40 mpg cars.  With half the size of today's motors, even 50 mpg could be normal.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

If this happens, the world's poorest countries will collapse.

Of the 47 poorest countries in the world, 38 are net importers of oil, and 25 are fully dependent on imports.

The UN wrote this, in 2007, when oil stood at $60:

"Recent oil price increases have had devastating effects on many of the world's poor countries, some of which now spend as much as six times as much on fuel as they do on health. Others spend twice the money on fuel as they do on poverty alleviation. And in still others, the foreign exchange drain from higher oil prices is five times the gain from recent debt relief."

We can only begin to imagine what is happening with oil at $120 (e.g. food price hikes and riots, hyper-inflation, etc...).

$200 might well be the Rubicon for these countries, especially those with weak governments.

We need a global fund for oil aid. Else, the consequences could be pretty nasty.

That's what we're paying already now in France. Prices for gasoline have long been higher in Europe and Australia than in North America, thanks to much higher gasoline taxes. And the efficiency of the car fleet is, no surprise, much better.

These are only my personal opinions.

Rich countries need to poor several hundred billion dollars into building (for free) an efficient infrastructure (electric trains, solar heating, solar/wind electric generation) in the world's poorest countries. It'll save money in the long run in stability, climate change adaptation costs, and be a better way to waste money than on military aggression...

A global fund for oil aid would work if it attached green development strings, but I think that would be viewed as very patronizing and not appreciated by poorer countries.

Market forces should work.  Consumers want to save money, so they switch to higher mileage cars, bikes, and mass transit.  Demand drops, prices level off.

As plugin hybrids appear in tiny numbers, they will spread a word of mouth buzz.  They have the potential to cut demand dramatically, with 66 cent per gallon equivalent electricity and a small fraction of the fuel consumption of a normal car.  Even dropping to 10% could be the norm for cars used mainly for commuting.

Plugin bikes could play a huge part too, especially three wheeled bikes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The main problem for really poor people is not gasoline and diesel for vehicles, but kerosene used for cooking. At the moment, people in many developing countries are insulated from the high petroleum fuel prices because their governments are subsidizing or regulating prices to keep them low. But the magnitude and the duration of the price rises have been such that more and more countries are having to face reality: they can't keep this up forever. So the price hikes, when they do come, are all the more dramatic.

These are only my personal opinions.

Dust off your motorcycle and start hording gas. Because that day is coming. You would be silly to believe one word that came from Big Oil. It's so simple - they woke up. They realized their stranglehold on everyone and have taken complete advantage of it. They have thrown every excuse in the book as to why prices keep rising. Demand is high, they won't let us build a refinery, an obscure North Korean tanker had a missle shot it, it's sunny, it's cloudy, it's a holiday weekend, it's a Wednesday, you name it they've dished it. Any you keep butying it. Geesh. Dig deep enough (like they do) and you'll find the truth. They themselves are the "speculators". A truly smart oil executive would have built a new refinery years ago. Think about it. Oh, another secret...the car makers are in on it. Heed the truth.

I read that the price of diesel fuel and jet fuel are rising faster.

Fortunately, there are places to cut consumption without sacrificing quality of life.

(1) We'll finally see the end of tilling--and the soil erosion that goes with it--to control weeds. Everyone can start growing herbicide-resistant GM crops. That'll reduce CO2 emissions.

(2) We'll see the rise of trains again for long-distance shipping... far more efficient. Folks will just have to be a bit more patient while waiting for their latest internet purchase to arrive.

(3) We'll see a larger interest in relying on local agriculture. No one will want to build subdivisions on agricultural land around urban areas.

(4) No more competition from China and India. We'll manufacture what we need AT HOME. Reduces CO2 emissions and raises wages. China and India, however, are screwed... no longer able to dump cheap products in America. Who will buy all the crap?

(5) When Americans are FORCED to wean themselves from oil, once and for all, our leaders will no longer have to give a damn about what goes on in the Middle East or any other oily region. There will no longer be interest in drilling in Alaska. We'll see an enormous "peace" dividend when we no longer need to project our military power abroad. All that cash can be invested in repairing our infrastructure. We will, however, have to secure our borders... more jobs here as opposed to there.

Just trying to look on  the bright side. I'm a bit concerned about how much it will cost to commute, but I imagine even more money will pour into biofuel research and the GMOs we'll need to reach our goals. Perhaps I'll get a raise!!!

Unfortunately, folks in developing countries will probably have to cut down the rest of their trees just to cook their food and stay warm. So long endangered species...

But... hey... this is just what environmentalists have been hoping for... EXPENSIVE GASOLINE to finally kill the American suburb. Yahoo.... whatever...

Six dollar a gallon gasoline will not likely curtail much driving. This generation of Americans has become too psychologically dependent on cars to give them up that easily; they'll just reduce spending in other areas. Even when faced with the end of civilization, and perhaps all life on the planet, if we continue to drive (and use interior climate controls excessively). Our one concession is to use the SUV a little less (gasoline consumption is down a paltry 1% this year).

Face it folks, we must give up on unlimited use of automobiles. We will either reduce our global-warming inducing emissions by 80-90% over the next two decades or we will likely trigger such uncontrollable positive feedback loops as the loss of sea ice (with the release of the methane hydrates sequestered there) and the release of CO2 currently dissolved in the oceans. If we are going to grow food to eat and transport essential goods, like the aforementioned food, we have no room for automobiles.

Also, if I see one more ninny suggest powering oversized wheelchairs with the electricity grid I will scream. Over half of the energy on the grid is from coal, the worst fuel on the planet for GHG emissions. Remember the grid trouble in CA when a few bad actors reduced the power available by very small amounts a few years back? Plugging in cars will make that look like the glory days of stable power. There is just no way to move all that steel with the power available without adding many more coal-burning generators to the mix.

It is time for Americans to burn adipose, our most abundant fuel.

Grevangelical: I fully agree that highly developed countries should invest in clean technologies in the South. But mobility remains crucial, and technologies are not here yet. Do you see a hydrogen powered fleet in Congo? Or electric vehicles that currently cost $100,000 a piece? I don't.

We better invest in parts of infrastructures that can support both the much needed development of an oil based mobility concept (which, by far remains the most cost-effective in the immediate term, even with oil at $200), while at the same time preparing the post-oil future.

Let's also invest in infrastructures that limit the waste of oil, such as improved roads and improved rural and urban electrification. You know, the countless diesel-generators used by the millions of "wealthy poor" (who make between $2 and $5 a day) are really inefficient. Towns need to be electrified in far more efficient and cost-effective ways (this can be anything, biomass, hydro, perhaps even wind; solar would be a no go, because 20 times too expensive).

Why should we invest in these things in the South? Because it is in our own geopolitical interest: lack of development will increase migration pressures, puts weak states at risk (we can't afford, e.g., the Congo to collapse once again, because that would mean we can't steal their coltan and copper   - copper, by the way, needed for our own wind turbines and electric vehicles! and coltan for our communications infrastructures); lack of development will result in ecological catastrophes, like the destruction of ecosystems; lack of development will keep fertility rates skyhigh (7 kids per woman) and perpetuate poverty and the destruction of Africa's environment; etc...

An oil support fund is not paternalistic. The African importing countries have asked for one themselves. They have asked the creation of a global fund, supplied in part by the revenues made in booming oil exporting countries, like Angola, Eq Guinea, etc...

Oil aid is much more effective than debt relief, and than most other forms of non-technical aid.

To Ron: I agree kerosene is a big problem, but luckily there are unsustainable alternatives that can relieve this crisis for the time being (such as cutting down forests for charcoal).

I do think the importance of low-cost mobility should not be underestimated, though: the few farmers that succeed in selling surpluses to markets all heavily rely on liquid fuels for their farm and marketing operations. And we know that agriculture is the sector that needs most support right now. Without mass investments in African agriculture (which implies investments in affordable liquid fuels), we might witness a true catastrophy.

In any case, I think the effects of disastrously high oil prices on the poorest countries, are seriously underreported in the media. We need to focus more attention on this subject.

I find it mind-boggling that you are sitting there in Belgium, one of the most public-transit-drenched spots in the world, and you're still insisting that the developing world spend some of its precious capital on a soon-to-be outmoded form of transport, cars.  

Wiscidea, this "environmentalists-want-go-kill-suburbia" thing is like the "liberals-want-to-take-your-guns" thing, it's a straw man.  As far as I can tell, the big enviros have been twisting themselves into knots to figure out a way to keep cars running, and they insist on ignoring public transit (like our friend Jonas).  

Jon Rynn wrote: Jonas -- I find it mind-boggling that you are [...] in Belgium, one of the most public-transit-drenched spots in the world, and you're still insisting that the developing world spend [...] capital on [...] cars.

Perhaps, as with Canadians and socialized-medicine, his first-hand knowledge of socialized-transport affords him valuable perspective.

The fantasy of peak oil is not gloomy.  Think about it.

It is good for our side.  Mother earth's side.

The fear and gloom sets everything up for real GHG solutions.  Peal oil?  Bring it on!  

Sure it will concentrate wealth in the wrong hands, but that was happening all along anyway.  So now we have to have a low budget revolution, no problem.

A do-it-yourself local energy revolution that feeds off the detritus of the old energy economy is just fine.  Let the corporate society play peak oil as long as they want to.  Just don't play along.  It's just that simple.  Non-violent, non-participation.  

A general strike.  Let them try and keep going without us.  It will gradually grind to a halt.  Then corporate culture will take to mass producing what we are already doing on our own and pretending they invented it.  So it goes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

public transit = marxism, I guess nukes = freedom, solar = ....hippies?

Right arm Jon!  Nuclear power=France=commie (french nukes are state owned/operated)rat bastards who told bush to go eff himself when he wanted to invade Iraq.

So nuclear advocates want the government to own/operate the 100% nuke-you-ler power grid?  

These nuclear fellers are at least as helpfull as GM and OPEC and the exxonmob at impelling eco-revolution.  Awesome show, good job!  

The bushco status quo, the ultimate agents of change.  They have made everything go straight to hell so fast, our revolution is now inevitable.  We even have our grassroots leader now.

Barack is winning thanks to the corporate funded swiftboat ad attack machinery.  The worse the attacks, the more people realize he is right (not Wright).  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Everyone off the grid.

Once you have your solar energy system installed you are no longer dependent on corporations for your energy. You are no longer dependent on foreign countries for you energy. You are no longer subject to sudden increases in prices that put a dent in your already battered budget.

Furthermore, it is better for national security. The "terrorists", "communists", or whatever the enemy of the day happens to be cannot blackmail a nation or arrange for widespread blackouts. There's no threat of a oil embargo. There's no need to "stabilize" certain regions to ensure a steady flow of crude, thereby alienating the rest of the world.

I think the Republican Party realizes this. Real American independence, real freedom, real ingenuity, real efforts to reduce dependence on oil undermines the whole military/industrial complex and takes away the one stick they use for rallying the party faithful... FEAR.

I wish Democrats would drive this message home to the average voter.. Real patriotic Americans who care about those willing to risk their lives to preserve our freedom invest in alternative energy, especially means of removing people from the grid, not in finding more fossil fuel. Real patriotic Americans WHO CARE ABOUT PRESERVING FAMILY VALUES invest in alternative energy.

I'm starting to wonder whether Republicans believe that "freedom" really is just another word for nothing left to lose. If so, it looks like they're doing a great job of preserving it....  won't be long before Americans have more "freedom" than they ever hoped for.

it would be easier if people didn't mind driving neighborhood electric vehicles, which are available now.  The "problem": they get around 30 miles range, and about 30 mph -- and they're fairly cheap.  The speed is actually a good one for pedestrians, and apparently in most states you can drive them as long as the roads are 35 mph or less.  But its only usable in a fairly dense area -- but that still makes it possible in much of the U.S.

I'm not as familiar with the Communist Manifesto as the author you refer to is -- I guess libertarians are good sources on Marxism, for whatever that's worth.  So somehow public transit is Marxist, but spending billions more than public transit on highways is not...and how about that Price-Anderson act?  and all the subsidies and R&D for nukes?  I smell some marxism there too!  

I find it mind-boggling that you are sitting there in Belgium, one of the most public-transit-drenched spots in the world, and you're still insisting that the developing world spend some of its precious capital on a soon-to-be outmoded form of transport, cars.

Jon, first off, I spend a good part of the year in Congo, so I can compare things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewables-powered mass transit and superconductivity-powered maglev. This is feasible in areas with a high population density, like Belgium or Tokyo.

But please have a look at the population map of Central Africa, and then think of the development needs there.

Countries there are made up of 70% farmers who live in the country-side, dispersed in villages.

These people do not need let alone can afford solar-powered superconductivity-fed maglev trains. They need $5000 a piece Soviet trucks and cheap liquid fuels to get their products to market. They need $10,000 Ukrainian second hand tractors with diesel engines. Not hydrogen-powered autonomous harvesting robots coupled to GPS.

I invite you to take a step into the world to do a reality check.

Mind you, I'm the first to recognize the value of concentrating people in (high-rise) cities, because these allow for multiple efficiencies. And nothing is more urgent in the vulnerable ecosystems of Central Africa.

I would even go so far as to suggest that we could use an initiative to encourage and streamline urbanisation and population migration in Central Africa. Architects, urbanists, sociologists, tiermondists, and economists should be funded to design Curitiba-like cities across this region.

But the reality today is that you have large rural populations, dispersed across the continent, much needed to provide basic food, fodder and forest products to the vast slum-dwellers in the growing mega-cities. To better the lives of these people, you need Soviet trucks and (bio)diesel.

Unless you are willing to hand over 30% of your yearly income to help these countries leapfrog and built next-generation hyper-efficient mobility infrastructures that even we can't afford.

By the way, Jon, I haven't mentioned the word "car" in any of my replies. Not once.

Please read them again.

I differentiated between reality and fantasy, that's all. I said: these people can't afford to buy $250,000 electric trucks for which a $5 billion dollar infrastructure is needed.

They can't, because they make $300 a year.

It's much more sensible and realistic to help them get their products to market in the first place. And you do so, again, with cheap ICE-powered vehicles.

People are dying, you know. They need food and fuel. If you ask me, fantasies about electric or hydrogen powered mass mobility concepts in these regions are quite obscene in this context. They might be a reality in the year 2075, when they make economic sense. But not today.

This is all a rather basic exercise in development economics - can be done with a piece of paper and a pencil. And a grip on reality.

...which may never pan out, even for rich countries.  I'm thinking more of augmenting what I understand is a decent rail system that is already up and running in Africa, but I'm sure you have a better perspective on that than I.

I would also like to point out that the U.S. built up a huge agricultural system with the help of steam-based rail.  Maybe it was necessary to use horses to get to the rail stations, but it would seem to me that there might be potential to get some rail -- cheap rail -- out into the rural areas.  This would have the important effect of making it easier to use mass produced cheap electric cars, some that would be close to bikes, because they wouldn't have to travel hundreds of miles since a rail head would be available.

I haven't kept up on the possibilities for hydro in southern Africa, whether that would be possible or environmentally destructive, but it seems to me that there are some relatively cheap solar alternatives -- concentrated solar power for example -- that would be something to shoot for.

Unfortunately, even electric vehicles, if not run with solar/wind power, need coal for electrical generation -- although that would probably still be better than putting in an entire oil-based system.  The good thing about electricity is that a number of devices/fuels can be used to generate it, while an oil-based system is pretty much stuck with oil -- or with a biofuel based system that can not be expanded past a certain point.

I would much rather have my tax money going into helping the developing world through this period than wasting it on the military.  And I also agree that curitaba-type cities would be a great idea -- in all societies.

countries, instead of using it for developed ones?  The developed countries have the resources to move away from oil-dependence pretty quickly, it would make more sense to use whatever oil is left to move toward a sustainable economy, including building a sustainable infrastructure in developing countries.    If developing countries need oil to get through this period, while at the same time building a long-term solution, then that would be a much better use of the substance than traveling hundreds of miles a day to a huge house in the suburbs.  But that means changing the viewpoint of people in the developed world.

Electric vehicles can be just as cheap as ICE ones, or nearly so, as far as I can tell.

I know of one truck fleet that has abandoned biodiesel. I'm guessing because of its high price.

And I know of at least one country where farmers are pouring pure waste palm oil that is just filtered, into their diesel trucks, because it is 5 times cheaper than imported diesel that has to be hauled in across rivers deep into the interior of the country. 5 times cheaper.

And I know of at least one country where biofuels and bioenergy have now become the second largest primary source of energy - as Brazil's EPE just announced yesterday. Bioenergy and biofuels are now just ranking below petroleum, bypassing hydropower, all other fossil fuels, and all other renewables. And no, Brazil isn't going to utilize electric trucks anywhere soon. And neither are African countries.

And I predict that with oil at $200 (what this article is about), the world's farmers and truckers will be scrambling for biodiesel.

this is partly an information question, those would be much easier, it seems to me, than bicycles for transporting goods, and they could be fairly easily electrified, if the resources are there to do that.  And, a developing nation can produce its own bicycles -- they don't have to be state-of-the-art -- and use that knowledge to go onto bigger and better things -- a strategy that worked successfully in Japan, which started by simply having workshops that repaired bikes, moved on to making parts for bikes, and then making them.

I'm not talking TGV either.  Just a basic diesel or electric train system that isn't fancy, but that's cheap and dependable.

I'm thinking more of augmenting what I understand is a decent rail system that is already up and running in Africa, but I'm sure you have a better perspective on that than I.

Look Jon, obviously rail infrastructures are key to Africa's development.

But that doesn't do away the fact that you need to get goods and farm products from tertiary roads to secondary roads to, yes, a train or a river barge.

If you can electrify part of this infrastructure and couple that to rural electrification, via whatever renewable source, then all the better. I just don't think this scenario is for tomorrow.

All the while, we are dealing with oil prices that are truly catastrophic for these countries.

And that's where an urgent intervention is needed.

Let the West develop dirt-cheap and hyper-efficient vehicles for the future. Then transfer them to the South. That's much more realistic than the idea of "leapfrogging".

Just my two francs (taking into account a 200% inflation resulting from disastrous oil).

Jonas, could you be more precise about the "waste palm oil" to which you are referring? If you mean waste cooking oil from palm, that's great, and more power to them. But I imagine the volume of waste cooking oil that country, as elsewhere, is pretty limited. Still, the point is valid: locally produced biofuels are most likely to find a local market first in remote, land-locked countries, where the cost of importing and transporting petroleum products is expensive.

Brazil is a special case, meriting a longer response. But let's not forget that: (a) Brazil's sugar cane industry is, and has long been, by far the most efficient in the world (it truly is the Saudia Arabia of sugar); (b) even so, ethanol benefits from significant excise-tax preference compared with gasoline; (c) the blending of ethanol is mandated by the government (between 20% and 25%); (d) private diesel cars are prohibited; (e) the production of biodiesel in Brazil is subsidized, and its consumption is mandated; the program is a nicely designed social program, but most of the vegetable oils being converted into biodiesel there come from big soybean producers, or imports.

These are only my personal opinions.

Jonas, could you be more precise about the "waste palm oil" to which you are referring? If you mean waste cooking oil from palm, that's great, and more power to them. But I imagine the volume of waste cooking oil that country, as elsewhere, is pretty limited. Still, the point is valid: locally produced biofuels are most likely to find a local market first in remote, land-locked countries, where the cost of importing and transporting petroleum products is expensive.

Brazil is a special case, meriting a longer response. But let's not forget that: (a) Brazil's sugar cane industry is, and has long been, by far the most efficient in the world (it truly is the Saudia Arabia of sugar); (b) even so, ethanol benefits from significant excise-tax preference compared with gasoline; (c) the blending of ethanol is mandated by the government (between 20% and 25%); (d) private diesel cars are prohibited; (e) the production of biodiesel in Brazil is subsidized, and its consumption is mandated; the program is a nicely designed social program, but most of the vegetable oils being converted into biodiesel there come from big soybean producers, or imports.

These are only my personal opinions.

Even though I would welcome an oil-free world, I feel terrible that the inevitable escalation of oil prices is turning into such a disaster, all over the world.  We have a situation in the U.S. where gas prices might be the number one issue, and this is in the rich U.S.

An ounce of prevention would have been worth much more than a pound of cure in this case, so now we will be left with all kinds of band-aid solutions so that people can get through the short-term.  When faced with short-term catastrophe, people do what they have to do to survive.  

The choices don't look very good now, and we need a global movement that would handle these problems in a global fashion, a Marshall Plan for the developing world that would fit in with a plan to transform the developed world.  But that is obviously a long-term proposition as well.

The best I can come up with right now is to extend the idea of the Soviet-era trucks, which I imagine were simply designed to be able to be mass-produced, and to be reliable for a long time.  Maybe bike-type technologies along those lines would help -- I don't know that they need to be hyper-efficient, which might get high-tech, as much as easy to manufacture, using easy to make parts from fairly cheap materials.  My two devalued cents worth, as well.

M. Jonas, qui aurez 33 ans (je suppose) en l'an 2008.  (Oh!, l'age de Jesus-Christ quand il est mort!)

But it was you who dropped the "s" and the "e":

<<
Architects, urbanists, sociologists, tiermondists, and economists should be funded to design Curitiba-like cities across this region.
>>

Neanmoins, by all means be as enigmatic as you like.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Ron, the case in question is the Equator Province of the DRC.

Palm oil production there is artisanal. Only 30% ends up on "formal markets"; another 30% is used locally; and 30% is considered spoiled, because of the highly inefficient processing technique (manual press above a fire).

It is this spoiled fraction, which is now being used by the Centre de Développement Intégral Bwamanda.

CDI Bwamanda is an integral development project dating back to early post-colonial times. It now is a "state within the state", with hundreds of thousands of farmers in the Province as members of the cooperatives, the well organised agricultural initiatives and the mutualité (not sure how you call this in English, but it's a kind of collectively organised health care system).

The people living under CDI Bwamanda are the only ones in Congo to have come out of the most deadly war since WWII, which raged there for 10 years. They did so in part because this is the only functioning region in the entire Congo.

As you may recall, the founder of CDI Bwamanda, Leonard Van Baelen, was called one of Time Magazine's men of the year in 2003, because of this project. His organisation really knows what it's doing; it knows how to organise social and economic justice. Part of that is using palm oil for development.

CDI Bwamanda now uses filtered palm oil, waste from the many farmers who harvest and process it, in diesel engines. So it is not waste cooking oil.

They fully acknowledge that they don't want to turn this into an industry, and that the palm oil is only used because hyper-high oil prices are problematic.

However, they see the planting of palm oil trees as a great option to prevent the encroachment of the savannah. And they are planting lots of trees, as well as taking the huge decayed old plantations back into operation (these date back from colonial times).

An interesting technical report shows that palm oil can be used straight into diesel engines, without much problems.

I can imagine this makes sense in such local contexts.

It also shows that not all palm oil is as destructive as it is often portrayed.

It's only when you scale things up to a mad level that you get into trouble. And that's where fear is legitimate, because the Chinese have already bougth licences for a few million hectares of palm oil land in Congo.

M. Jonas, qui aurez 33 ans (je suppose) en l'an 2008.  (Oh!, l'age de Jesus-Christ quand il est mort!)

How did you know I did recently turn 33?

And: are you wishing to see me crucified?

No problem, if you check some of the discussion here, you'll see that I get nailed on the cross by brutal Roman imperialists on a continuous basis.

Lord, forgive them, they don't know what they do.

Despite the pain and the suffering, I still represent the Truth. Like biodiesel.

By the way: you mention horses.

Sometimes I don't understand what all the fuzz about biofuels is about.

In the past, we fed huge amounts of biofuels to horses. I once read that up to a quarter of all agricultural output went to feeding inefficient traction animals (both for use in agriculture and for transport).

Only today, internal combustion engines and the processing of biomass into biofuels is far more efficient than feeding horses. Or electric cars powered by 90% efficient cogeneration biomass plants are also more efficient than these poor animals.

The Congolese go hungry, not because they don't have enough room to grow food, but because they don't have trucks (horses) and fuels with which to import basic inputs for farming and with which to bring their products to local markets.

electric cars powered by 90% efficient cogeneration biomass plants

I have this vague notion lodged in my brain -- I don't know where I read about it -- but I don't believe horses are suitable for a tropical climate.

Anyone know about this?

Once again, perhaps, an example of one culture failing to think outside the box when trying to help another culture solve a problem.

And whatever happened to efforts to distribute small solar ovens to people to reduce their need for cooking fuel?

I've looked into this a little bit too, because I thought I'd read solar ovens were cheap, but then I came across several people selling them for prices comparable to conventional ovens. I've heard they've been widely distributed in Darfur to increase safety of women, preventing them from needing to travel far from home in search of fuel. If someone knew what they were doing they might be able to start a program to distribute them and get funding from an GHG offset company. It seems like there are a lot of areas where providing funding or other types of assistance to developing countries could provide far greater returns per dollar in terms of GHG reductions than in the developed world where we have more efficient technology. Also in terms of the way food is produced, this might be a factor, preventing deforestation for both food and fuel amongst desperately poor and hungry people. And then there's the added bonus of building up social capital and good will, preventing the need for mass migrations..

On the topic of funding from offsets, has anybody heard of this for funding better public transportation, or augmenting it in ways to make it more attractive, increasing ridership? I suppose the accounting would be far trickier, so maybe that's why it's not an obvious choice.

Ron, thanks for this interesting comparison.

I would make a few remarks, though:

the study states: the fuel efficiency for diesel tractors is four times that of workhorses. Since this is an old study (with data from the 80s and early 90s), I think it is safe to say that this difference has only grown. Bioengineers and farmers may up the feed conversion efficiency amongst traction animals in the future.

then the study looks at the net energy basis, but here's the problem. It only takes the biomass conversion efficiency for ethanol into account in as far as it concerns the grain yield; the far larger fraction of biomass that is produced and can be used for energy, is not taken into account. The feed conversion of animals on the contrary cannot be improved upon so radically, and the study already takes an unalterable efficiency into account; on a net energy basis, I would therefor at least double the energy yield of crappy corn biofuels, if all the biomass is used.

I would not consider a corn-grain-only biofuel to be efficient and would refer to the Brazilian practise of utilizing the large fraction of waste biomass to power part of the production process. I would also simply consider Brazilian ethanol to be the benchmark for any type of future biofuel (this implies a trade scenario: if US/EU farms don't succeed in producing a biofuel with an 8 to 1 energy balance, then they should stop trying and import fuels from Africa and Latin America).

The point about liquid fuels used in ICE's is their versatility: they can be used not only in tractors, but to power trucks, ships, cars and airplanes. As grass, the grass eaten by horses remains stuff for their stomachs only.

Speed: the horse mobility concept is rather slow, in comparison with that based on liquid fuels used in ICEs.  I'm not saying that slowing down our just-in-time economies isn't interesting, I'm only saying it can take a while, and it might lead to new inefficiencies.

Besides speed, there is also the problem of sheer traction power. Hauling 20 tonnes of food to a distant market in 1 big truck, is more efficient than hauling the same 20 tons, for which you need 80 horses. But again, this is a matter of modern logistics; I'm not against creating a more localist universe in which distances traveled by goods are radically shortened.

An interesting advantage of traction animals would be their continuous production of organic fertilizer. In an era of ultra-high mineral fertilizer prices, this could be a bonus. But on the other hand, most biofuel production processes yield copious amounts of animal feed (mollasses, dried distillers grains, etc...), which support the meat industry; the organic fertilizer produced by the animals of this sector would do the same trick.

With regards to your comment about the wrong biofuel policies, I cannot agree more. Biofuels should only be produced from efficient crops, grown in a sustainable manner, and be socially beneficial to people who are making the transition from human power (and animal traction), to modern mobility - that is: they should be produced in Africa and Latin America (for first generation fuels), and from wood and grass everywhere (for second generation fuels).

Today's policies in the EU and the US are not efficient.

What's more, I'd rather see all biofuel money spent on biomass electricity instead, coupled to investments in the electrification of our vehicles. Then we have a reliable and efficient green baseload (biomass cogen plants), and plenty of other renewables to add.

Price keeps going up(predictably)..not hard to predict actually.  

We're all dupes I'm afraid. When are folks going to wake up to realize that a small 5cent to 10cent tax equivalent per gallon will help more than hurt this 'once in America's lifetime' situation?? to invest in new side industries in alternatives? and reduce demand and get speculators going into alternatives besides oil in bigger ways?

By 'rethinking' how we levy taxes in this situation, we (the 'non-oil rich' ) taxpayers could be making getting a tax break for a change, while cleverly funding alternatives. Reverse logic ..get it? It's all investor psychology.

But, unfortunately..it will be way too late before folks realize this...as they argue over nickel tax increases as too burdensom, all the while dollars deflate, real-estate sinks in valuation, and gas hits $200/barrel. A correction will then be in order.  But until then will tax payers benefit ..at all?

The price has already climbed way past the 5cent a gallon increase several smart economists suggested back when it was $2.80/gallon.  Has anything new federal funding (not borrowed from existing programs) gone into alternatives yet?  

Think about that one.

I'de like to be optimistic, but the tax structure needs a big rethink in my opinion. It will happen. One way or the other I'm afraid.
 

-JChan