ITS SPRING !!

aka Jobst Brandt said:

...
Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul & Pacific, (Milwaukee Road), a fallen flag...

Three decades after the main yard closed, the vacant land is finally
being redeveloped.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

wizardB said:

Andrew Price said:

I think his point is that before long, there will no longer *be* all
those whizzing cars and trucks.

You

Err, no - *I* didn't make that point - it was Chalo. I suggest you go
back and read the thread again, more carefully, this time.

Quoted message said:

are completely wrong cars and trucks will never go away the fuel
will change but the American and Canadian lifestyle is based on the
automobile even if you don't drive one you rely on them whether it's the
guy that fixes your fridge the company that delivers your bike parts
from China or maybe the company that ships you your cliffe bars you rely
on them to live so they're going nowhere,Live with it!

Whether you're right or wrong, to me that's irrelevant, too - I don't
live in North America.

wizardB said:

Andrew Price said:

I think his point is that before long, there will no longer *be* all
those whizzing cars and trucks.

You are completely wrong cars and trucks will never go away the fuel
will change but the American and Canadian lifestyle is based on the
automobile even if you don't drive one you rely on them whether it's the
guy that fixes your fridge the company that delivers your bike parts
from China or maybe the company that ships you your cliffe bars you rely
on them to live so they're going nowhere,Live with it!

The American lifestyle used to be based on horses. When driving cars
no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life. I
believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation will be
a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

If entrenched interests suppress the development of transportation
alternatives long enough, we will be stuck with cars we can no longer
afford to run, feeble battery-electric vehicles that most working
people can't afford to buy, and expensive and rudimentary public
transit. Those of us who already ride bikes will have a relative
mobility advantage, along with cleaner air to breathe and quieter
streets to ride on.

Chalo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Andrew Price said:

I think his point is that before long, there will no longer *be* all
those whizzing cars and trucks.

Quoted message said:

wizardB said:

You are completely wrong cars and trucks will never go away the fuel
will change but the American and Canadian lifestyle is based on the
automobile even if you don't drive one you rely on them whether it's the
guy that fixes your fridge the company that delivers your bike parts
from China or maybe the company that ships you your cliffe bars you rely
on them to live so they're going nowhere,Live with it!

Chalo said:

The American lifestyle used to be based on horses. When driving cars
no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life. I
believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation will be
a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

If entrenched interests suppress the development of transportation
alternatives long enough, we will be stuck with cars we can no longer
afford to run, feeble battery-electric vehicles that most working
people can't afford to buy, and expensive and rudimentary public
transit. Those of us who already ride bikes will have a relative
mobility advantage, along with cleaner air to breathe and quieter
streets to ride on.

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of
those huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of those
huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Andy, you have to wonder what's going on in the minds of people who believe
they're environmentalists when you actually know what's going on.

A Muzi said:

Chalo wrote:
<

Quoted message said:

The American lifestyle used to be based on horses. When driving cars
no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life. I
believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation will be
a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of
those huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Yep, that's a fine example.

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government. By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them. I think we'll see people try them, and relatively high-
performance battery-electric vehicles, before resigning themselves to
something less convenient but also less expensive. I don't know what
exactly that will be, but I expect a mix of low-speed microcars,
scooters, bikes (both the regular kind and power-assisted), electric
transit, electric taxis, and a whole lot more walking than most of us
are accustomed to.

Chalo

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.

You don't understand the free trade system? IF people want large cars the
builders should build them. The government should stay entirely out of this.

Quoted message said:

By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them.

I can't help what you believe will happen in the future especially when it
portrays absolutely no likelihood.

We will see towns and cities compressing and public transport becoming more
popular just as it was pre-1930's.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

A Muzi said:

Chalo wrote:
<

Quoted message said:

The American lifestyle used to be based on horses. When driving cars
no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life. I
believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation will be
a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of
those huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Yep, that's a fine example.

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government. By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them. I think we'll see people try them, and relatively high-
performance battery-electric vehicles, before resigning themselves to
something less convenient but also less expensive. I don't know what
exactly that will be, but I expect a mix of low-speed microcars,
scooters, bikes (both the regular kind and power-assisted), electric
transit, electric taxis, and a whole lot more walking than most of us
are accustomed to.

Chalo

Well, 1500 pound cars exist all over the world right now, and many are
being developed even as we speak (Volkswagen Up!, Tata Nano, many
kei-class cars).

I think the Smart Fortwo is the only 1600-pound car that anyone is even
trying to sell in America. Even a Lotus Elise weighs more.

That said, you won't even really find kei cars in Europe, though they
generally tend to have a lot more of the small cars and a few
sub-compact sizes that basically don't exist in North America (small
cars with 1-litre engines like the Hyundai Atos).

But it's very hard to build a car that small and still meet most of the
US safety regulations. The Smart succeeds, but it is more of a comical
parody of a practical car than anything else. If you're going to have so
little luggage space, why not just ride a motorcycle?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of those
huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Andy, you have to wonder what's going on in the minds of people who believe
they're environmentalists when you actually know what's going on.

seriously. some people just don't look at the big picture. I don't
know how many times I've heard "I bought a new car and I really like
that it's environmentally friendly." I used to try to explain that
the most environmentally friendly car was one that was already built;
now I just smile and nod because usually they just wouldn't get it and
thought I was a nutcase.

nate

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

A Muzi wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo wrote:
<
> The American lifestyle used to be based on horses.  When driving cars
> no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life.  I
> believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
> takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation will be
> a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
> amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of
those huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Quoted message said:

Yep, that's a fine example.

Quoted message said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.  By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them.  I think we'll see people try them, and relatively high-
performance battery-electric vehicles, before resigning themselves to
something less convenient but also less expensive.  I don't know what
exactly that will be, but I expect a mix of low-speed microcars,
scooters, bikes (both the regular kind and power-assisted), electric
transit, electric taxis, and a whole lot more walking than most of us
are accustomed to.

Quoted message said:

Chalo

Well, 1500 pound cars exist all over the world right now, and many are
being developed even as we speak (Volkswagen Up!, Tata Nano, many
kei-class cars).

I think the Smart Fortwo is the only 1600-pound car that anyone is even
trying to sell in America. Even a Lotus Elise weighs more.

That said, you won't even really find kei cars in Europe, though they
generally tend to have a lot more of the small cars and a few
sub-compact sizes that basically don't exist in North America (small
cars with 1-litre engines like the Hyundai Atos).

But it's very hard to build a car that small and still meet most of the
US safety regulations. The Smart succeeds, but it is more of a comical
parody of a practical car than anything else.

If by "succeeds" you mean "is smaller than but not more economical
than existing more conventional vehicles" then yes, it does.

Quoted message said:

If you're going to have so
little luggage space, why not just ride a motorcycle?

Indeed. Unfortunately I think that at least in this area people are
too afraid to ride motorcycles because motorists just don't pay
attention. Likewise with cycling on public roads. Plus, you need an
extra endorsement on your license to legally ride a motorcycle, which
is a PITA if you didn't get it when you first got your license (if you
had parents like mine, you didn't. I've been meaning to rectify that
but just haven't gotten around to it.)

nate

"N8N" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

seriously. some people just don't look at the big picture. I don't
know how many times I've heard "I bought a new car and I really like
that it's environmentally friendly." I used to try to explain that
the most environmentally friendly car was one that was already built;
now I just smile and nod because usually they just wouldn't get it and
thought I was a nutcase.

Nate, you have a good grasp of the situation. We are hearing "Global
Warming" and politicians crying that if we're willing to turn all of our
income over to them and drop our standard of living down to what's in the
3rd world that we'll be TRYING to do something about it.

Of course the fact is that there might not even be any global warming per
se' and what we're seeing is the perfectly natural conditions near the end
of the intermediate periods between ice ages. The fact is that it is so long
between ice ages that there can easily be "averaging" of the geological
remains that they use for assuming temperature profiles.

While we certainly could improve our use of energy and abuse of the
environment, man adds essentially nothing to global warming and as we see
with the "USE GRAIN GENERATED ALCOHOL FOR TRANSPORTATION" the > are
completely ignorant of the effects of their stupid policies and while third
world people are now starving in greater numbers we see some
"environmentalists" saying this is a good thing because there are too many
people in the world.

Never occurs to them that starvation leads to war.

Tom Kunich said:

Chalo said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.

You don't understand the free trade system? IF people want large cars the
builders should build them. The government should stay entirely out of this.

Fat SUVs are not about what the people want; they are about what the
automakers wanted. They cost less to make, but they sell for more--
all by circumventing the safety and efficiency standards that had been
set for cars. (And by marketing to people's baser motivations.)

Make no mistake, if federal and state laws and fees were favorable to
people driving 10-wheel truck cabs instead of cars, a lot of people
would drive them. But that wouldn't make it OK nor would it be a
genuine expression of what people want.

In Colombia, four-wheel-drive vehicles have traditionally been subject
to lower tariffs than passenger cars because they fall under the
category of agricultural equipment. So for middle-class Colombians
who can afford a family car, it's very likely to be a jeep of some
kind. If the tariffs were the same for jeeps and regular cars, most
of the folks who now drive jeeps would drive cars instead. That's
pretty much the same kind of phenomenon that gave us Yankee housewives
and office workers driving Tahoes instead of Tauruses-- except that
most SUVs were specifically created to exploit a loophole, and then
relentlessly marketed by appealing to people's fear and aggression.

Before the manufacturers' contrived SUV phenomenon, such vehicles were
available. The AMC Wagoneer, International Travelall, Chevy Suburban,
etc., were all on the market for decades, but most folks didn't want
them. Even Americans don't just naturally want those things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them.

I can't help what you believe will happen in the future especially when it
portrays absolutely no likelihood.

We will see towns and cities compressing and public transport becoming more
popular just as it was pre-1930's.

Yes, we will see those things. And most of us here will live to see
the end of the car as we understand it. When petroleum isn't cheap
anymore (and this is just the beginning of the price increases in
store), gas cars will begin to go away. But many attributes of the
cars we know are simply corollary to gasoline power. It's why there's
been no satisfactory electric substitute for gas cars. Gasoline
allowed us to be energy spendthifts at minimal cost.

Even if cars switch over to burning corn ethanol or food oil or
Congolese orphans or something, energy efficiency will be a higher
priority relative to the cars we tolerate now. By the time
circumstances demand a switch from SUVs to something like today's
economy cars, that alone won't do enough to reduce consumption to an
economically viable level. Small cars will be only a brief stop on
the way to modes of transportation that we don't now think of as cars
(think golf carts on down in size and performance). It's just
inevitable unless someone figures out how to prevent Chinese and
Indian folks from buying their own cars as soon as they can afford
them. Or unless someone finds a whole lot more oil that's cheap to
get at.

The difference this time is that unlike earlier oil crises, petroleum
isn't going back to categorically lower prices from here. They'll
continue ratcheting upwards as a continually diminishing supply meets
an increasing demand. Raping ANWR all you want won't change that.

It isn't just cars that will be passing into history. Before long,
the price of air travel is going to catch up with oil prices. The
airlines are now buying time with a combination of petroleum futures
contracts and net losses. Jetting around won't be the stuff of middle-
class family vacations for much longer. But relying on American-style
right-wing politics and big business to get us out of this predicament
means there will probably be a lot fewer middle-class folks in a
position to regret that fact.

Chalo

Chalo said:

Even if cars switch over to burning corn ethanol or food oil or
Congolese orphans

I'd like to see the conversion kit for my 4-carb setup.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Chalo said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.

You don't understand the free trade system? IF people want large cars the
builders should build them. The government should stay entirely out of
this.

Fat SUVs are not about what the people want; they are about what the
automakers wanted.

I suppose that they became the largest selling vehicles because people are
way too stupid to know what they want.

Quoted message said:

They cost less to make, but they sell for more--
all by circumventing the safety and efficiency standards that had been
set for cars. (And by marketing to people's baser motivations.)

Fancy that - the vehicle in which deaths and serious injuries are the lowest
per vehicle are more dangeros according to you.

I don't like SUV's - I drive a compact. But those who want them should buy
them. The auto makers are paying a substantial portion of the labor market
and interference in that will have extreme and grave effects on the economy.

Quoted message said:

It isn't just cars that will be passing into history. Before long,
the price of air travel is going to catch up with oil prices. The
airlines are now buying time with a combination of petroleum futures
contracts and net losses. Jetting around won't be the stuff of middle-
class family vacations for much longer. But relying on American-style
right-wing politics and big business to get us out of this predicament
means there will probably be a lot fewer middle-class folks in a
position to regret that fact.

Chalo, your opinions are interesting. But in my opinion they are inaccurate.
Let's wait and see who is correct.

N8N said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Chalo said:

A Muzi wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Chalo wrote:
> <
> > The American lifestyle used to be based on horses.  When drivingcars
> > no longer makes sense, then we will learn another way of life.  I
> > believe the inflection point has already arrived, and the time it
> > takes to switch to another predominant mode of transportation willbe
> > a function of the amount of government corruption multiplied by the
> > amount to which corporate business clings to the status quo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> By corrupt, do you refer to the aggregate regulations which have doubled
> vehicle weight, halved mpg and effectively banned from the public roads
> any practical new 1200~1600lb passenger motor vehicle? I see more of
> those huge living-room-sized monstrosities now (yecch).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yep, that's a fine example.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.  By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them.  I think we'll see people try them, and relatively high-
performance battery-electric vehicles, before resigning themselves to
something less convenient but also less expensive.  I don't know what
exactly that will be, but I expect a mix of low-speed microcars,
scooters, bikes (both the regular kind and power-assisted), electric
transit, electric taxis, and a whole lot more walking than most of us
are accustomed to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo

Quoted message said:

Well, 1500 pound cars exist all over the world right now, and many are
being developed even as we speak (Volkswagen Up!, Tata Nano, many
kei-class cars).

Quoted message said:

I think the Smart Fortwo is the only 1600-pound car that anyone is even
trying to sell in America. Even a Lotus Elise weighs more.

Quoted message said:

That said, you won't even really find kei cars in Europe, though they
generally tend to have a lot more of the small cars and a few
sub-compact sizes that basically don't exist in North America (small
cars with 1-litre engines like the Hyundai Atos).

Quoted message said:

But it's very hard to build a car that small and still meet most of the
US safety regulations. The Smart succeeds, but it is more of a comical
parody of a practical car than anything else.

If by "succeeds" you mean "is smaller than but not more economical
than existing more conventional vehicles" then yes, it does.

Quoted message said:

If you're going to have so
little luggage space, why not just ride a motorcycle?

Indeed.  Unfortunately I think that at least in this area people are
too afraid to ride motorcycles because motorists just don't pay
attention.  Likewise with cycling on public roads.  Plus, you need an
extra endorsement on your license to legally ride a motorcycle, which
is a PITA if you didn't get it when you first got your license (if you
had parents like mine, you didn't.  I've been meaning to rectify that
but just haven't gotten around to it.)

nate

You know when American parents have the respect, or at least the
obedience, of their children. The children wait until they're adults
to ride motorbikes. -- AJ

Andre Jute said:

You know when American parents have the respect, or at least the
obedience, of their children. The children wait until they're adults
to ride motorbikes.

My mama told me that I had to wait until she died to get a
motorcycle.

I didn't wait that long.

Chalo

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"N8N" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

seriously.  some people just don't look at the big picture.  I don't
know how many times I've heard "I bought a new car and I really like
that it's environmentally friendly."  I used to try to explain that
the most environmentally friendly car was one that was already built;
now I just smile and nod because usually they just wouldn't get it and
thought I was a nutcase.

Nate, you have a good grasp of the situation. We are hearing "Global
Warming" and politicians crying that if we're willing to turn all of our
income over to them and drop our standard of living down to what's in the
3rd world that we'll be TRYING to do something about it.

Of course the fact is that there might not even be any global warming per
se' and what we're seeing is the perfectly natural conditions near the end
of the intermediate periods between ice ages. The fact is that it is so long
between ice ages that there can easily be "averaging" of the geological
remains that they use for assuming temperature profiles.

While we certainly could improve our use of energy and abuse of the
environment, man adds essentially nothing to global warming and as we see
with the "USE GRAIN GENERATED ALCOHOL FOR TRANSPORTATION" the >  are
completely ignorant of the effects of their stupid policies and while third
world people are now starving in greater numbers we see some
"environmentalists" saying this is a good thing because there are too many
people in the world.

Never occurs to them that starvation leads to war.

I think a large part of my worldview just comes from being born into a
Pennsylvania family of mostly German descent - we just as a matter of
course use stuff until it's well and truly used up, and *then*
consider replacing it. The fact that it's envronmentally correct to
do so is merely justification for our innate tendencies 🙂

nate

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

Tom Kunich said:

Chalo said:

I believe that both car manufacturers and car buyers will persist in
their folly until there is no way to continue, and they will do so
with the blessings of the government.

You don't understand the free trade system? IF people want large cars the
builders should build them. The government should stay entirely out of this.

Fat SUVs are not about what the people want; they are about what the
automakers wanted. They cost less to make, but they sell for more--
all by circumventing the safety and efficiency standards that had been
set for cars. (And by marketing to people's baser motivations.)

Make no mistake, if federal and state laws and fees were favorable to
people driving 10-wheel truck cabs instead of cars, a lot of people
would drive them. But that wouldn't make it OK nor would it be a
genuine expression of what people want.

In Colombia, four-wheel-drive vehicles have traditionally been subject
to lower tariffs than passenger cars because they fall under the
category of agricultural equipment. So for middle-class Colombians
who can afford a family car, it's very likely to be a jeep of some
kind. If the tariffs were the same for jeeps and regular cars, most
of the folks who now drive jeeps would drive cars instead. That's
pretty much the same kind of phenomenon that gave us Yankee housewives
and office workers driving Tahoes instead of Tauruses-- except that
most SUVs were specifically created to exploit a loophole, and then
relentlessly marketed by appealing to people's fear and aggression.

Before the manufacturers' contrived SUV phenomenon, such vehicles were
available. The AMC Wagoneer, International Travelall, Chevy Suburban,
etc., were all on the market for decades, but most folks didn't want
them. Even Americans don't just naturally want those things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By the time 6000-pound cars
can't be run because fuel is too scarce and expensive, 1500-pound
petroleum-fueled cars probably won't work either-- their economically
useful lifespan won't be worth the cost to develop and distribute
them.

I can't help what you believe will happen in the future especially when it
portrays absolutely no likelihood.

We will see towns and cities compressing and public transport becoming more
popular just as it was pre-1930's.

Yes, we will see those things. And most of us here will live to see
the end of the car as we understand it. When petroleum isn't cheap
anymore (and this is just the beginning of the price increases in
store), gas cars will begin to go away. But many attributes of the
cars we know are simply corollary to gasoline power. It's why there's
been no satisfactory electric substitute for gas cars. Gasoline
allowed us to be energy spendthifts at minimal cost.

Even if cars switch over to burning corn ethanol or food oil or
Congolese orphans or something, energy efficiency will be a higher
priority relative to the cars we tolerate now. By the time
circumstances demand a switch from SUVs to something like today's
economy cars, that alone won't do enough to reduce consumption to an
economically viable level. Small cars will be only a brief stop on
the way to modes of transportation that we don't now think of as cars
(think golf carts on down in size and performance). It's just
inevitable unless someone figures out how to prevent Chinese and
Indian folks from buying their own cars as soon as they can afford
them. Or unless someone finds a whole lot more oil that's cheap to
get at.

The difference this time is that unlike earlier oil crises, petroleum
isn't going back to categorically lower prices from here. They'll
continue ratcheting upwards as a continually diminishing supply meets
an increasing demand. Raping ANWR all you want won't change that.

It isn't just cars that will be passing into history. Before long,
the price of air travel is going to catch up with oil prices. The
airlines are now buying time with a combination of petroleum futures
contracts and net losses. Jetting around won't be the stuff of middle-
class family vacations for much longer. But relying on American-style
right-wing politics and big business to get us out of this predicament
means there will probably be a lot fewer middle-class folks in a
position to regret that fact.

Chalo

Well put Chalo. Regarding higher efficiency automobiles as the antidote
to impending the price shocks/energy crisis is to not comprehend
what's ultimately in store: a lifestyle largely without the personal
automobile. Such a completely logical and plausible scenario is too
drastic for most to grasp leave alone prepare for.

I've a colleague who thinks that once Big Oil's great booster, Dubya,
is out of office petrol prices will come back down to Earth -- "just
like they do every time." But this time is just not like every time
before.