, FDI, which now eclipses trade in total flows, is definitely part of the globalization process; it has never been only trade.
And higher fuel prices are doing exactly what we would expect-leading to more local production, but many times done by MNC's financed from abroad.
Sounds good to me.
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:49 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:07 am
13 Aug 2008
We need to focus on the root causes of problems. http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 3:14 am
16 Aug 2008
I can see that it would be modestly helpful, but do you have evidence that it makes a big difference?
Similarly, I haven't seen evidence that "many of our industrial sectors (e.g., automobiles) are not at the cutting edge anymore, the European and Japanese companies are."
GM and Ford are extremely competitive outside the US - that, in fact, is where all of their profits lie.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:10 am
16 Aug 2008
So, for instance, Cincinatti was known as a machine tool center, Pittsburgh for steel, NYC for quite a few industries such as printing or textiles, LA now for movies, Houston for oil -- we could go on and tick off cities all around the world.
Secondly, there is the evidence, as I alluded to in the post, that engineering and design follows manufacturing operations. This isn't just because of wages.
I would say, however, that the question of proximity has not been exhaustively argued or researched, as far as I know.
Second point: As for cars, I don't know why GM and Ford would be doing better outside of the country, but it might actually bolster my first point. If industrial competency is proximity-related, then we can understand why GM and Ford would do better in Europe and Japan: the entire manufacturing "ecosystem" in those regions is in better shape, so any company that goes there will do better. They will have access to more and better engineers, more and better skilled production workers, and ironically government policies that make their jobs easier -- ironic, because GM and Ford are getting killed in this country from health costs but won't back national health insurance, quite the opposite.
As for other industries, the US has no company that can make steel-making equipment. There are some that make some of the pieces, but none can put together a big continuous caster, for example. As of a few years ago when I asked an expert, only Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan could make such equipment (so maybe we'd lose WWII if it was replayed today).
One Japanese firm, Nikon, makes 50% of the most important kind of semiconductor-making equipment, the optical lithography equipment, and Japan makes about 90% of them, I don't know if any are made in the U.S. As for machine tools, as far as I can tell, the entire industry has either left or been taken over by foreign firms -- I don't know if there is any independent capability to design machine tools in the US, with the large exception of Haas Automation.
Those are the industries I'm most familiar with, but there are plenty of other examples, particularly within the critical machinery sector.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 6:57 am
16 Aug 2008
Perhaps more importantly, we're just now getting to the point where videoconferencing is sufficiently high-resolution that people really don't care whether they're in the same room, or continents apart.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:49 am
16 Aug 2008
For manufacturing and production of all sorts, it's even more important to actually look at what you're designing or trying to fix. It helps immeasurably. Perhaps that's part of the problem -- it hasn't been measured, and indeed I'm not sure how you would measure it.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 10:51 am
16 Aug 2008
We're social animals - we often meet for no reason at all, and that's certainly true in the corporate world. It doesn't mean that such meetings are productive. More importantly, recent research has shown that people don't like videoconferencing because the visual resolution isn't high enough - it doesn't seem real. Up the resolution sufficiently, and people's measured physiological responses become the same as face-to-face meetings, and participants report that they like the experience as well as in-person.
"commentators often criticize intenet-based activity"
Well, it depends on what's done online. Automotive engineers these days do all of their collaborative design that way, and it doesn't matter if the offices are 20 feet or 2000 miles apart. Genetic researchers are the same way: they might pool their knowledge in one place in the world, and teams all over the world access it and collaborate via ultra-high speed broadband.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 10:54 am
16 Aug 2008
Telecommuting is like wind-power: more and more feasible, smaller than the other choices, but growing quickly, and facing social and organizational hurdles.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:15 am
16 Aug 2008
On the other extreme, people will be recentralized into cities, interacting face-to-face, and production and design will also occur in or right outside the cities.
Obviously, the future will be somewhere in between, but at this point I have no idea where.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 3:42 am
17 Aug 2008
Do you remember the Garrison Keillor/Lake Wobegon line about "all the children are above average"? We know this logically isn't possible, right? Well, the same thing applies to cities: high density causes prices to rise above average, so that only a % can afford to live there. To expect everyone to recentralize into cities is to imitate King Canute.
Finally, we should take into account that our energy problems, while real and very serious, are eminently solvable by means that are faster, more effective, and cheaper than localization.
Permalink