BF2S Forums Life after $4 a gallon

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When the US was colonized, it was a tenth the size that it is now. If the US were only the size of the original 13 colonies, our consumption would certainly be much less. Organization can't overcome geographic distance.

Yes it can. In Europe far more people live in cities where it is practical to use mass transit systems. In the US people are scattered. LA for example is bigger than London and has a population many times lower. That's the second largest city in the US (by population) after NY (which also has a lower population than London, but is smaller too).

Organisation could totally overcome that problem by having higher density population centres with efficient transport systems and efficient transport links between the population centres. Not that I'm suggesting that should be done, but it's a perfect example of how better organisation can overcome geographic distance.

That's only if you assume people don't ever have to travel anywhere except between population centers. And you don't have farmers. Or industry. Or international travel. Or private land. Or...

No it isn't. You assume MOST people won't have to do that. International travel isn't an issue anyway, the majority of international travel is done through mass transit links. Industry isn't an issue either, since having a factory in the middle of nowhere is just stupid, you have industrial centres where lots of industry is concentrated - with easy transport links. If there are lots of people in a given area mass transit can work brilliantly, farming is the only exception due to the area needed, but farmers represent a tiny, tiny percentage of Americans, so that isn't an issue either.

Travel by car wouldn't be eliminated anyway, it'd still be there. There would just be far less of it, so it wouldn't be such an issue.

And doesn't Europe follow this model you're talking about? And what are fuel prices there again?

Fuel costs are the same as yours, except we add a pile of tax to discourage people from using it, live close to where they work, buy small cars etc. As Europe imports its oil it makes sense, instead of fighting wars so we can all drive 6.0l V8s.

You have long-haul trucks, trains, aircraft, industrial and farming equipment, etc.

If you choose to grow your food and manufacture your products in Mexico and China and ship it across the US thats up to you, currently you're taking advantage of cheap labour rates and cheap oil, cheap oil is pretty much gone, cheap labour wil be gone soon enough.
Trains and aircraft, why do people need to travel long distances on a regular basis?
Some of the jokers I work with seem to spend half or more of their working week in the air when they could get by with a few phone calls.
One character I worked with never actually went home, he was always travelling, I still don't know what he actually did apart from rack up air miles.
Farming is in big trouble however you look at it, it won't be long before we are back to subsistence living, our entire income goes to buy food and put a roof over our heads.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-03 15:12:20)

Dilbert_X wrote:

And doesn't Europe follow this model you're talking about? And what are fuel prices there again?

Fuel costs are the same as yours, except we add a pile of tax to discourage people from using it, live close to where they work, buy small cars etc. As Europe imports its oil it makes sense, instead of fighting wars so we can all drive 6.0l V8s.

Oh that's right. I keep forgetting it was about oil. And 6.0L V8s are quite prevalent, aren't they? The majority of US cars are 4 or 6 cylinder designs...similar to Europe. HOLY SHIT! You guys must be fighting wars for oil too!

Dilbert_X wrote:

You have long-haul trucks, trains, aircraft, industrial and farming equipment, etc.

If you choose to grow your food and manufacture your products in Mexico and China and ship it across the US thats up to you, currently you're taking advantage of cheap labour rates and cheap oil, cheap oil is pretty much gone, cheap labour wil be gone soon enough.

Look at a map of the US. The farmland is in the middle. Most population centers are on the coasts. Food has to be shipped. Equipment has to be shipped. That takes trucks, planes, and ships.

BTW, when did Europe stop importing things from other countries? Was that recent?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Trains and aircraft, why do people need to travel long distances on a regular basis?

Most people don't, and VTC availability is cutting down on the ones that do. But there are some things that you can't do remotely. And in this global economy, it requires long-distance travel. Unless, apparently, you're from Europe--then you simply don't import or do any business with people outside of Europe.

I hate going to the gas station anymore. It costs me damn near $100 USD to fill up my SUV. A 27 1/2 gallon tank on a Ford Expedition ain't cheap.

While making a delivery to a customer, we briefly talked about gas prices. I stated that the main auto manufacturers were FORD, GM & CHRYSLER. Furthermore, I told him that rising gas prices could cause the main auto makers to be TOYOTA, NISSAN & HONDA. I couldn't help but smile when I said that if the prices continue to soar that the main 3 manufacturers for transportation would be HUFFY, BMX & SCHWINN.

And in this global economy, it requires long-distance travel. Unless, apparently, you're from Europe--then you simply don't import or do any business with people outside of Europe.

Actually we do, we are just much more efficient about it.
eg
UK $3393GDP/Barrel
Switzerland $3788GDP/Barrel
Germany $2819GDP/Barrel
US $1605GDP/Barrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_dome … per_barrel
So you see we need less than half the oil America does to keep its economy ticking over.

Look at a map of the US. The farmland is in the middle. Most population centers are on the coasts.

Well that was poor planning wasn't it?

The majority of US cars are 4 or 6 cylinder designs...similar to Europe.

But how many people in America actually buy cars? How many buy SUVs and mini-vans with useless automatic transmissions and sand tyres?

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You are operating on the assumption that personal use is the problem. What about commercial use? Transportation (that mass transit doesn't run on sunshine and the vehicles aren't exactly fuel-efficient). You have long-haul trucks, trains, aircraft, industrial and farming equipment, etc.

And doesn't Europe follow this model you're talking about? And what are fuel prices there again?

Trains, which are the ideal haulage transport which could do most of the haulage for the country were the infrastructure in place, typically run on electricity. Not quite sunshine, but it certainly doesn't have to come from fossil fuels.

And where do you think that electricity comes from?

Most freight trains are diesel powered. Most short-distance (intra-city) commuter trains are electric powered. Inter-city trains are a mix.

Lets take the example of France, with one of the best rail networks in the world. Virtually all inter-city rail travel (often exceedingly fast on the TGV) and a good deal of rail freight is powered by electricity. More than 80% of France's electricity comes from nuclear sources.

Not making a very good case, are we.....

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Look at a map of the US. The farmland is in the middle. Most population centers are on the coasts.

Well that was poor planning wasn't it?

Yeah. Because you plan where the best farmland is. There was a big committee that got together and told God to put the best farmland in the center of the country.

I'm only guessing here. But I expect he was talking about planning where the cities were built not where the good farmland is. Of course cities on the coast makes sense for trade though, so I don't really get his point.

But then farming accounts for a minimal amount of fuel consumption, so isn't really an issue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's easy to be more efficient when you don't have to travel the distances involved (ie, geography is on your side).

How is geography on our side?
You travel the distances because:
You want to
You think you need to
Your cities are poorly planned
Europe is about the same size, we don't have rednecks taking driving holidays in their RVs, or the whole population getting on a plane at 'Thanksgving', boneheads with Expeditions whining about the petrol price.

We "wanted" to build cities on the coasts? That's how civilization develops.

The Euro says the US's cities are poorly planned...that's rich. Because back in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s when the cities were founded, they should have been thinking about lack of a fuel that hadn't really even come about yet.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yeah. Because you plan where the best farmland is. There was a big committee that got together and told God to put the best farmland in the center of the country.

Duh you put the cities where the food and water is.

That's exactly what happened...the cities sprouted up on the coasts. Where the food and water was.

Large scale farming requires different land. That land is in the central plains...which nobody even knew about when the cities started being built.

Do you think history started in the 1900s or something?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And mini-vans get near the same mileage as family cars

Only because your cars suck so badly.

And the majority are built by foreign companies...hmmm.