While I don't question the desirability of cutting our transportaion/shipping needs, I don't see us not having some reasonable amount of portable hydrocarbon fuels available. Whether from some sort of biofuel, or created from sunlight water and CO2 it should be both feasable and environmentally sound to still have portable fuels for transport. Admittedly the volume of such fuel availability is likely to be a fraction of what is currently available (perhaps 10-20%), but used sparingly that is quite a bit of fuel. In this scenario small efficient plugin hybrids do have a long term future.

"What is largely ignored in all the discussion of economic recovery is that world oil production is likely to start its final decline somewhere in the next 36 to 48 months. Once this becomes evident, prices will start moving much, much higher and shortages will develop. In an environment such as this, recovery from a recession will be far more difficult and is likely to be measured in decades rather than months."

"The final spiral will not be difficult to recognize when it comes. Equity markets will drop precipitously. Nearly all economic indicators will turn negative. Oil and other commodities will continue to climb. While this phenomenon will start, or has already started, from the U.S. housing situation, it will spread to other OECD countries, and Asia. For a while, perhaps decades, the oil producing and exporting states will fare much better than those dependent on large imports."

"There is much heated debate over whether and how soon there will be a "techno-fix" for the decline of oil - wind, wave, and solar power, electric transport and much lower energy consumption. The factors bearing on how the various techno-fixes will play out are so numerous and interdependent that it is impossible to make much of a judgment about when or whether they will come in sufficient quantities to continue with anything resembling current civilization."

"The decline in the availability of affordable oil is likely to come in a relatively quick spiral while widely implemented replacements for oil are likely to be measured in decades."

--Tom Whipple, Fall Church News, 13 March 2008

Excellent post, Jon. Attempting total replacement of current vehicle miles with alternatives to petroleum fuels is a worse than fool's errand that will ultimately lead to panic and disaster. Radical physical restructuring of our towns and cities to accommodate denser and more sociable living patterns is sooner or later inevitable.

Only thing I'd add is that the dense historic cores of large metro areas (Evanston, Manhattan) are not at all the only models for close-together life. ALL small towns used to be this way, and can be again. Not to mention that many of the denser suburbs will repurpose well in this format. Overlaying the convenience of modest personal electric vehicles (including electric bikes a la BioD) onto traditional walkable-scale settlements can be a win-win-win for quality of life as well as for environmental sanity.

But God help the exurbs.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

...there's a whole range of vehicles -- sometimes called human powered vehices -- from the normal bicycle, through a BioD-type bicycle, to three and four wheelers -- including with child carriers -- and then I think there are some electric four-wheelers, but I'm not sure.  That would take a whole post unto itself though.

I was thinking an interesting policy proposal would be to try to inventory and present plans to rebuild main streets -- you could dig out old photos of life on main streets, complete with people walking around -- partly because that would show people what is possible.  And then maybe use government funding to actually rebuild the main streets, and very critically, build housing near the main street, because I think a lot of those main streets would die again because there are Walmarts nearby, they need the foot traffic to survive.

Evanston's a good example of that dynamic, the downtown was dying, and what helped its revival was the building of several rather large condominium (and maybe some rental) buildings.  The foot traffic led to lots of stores, which makes the area potentially car-free, and certainly walkable (although cold as hell in the winter).

BigTom,
What makes you believe that we will have oil availability for several decades? What makes you think the decline will be gradual? But if you wish it, maybe it will come true!

...I have heard the argument several times that it might scare people -- I even read a conservative article about how environmentalists want to take away peoples' cars!  Sort of a repeat of the "They want to take away your guns" approach; hey, it worked on that one, why not repeat it?  So it's my bad for not explicitly saying that this is a very long-term idea.  Even if the society were to come to some sort of consensus right now to transform itself off of petroleum, it could still easily take 20 years; in fact, the Hirsch report from the department of energy assumed that 20 years was a reasonable time frame for large-scale changes.

I think it's very important, however, to put out a vison for where we want to end up -- I wrote up one possibility, I would hope that there will be many more.  It's a little illogical to say that we should make steps toward something when you don't know what it is that you are going toward.  In any case, as LPS points out, we have at least one crisis staring us in the face (peak oil), and another clearly in progress (climate change), not to mention a falling dollar, skyrocketing oil prices, etc.  

So I think it's important to show people that an alternative is possible, however far in the future it may be, or else they will simply freak out and probably listen to whatever demogogue comes along first.

  If I assume that the world production curve is similar to the lower 48, then the downward leg of the graph should be pretty long (unless alternatives reach the point where oil is no longer sought). Of course net exports will decline quicker than that, as the domestic consumption of exporters will consume a greater share of their own production. And at least for the USA, the cost of oil imports will pose severe economic costs. That alone should be sufficient incentive for large scale efforts to decrease consumption.

  Jon: I do agree that some people should be discussing long term solutions. Making such studies mainstream will IMHO be too likely to be used by the forces of immoderation -as you've mentioned. The political campaign for a turn towards sustainabilty, and the discussion of ultimate sustainability would IMO be better separated. I also beleive that a fifty year plan doesn't make any sense, as scientific/technological advances in that time span will likely invalidate the plan. That last argument doesn't mean there is no value to the exercise, just that we need to consider that the results are provisional.

  Personally I don't believe that a peak CO2 concentration of less than about 500ppm is politically achievable. I have hope that we will be able to artificially enhance the return to lower levels -either/both through the use of sequestration of bio/solar-generated fuel CO2, and/or enhanced silicate weathering. In which case  the long timespan consequences can be mitigated. I fear if we push for more, we may end up getting less. Such is the perversity of having to deal with human psychology/politics.

BigTom and Jon,
I think both of you put that quite nicely and bigTom you answered my questions directly. I have to admit that I vascilate between despair and activism and do not think they are mutually exclusive. But I also believe that there are a great many who do not understand the nature of our our energy predicament, so I was probing. I teach a seminar to high school seniors on the subjects of global warming and peak oil and thus walk a fine line between alarmism and hope. It is very easy to lose one's perspective or to wonder what perspectives are realistic. Or whether I will have a job in a few short years.

I think humans freak out when there are huge problems but there is no clear solution.  On the other hand, we don't necessarily move if there are solutions but the problem doesn't seem that bad.

So it's necessary to paint the unvarnished truth (mixed metaphor?), but only if there is a clear way out.

Now, if we need to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, then I think we need some concrete examples of how that might look.  In my very first post here, I argued that, as important as they are, goals with numbers attached (like cap-and-whatever or carbon tax plans) have the big disadvantage of not being imaginable.  But I sense that one of the reasons that many progessives do not paint pictures as I tried to do is exactly because they are afraid that those pictures will scare people away.  Quite a conundrum.

So, one way out of this mess historically has been this -- some group of people, that seem very radical and maybe a little crazy, offer up some audacious ideas.  They garner a lot of support, and become, if they are lucky, a "nuisance".  Eventually, more "cool" heads enter the discussion (generally what we call liberals), and offer "reasonable" compromises, all the while tsk-tsking about those unreasonable radicals.  Eventually, change happens.

You can see this progression from the abolitionists, through the populists, progressives, social democratic reforms of the 1930s, and the movements of the 1960s.  I'm just hoping the next wave takes off pretty soon.

Jon, I really love the break down of the petroleum use. I've sort of seen these numbers before, but having them fleshed out gives me a better picture of a transition to a fossil-fuel free future, since we just can't go cold turkey on our oil addiction.

Two percent for farming gives me confidence no one will starve. Two or three percent for construction equipment means we can make a good start at densifying our towns and cities as you suggest. And two percent for transit means the skimpy system we have will not fall apart. Nine to thirteen for long haul trucks is worrisome. (So that expansion of freight and intercity rail, and water transport ought to be a high priority for the next Congress.)

But for me the importance of this article is that it shows how clear thinking and rational planning can avert disaster. It suggests how a decent Federal government might begin to respond to a sudden spiral of economic decline and worsening oil depletion. We will still have about 33% of our oil supply (from domestic production) in the initial years after global peak even if the global markets collapse. So the doomer scenario of a total societal collapse is unlikely once we admit that governments will have the possibility of oil rationing. So, for example, in the worst case scenario a simple ban on private automobiles and oil use for home and factory heating (about 60% of our oil use) would be the most effective way to make up for lost imports if there was a sudden breakdown in world markets. (An unlikely proposition, to be sure, but one that could act on our subconscious.)

Now as a free and democratic people our priority is to ensure that the government acts in our interests to preserve the maximal amount of personal liberty. But that individual freedom can only act in an environment where our basic essentials and our security are ensured. So we have to begin to acknowledge that the market left to itself does not have the capability of regulating oil depletion, let alone transitioning us to a sustainable society. Only some degree of rational planning can do that.

But I'm starting to wander off here... Great post! Lots of great ideas.

will be in food production -- growing food where you live makes the global fossil-fuel-dependent network of food transport less necessary, while at the same time we all become farmers & get a bite to eat...

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

To BigTom:

I do agree that some people should be discussing long term solutions. Making such studies mainstream will IMHO be too likely to be used by the forces of immoderation

Making such studies mainstream will IM equally HO be the only hope of getting these issues taken seriously enough to actually have an effect. Asking for less than you think is acceptable is a pitiful way to enter a negotiation, whether in diplomacy, business, or politics. Such an approach can only result in even more pitiful and inadequate outcomes. Will your position be attacked by the forces of immoderation/denial/delay? Absolutely. They'll use ANYTHING you say, WHATEVER your starting point, and try and use it against your argument - just read the threads on this site populated by the likes of manacker and black wallaby for evidence of that.

The political campaign for a turn towards sustainabilty, and the discussion of ultimate sustainability would IMO be better separated.

Respectfully, I disagree.

I also believe that a fifty year plan doesn't make any sense, as scientific/technological advances in that time span will likely invalidate the plan.

Technofix to the rescue! When? Sometime. Maybe.

I fear if we push for more, we may end up getting less. Such is the perversity of having to deal with human psychology/politics.

Whereas if we push for less, we'll certainly get a magic pony.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

is almost more important than transit at this point -- if we could just get people to housing that is close enough to shopping and transit points that they wouldn't need a car, as you suggested in an emergency situation, then we could avert catastrophe (sort of the Dmitri Orlov model, where the Soviets lived in housing they basically owned and were near good transit and shopping).  

Some of that might be as "easy" as putting shopping centers in strategic locations, at least in inner suburbs -- there's a new "Town Center", for instance, that has been built according to New Urbanism designs, in Virginia Beach, so it is possible to "retrofit" the suburbs, even, at least to some extent.

I'm with Rynn and Spaceshaper. Huddling in fear that the forces of regressiveness will attack our ideas is a foolish waste of time--of course they will attack our ideas. What is necessary is to show the public that Another World is Possible, that changing to a much less energy-intensive way of life need not mean deprivation but could lead to a richer, fuller, more satisfying and relaxed way of life. I don't think there is much chance that we can win the infowars quickly enough to allow a smooth transition to that future--it's much more likely we'll get there in the distant future after a horrible time of warfare, national and local, starvation, the breakdown of governments, and pestilence on a massive scale...all of which will deliver the major reduction in population that will make the transition much easier. Theoretically we COULD get there without killing each other--but only if we behaved rationally, justly and cooperatively. This is highly unlikely. Nonetheless, we must work for sane and just policy, on the off chance that something will give us a break and enable us to succeed despite the huge obstacle which is the media collusion with the oil/coal/weapons/drugs corporations, and the government so intertwined with the media and corporations.

Wildfire, I think here we can draw from history. I think we can anticipate a new New Deal before we could imagine warfare and pestilence.

And before we can get national consensus that we need to change our economic and foreign policies, we can make progress locally. The more susustainable our local communities, the more resilient they will be in the face of energy shocks and job loss. The cities that plan around mass transit, compact development and a robust social safety net will become more desireable places to live.

And as you suggest, we are morally bound to carry forward the best in our western traditions. We have a rich history of people helping each other in hard times. Those democratic strands are not far beneath the surface, if we can find ways to bring them forth.