Do we really want cars for the long term? Can we afford them?

NNadir posed this thought, although in the form of a statement, in beginning a discussion on the number of nuclear plants required to fuel 100M cars.

That post went down the “how many nukes” rathole while I think the basic question/statement is the important one.

Do we really want or can we really afford cars? My answer is a resounding no but how can we replace the car, and what are the energy implications?.

The automobile is an incredibly inefficient and resource intensive mode of transportation. I grew up and live in North Jersey where nobody walks more than a hundred feet if they can help it, kids get driven two blocks to school (or worse, take their own car), and walking can be a death-defying exercise (unless you drive to the park to walk).

At one time, North Jersey had a network of trolley lines, rail, and bus routes. The trolleys are long gone, replaced by the devious doings of GM when they conspired to put light rail out-of-business so they could sell buses. A good portion of the commuter rail lines also went under, in favor of the car, during the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, the buses are pretty much gone too, although you can take a bus from here-to-there if you have all day to get there.

Rail has been making a very slow comeback in the area but the pace of expansion is excruciatingly slow. There is even a new light rail system in the more urban, Jersey City area, but again, progress is very slow.

My science-fiction pipe dream has always been to run light rail down the median of all major highways. One challenge (beyond construction) is the connection to your home street. The other question is the overall efficiency of running a significant energy consumer vs. the energy consumption of thousands of vehicles. I think NYC has one incredible electric bill for the subway system. Obviously, trains don't run full all the time but must always be available in order to be a viable replacement for the "go anywhere, anytime" automobile.

Many people likely live within reasonable walking distance of a major highway. Big change in mindset required along with construction of pedestrian friendly walkways. The rail concept might also be extended to provide routes along (in place of!) major feeder roads.

Of course, construction would be incredibly expensive and disruptive. But such projects would generate countless jobs. Unfortunately our suburbs were not designed; they just have happened, so in some, maybe most, areas, it may be difficult to achieve transportation efficiency. Suburban sprawl needs to be contained and then reversed.

Some metropolitan areas (Chicago, Boston, Washington) have constructed somewhat seamless mass transit from the suburbs into the city but the car is still king. My understanding is that the George Washington Bridge design was originally intended to carry trains to/from NJ on the second deck but this was nixed in order to keep the city riff-raff out of NJ and support the automobile.

As for the cities, I'm of the opinion that cars should be banned. Whenever I travel to NYC, and I confess to usually driving in, I imagine what a better experience it would be if there weren't any cars. There would still need to be delivery and emergency routes but that's it.

Politicians love to rail (what a pun) against Government subsidies for Amtrak and mass transit as a sign of pointy-headed liberal, socialistic thinking. Amazingly, there seems to be no embarrassment, or recognition, that our nationwide passenger rail system is not even up to third-world standards.

Nor is there recognition of the massive, probably unknowable, subsidy of the automobile, the attendant infrastructure, and associated costs. Just add up how much you spend on the purchase/lease of your car(s), upkeep and maintenance, fuel, and last but not least, insurance.

Think of the trillions sent down the defense sinkhole and how some of that money might be put to a productive use.

Think of the quality of life that is denied to so many by air pollution, congestion, noise, and accidents caused by the car.

All this just so we can get in our car and drive a few blocks to the store, or maybe drive 10-20 miles for lunch (what a waste but very common), or sit with thousands of others in our little metal boxes to funnel into an area that can’t possibly hold us all.

Well I’ve rambled on far too long with this post but would like to read others thoughts on how we might possibly get away from the automobile. It's taken a good 60+ years to get into this mess. How fast might we get out of it?

but I hate HAVING to drive everywhere. You should watch "The End of Suburbia" - its point is that our suburban sprawl lifestyle is unsustainable with the onset of peak oil production. The suburbs will become the new slums when nobody can afford to drive their cars anymore...

I had long thought that suburbia had run amok. I don't think it is a healthy place either environmentally or socially. Kunstler's books made me realize how much we've lost by abandoning the cities. Yes, he's a bit over the top sometimes but that's ok.

I don't think alternative fuels are any better for our cars. I think the only place in our transit picture that cars have are for short journeys to connect to mass-transit feeder sites and local trips that are not walkable or otherwise feasible.

In theory, rail-based mass transit is even better, but we've stuck ourselves with a road-based infrastructure, and starting from where we are, I figure that bus-based mass transit is the most cost-effective. We don't have to invest in any additional infrastructure for new light-rail.

There are issues with the cost of maintaining roads versus the cost of maintaining rail-bed. The lesser maintenance for rail-bed might make it worth the trouble to install.

transit: They built special bus stops with raised platforms so you could walk onto a bus as if it were a train, which speeds up loading and unloading busses. They also rigged traffic lights so that busses could go unimpeded in and out of the city as if they were light rail trains. All of this cost a small fraction of what light rail would have cost.

The ideal fuel must be renewable, while the raw materials for making cars should be recyclable, if possible.

Hybrids are a step in the right direction. But in terms of how humans reckon time, fossil fuels are anything but renewable.

I love the idea of biodisel. I hope it really catches on. However, my car runs on gasoline instead of diesel.

Eventually, you will have to replace that car. If biodiesel were available, would your next car be a diesel?

The economy is so dependent on cars and their support that we have a real problem even shifting out of the automobile based society. Of course it appears globalization is really neatly solving the problem for us. If we don't centralize our living and get some real mass transit fast we are toast.

I use the imperial we since I am nearly fifty five, so I my time is running down as it is. But you young folks need to seize the moment, like my generation didn't! We let the old fuckers just go ahead and keep screwing things up. The same people are still doing it today.

the old fuckers screwing things up. Growing up I had the crazy idea that we'd be making the world better.

Now I look and I am just appalled. The loudest of the old advocates are now the greediest of the capitalistic lot too.

but only in combination with long distance transit by rail and only if we can solve those pesky battery life and disposal problems.

All in all, though, I'd far rather take the noise and pollution of the present system than the animal transportation it replaced. THINK of the shit, the racket, the clang of metal clad wooden wheels along cobblestones!

No thanks!

bus pass, and my walking shoes, until I clicked a link to a crafty Chervrolet viral marketing ploy disguised as a "culture jam" from the homepage of DU.

Nevermind. I am ready for Peak Oil.

Less work than a bicycle, run off bio-fuel, good for the roses, and self-replicating.

and a bit of expense. Other than that they are much more faithful that your car and the last time I fed them I got nickered at, my truck just guzzles it's food with no good lovin involved.

...and there's work. Feeding, grooming and shoveling shit is small price to pay for not pedaling uphill. :)

from me. They are outstanding creatures. In fact, I am leaving now to go feed my herd.

Hope all is well. Have you seen Dylan recently? I'm going to see him in April at jazz fest in New Orleans. Can't wait...he's always a treat.

as a matter of fact, I can't remember how many years ago it was. Our neighbor who did not like to fly drove and my husband and I flew there. I was so excited to see him and he did a great show. I really was mainly there to see Paul Simon who is one of my all time top of the line favorites but Dylan was having such a great time. He has actually been here and in other close by towns but I have never made any of those.

We can't get to the Jazz Festival since our house will be going up. Besides that, my husband says he will never go back there. :cry: Something about it being toxic now. I would be there in a heart beat and may go with one or both of my kids in the future.

Have a lovely time. I LOVE New Orleans and am really excited to get back in the future. We could have a DU meetup at the festival some day.

I thought I remembered telling me you saw him in St. Louis. It was also my round about way of asking if you e are going to the fest this year. The line-up is awesome. We may go both weekends.

It is such a wonderful festival. I don't even want to know the line up do I?

I had a chance to hear and meet Nicholas Peyton when he was at UMKC and my son played with him. It was straight ahead stuff, nothing like the looped and crazy music he did at the festival. I enjoyed it but the creativity of his group at the festival blew me away. I believe he is from NO. Does he play there every year? Man, I wish I could hear him doing that music again.

Edit tonight my family is going to KC to see Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. I have a dress rehearsal so I can't go and I am NOT happy about that. They almost always play at the Orpheum on the last night of the festival. I went the last time I was there, it was a wonderful, exciting show to complete the experience.

Nicholas grew up in New Orleans. He studied with Ellis at the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts. That is great that your son got to play with him. What a treat!!

Nicholas and Peter played together for a long time and are real good friends. I've met him a few times; he played at the Big River Concert we did here and is going to be playing at the Chicago and New York shows we are putting together. I'll probably interview him for the film also. He is a very quiet guy, but when he blows that horn, Katie bar the door.

that when I met him and praised his playing and told him how much I enjoyed the experimental jazz he did at the festival I was embarrassed! I actually felt like a jackass, a groupie or something, then my son told me that he was pretty quiet.

Actually many of them are. Howard Johnson was like that, Victor Wooten was a little but Bela Fleck was the worst! I really am not a groupie, I just love to tell them how much joy they have brought to me and my family. I guess it creeps them out a little but I can't help myself. Now FutureMan talked to me for 1/2 hour about his music and Jeff was very outgoing so I guess you just never know.

That is so cool that he is playing for your show. What a line up. I want to come, let me know when you hit Chicago, I could maybe make that trip.

Gotta tell you again that my boys thought that Brian was the nicest. My oldest has his autographed drumhead hanging on his wall and we have pictures of them all together.

Bela Fleck tonight, Chick Corea tomorrow. I have to miss them both but have seen Bela multiple times and Chick long ago on one of his Return to Forever tours.

Edit for spelling

FEEDING the horses?

They're not called hayburners for nothing, and bear in mind that ag is VERY energy intensive.

Furthermore, it seems like a horse-based transportation network would increase the development of ranchettes, not slow it down, because people would want the convenience of having a horse close at hand.

Finally, horses are HELL on the soil in their paddocks. Erosion would be nightmarish.

and I am sure many many others thought of this as well (and probably before me) is...

You drive an electric car that can be somehow attached to a rail system. Like a separate monorail car that can be attached to flow with the monorail train, then detached and be able to drive where you want.

This allows for your privacy, flexibility, and allows for the reduction in pollution.

I know many of us revel in our time alone in the car but why not just go for a walk? How did we get to this need for the car to be our "cocoon".?

Privacy is vital. ;)

Any comment about the concept?

I am by nature a private person but I think suburbia with the car, large lots, lack of common meeting areas, has made us a more isolated society. I think the car is another barrier to being with people.

On the other hand, rail commuters create their own little isolation spaces even when packed in like sardines.

Too bad we just don't talk to each other.

... privacy can sometimes lead to much better communication with certain key individuals.

We all need more balance in our lives; civilization has been given to the machines for far too long. But a lack of privacy can be every bit as bad as enforced isolation.

--p!

I'm not disagreeing with your post, but I think that not only have we given civilization "to the machines," but we have so atomized and isolated ourselves from one another that community is largely disappearing.

We need to get it back, and a slight loss of privacy will be a result. But I still think it's the correct direction to go in.

This is my soap box issue. We have lost the ability to empathize because we are so segregated from each other. Have you seen Crash yet?

I hate cars, as you can see from my other posts. I refuse to ride in them. They are the single most destructive thing in our society on multiple levels.

and the reason is that we're evolved to be social in small tribal groups, where we mostly know everybody we see on a day to day basis. We aren't evolved to be social in groups of a million, where we see different people every day, whom we aren't familiar with. We aren't psychologically equipped to make relationships with new people every day, who we never saw before and won't see again. So we isolate ourselves, even though we're surrounded by people.

I also think humans are social by nature but there's much truth to the thought that we're just overwhelmed with each other. Our loss of community, even neighborhood, has taken away our comfort zone of social interaction.

Not so sure that it's the human condition...

Indulging in a small fantasy while driving the WHOLE DAMN LENGTH of California's Central Valley. :snore:

Small cars that you could load onto a train, then you could ride in the train car instead of having to drive, so you could get snacks and read a book or take a nap, but you'd have your car when you got to where you were going. The tracks wouldn't totally replace highways, but could certainly supplement them.

The cars would have to be small and light to make it logical as far as energy goes, I think, but it could be the first step in a national transportation revolution.

though, looking around the web, I can't find current examples of using it for long distance travel, which it used to be - just short distance tunnels, like Swiss mountain tunnels, or the Channel Tunnel.

Easier to do is provide trains with a decent amount of room for bikes - the train does the high speed, long distance bit, while you, on your bike, do the short, personalised route you need at either end.

The problem with your suggestion about bikes is that there's nothing within biking distance of either end.

This would be for trips such as Portland to SF, SF to LA, and so on that would just cut out the Central Valley leg of the trip (and reduce pollution in the Valley!)

From a safety perspective, they have to be desinged for their most hazardous working environment: the street. But all that weight and technology is useless when it's sitting on a train.

Likewise, all that expense and technology is useless when it's parked, taking up valuable urban space.

Why not just rent or borrow a car when you get off the train?

I'm quite sure that if the true costs of fuel, road, and parking use weren't nearly completely hidden from the user, we'd use far less cars. Likewise, if the socially created value of urban lots was shared, rather than privatized, we'd have a lot more destinations within walking distance of transit stops; we'd also have a lot more transit stops: e.g. building a transit system may cost millions of dollars, but it creates billions of dollars in property value. Socialize that value to pay for the transit.

It may look good on paper. But people have built their lives around the easy mobility afforded by the automobile.

How many of us work in different cities than our Spouse/Significant other? When daycare calls because junior has a fever and must be taken home immediatly. Doing the weeks grocvery shopping. etc.

And the automobile is a contributer to our overall productivity.

We can make vehicals more efficient. But eliminating them short of riots is unlikely IMHO.

it's there? If it weren't, we would arrange our lives in different ways, i.e. NOT taking jobs in faraway cities. I always remember a quote by Freud. He was marvelling on the fact that he could talk to his daughter who lived in a different city on the telephone. But, he added, if the phone hadn't existed, she would never have moved so far away. That is the essensce of our relationship with the car.

When I was young, no one commuted 60 or 90 miles to work. If they had, they would have been considered nuts. People moved to their jobs. Admittedly this is harder when there are two careers but it's far from impossible. As for daycare, well they're not going to put 'junior' out on the street if you can't materialise immediately.

I personally don't see how an automobile contributes to productivity. It sucks an immense amount of money from people, as well as time. It does give you freedom, and to me that is the single advantage. You can go where you want, when you want.

It it curently structured with cars in mind. if it was restructured at a somewhat higher density and designed for trolleys and light rail they would be fine.

Cars are much bigger than most of us need them to be.

A two-passenger micro car built of composite materials, and with a well-engineered cabin (to resist crushing in accidents) would be a good replacement for most peoples' automobiles. Marketed at a low price and with 150 MPG+ capability, it would be the modern equivalent of a "killer app", and the first major innovation in motor vehicle technology since the mo-ped.

Yes, they could be way-cool looking. Yes, they could have sufficient room for hot teen sex. They could even have air conditioning, 100 watts of stereo, and coffee holders.

--p!

I should start off by stating that I am lucky enough to live in an area (Westchester County, NY) where I do not need a car on an everyday basis. My wife and I live in an actual town and can walk for most of our errands, assuming that the weather isn't bad. For those outside walking range, I throw the pannier packs on my bicycle and ride in good weather. When I need to go into NYC I walk 5 minutes to the Metro North RR station and hop on.

And ramapo, I can certainly sympathize with the problems of living in North Jersey. It's a nightmare if you don't worship the automobile. I don't think that there is a place in your area where you actually can walk more than 100 yds, even if you WANT to.

Someone raised the point earlier that the "ideal" brought about by suburbia is no longer "privacy", but "isolation". I fully agree. Most parts of suburbia are so completely lacking in community that people will live next door to each other for years yet not ever really know one another. Personally, I think that suburbia is the ultimate living arrangement for a society that has commoditized everything, and pushed out anything that does not fit commoditization. Community cannot be commoditized, so it has been pushed out in favor of an arrangement more concerned with who has the nicest house, nicest yard, nicest car. In this arrangement, since adults don't know one another, children aren't allowed to play outside like they used to, so they spend time isolated indoors playing video games, watching TV, and gorging on junk food.

But, I digress from my points I'd like to make, which are primarily twofold...

First, one of the problems we have that is directly attributable to the automobile and our living arrangements is obesity. It just floors me to no end that when we talk about national problems with obesity, the thing that is NEVER mentioned is the way that people have to get into their car and drive every damned place they want to go instead of being able to WALK. Hell, I find it much more pleasurable to walk down to the store than to drive -- and it's better for me too. I can run into people I know and talk to them, I can see other people out on the sidewalks, it's just a much more pleasurable experience. I'm just lucky I live in an area where this kind of activity is possible, because they're fewer and further between now than they used to be.

This brings me to point #2, an idea pushed by Kunstler in some of his more reasoned works like Home to Nowhere and The Geography of Nowhere -- the idea that making the automobile the thing around which we plan our residential and commercial structures makes those structures and our communities downright UGLY. As an example, I live in a co-op on a side street. When my wife and I walk the dogs or have to go into town, we walk on a sidewalk that has a row of trees between it and the street. Then, there is a row of parked cars. Finally, you arrive at the street itself. The idea here is that the trees and parked cars serve as a buffer between the pedestrian and traffic, making the experience much more aesthetically enjoyable. Contrast that with the "main strip" that runs out of town. There, you walk on a sidewalk that is directly adjacent to the road, with cars whizzing by at 40 mph. The line of trees is between you and the field of asphalt that serves as a parking lot. Everywhere you look, all you see is CARS. It's just plain depressing -- it actually makes your walk rather unenjoyable.

Now, when we're encouraging people to walk places, in which setting are they more likely to walk? One in which the streets are narrow and pedestrians are separated from traffic, with shops and houses right on the street and a lack of oversized parking lots? Or would it be the places where you are next to traffic whizzing by, with all the attendant fumes and noise, and nothing but asphalt fields everywhere you look? I personally believe that by making the automobile the center of our lives, we have made our communities unwelcoming. That perhaps explains why, when you find an actual town, the most expensive real estate is that which places people IN THE TOWN, amidst all the commercial activity -- and when you find the more typical arrangement of a commercial strip fed by a multitude of cul-de-sac developments, all people want to do is escape from the "community" to their own private 1/2 acre and 2200 sf of "frontier home" where they can be totally isolated from everyone and everything unless they get into their car and drive....

Commercial and residential development is ugly and totally car-centric. Human contact can be a rariety. I enjoy riding my bike around the local streets. I can combine a maze of side roads into a pretty safe, 10 mile ride. What I'm constantly amazed at is how few people, kids especially, I actually see outside on even the nicest days.

I try to walk around our town which unfortunately lost its' center long ago. It is easier to walk from store-to-store but folks will drive the few hundred feet between strip malls.

Most of what is being built is so incredibly ugly, especially retail stores. The small town with a center was (is) an attractive living situation but unregulated, unending sprawl, along with the big-box highway retail explosion, has really obliterated the concept.

It is really quite sad. We've lost more than many people realize.

Even going from one side of the road to the other is a life-threatening experience.

The commercial center of my town is all big-box stores, and it's like 3 miles and under 10 minutes to drive to, say, Target, using the freeway, but going through town it would be an all-day journey to go to Target. It would be impossible to walk, and you'd have to take multiple busses, none of which would use the freeway which is a block from here.

I didn't have a car for AGES, and now I live in a town where you basically have to have one. I live literally three blocks from the old downtown, but there are no stores there, so there's no reason to walk there. You have to go to the big box stores to buy anything. :shrug:

is part of the problem. If we are going to have any hope to save civilization as we know it, the first and most important thing we have to do is stop driving cars. We have to move closer to where we work. It is that simple. We have to build walkable communities. Anyone who claims to be an environmentalist, but lives where they have to drive to work, is fooling themselves. People have to organize their lives so they don't have to drive. The choice is yours, society doesn't force it on you. Hybrids won't save us. The only thing that will save us is to stop driving everywhere.

Cars are bad, real bad!!!

If you run up to people and tell them, "If you drive a car you're destroying the earth, get rid of your car now," you'll be greeted with either a bewildered look or a laugh in your face. I'm not saying that automobiles are good for the environment, but rather they are ingrained in the American psyche as a part of the idea of "freedom" -- the freedom to go where one chooses, when one chooses.

If we're going to be successful about this, we need to appeal to people's better natures. I think it goes without saying that most people want to live in aesthetically pleasing communities. Yet, at every turn in the past 50 years, we have made our communities aesthetic nightmares. Perhaps if we started from the standpoint of appealing to people's desire for legitimate community and aesthetically pleasing places to live, we might be able to gain some traction.

The surest way to turn people off to you is to start by telling them how wrong they are.

I thought that in the Environment/Energy section of DU, I could be so blunt. I am amazed with the number of people one here who apparently call themselves environmentalists, but defend the car culture. The two do not mix.

Full cost accounting puts gasoline at $5-%10 a gallon.

Purchasing an auto is a sunk cost, once purchased and insured, additional miles are relatively inexpensive.

Parking is subsidized just about everywhere. Street parking is generally free. Businesses usually provide free or reduced cost parking.

Most businesses are labor efficient and land inefficient: Think big box store with associated parking lot, where stockroom labor is eliminated in favor of warehouse-style shopping. This is because labor is taxed at 15%-50%, while land may be held virtually tax-free. Because we allow the privatization of the socially created wealth in land values, it is financially desireable to purchase and hold land unused.

This exacerbates sprawl, hinders urban development, and makes it hard to profitably operate a transit system.

OTOH, a transit system could be very profitable if it could recoup even a portion of the value it adds to neighboring properties.

It's quite straightforward to do so, by shifting existing property taxes from buildings to land. E.g. a 1% property tax may become a 3/4% building tax and a 1.5% land tax - a revenue neutral shift overall, but bearing more heavily on land-intensive development (vacant lots, parking, strip malls, and run-down rental properties) and less heavily on building-intensive development (owner-occupied homes, multi-use properties, condominiums, etc.)

Quite probably, our existing urban areas, which were generally laid out prior to WWII and the advent of the multi-car family, can be 'saved', if space can be reclaimed from the car and used productively for transit, commerce, or livability. In many cases, narrow surface trams can be run in existing medians, perhaps at the expense of street parking.

I am also optimistic that PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) will one day prove viable: it combines low infrastructure & operating costs with high frequency of service and direct (express) routing. An overview can be found here. Because it runs on very small elevated guideways, and thus requires a minimum of land space, it would be a good retrofit into urban areas.

In the mean time, Ultralight Rail, seems more attractive than bus mass transit. I feel that bus transit fails to signify a permanent commitment to a transit system, and misses out on encouraging transit oriented development.

I'd truly like to see someone found a new millenium city on a greenfield site, with very little compromise from a car-free ideal city design. There is usually a lot of oppositon for greenfield development from the antisocial wing of the environmental movement, however I must point out that less than 3% of the US consists of urban land. It's not a lack of land that is the problem: it's the lack of PUBLIC land in urban areas, and the traffic caused by externalized costs.

It has a population density comparable to the Phoenix metro area, but 80% green space, whereas the Valley has maybe 20% greenspace. Maximum trip length beats out the maximum trip length in the Valley by a few minutes, assuming excellent traffic, which is rare. In realistic traffic, it beats the Valley by a factor of 2-3.

J/K. From the air it looks alright. Never been around on the ground. 300+ days of sunshine sounds nice.

The reference design is 1M people in 100 sq mi, 80% green PLUS 40% green and 17% plaza within the 'nodes'.

For comparison, Washington DC WAS 100 sq miles (if you include arlington, va, the original square was 10 miles by 10 miles). The population of Arlington, VA & Washington, DC is 740,000 combined (3-4 times this during the day). I don't know what percent of the area is 'green', but I can tell you that some 50% of Washington, DC is paved or parking. 35 minutes worst case door to door smokes what it'd take to drive from NE DC, across the Potomac, find parking, and get to the address of someplace in Clarendon.

The sunshine is nice. The sprawl, smog, traffic and urban heat-island effect aren't so great. Neither is the 11-year drought we're currently in, or the fire-season we're expecting because of it.

But the sun. Yeah, it's da bomb. I like the weather this time of year. Almost any week now, the daytime highs will start moving into the 90s and 100s will be hot on their heels. Then I start to like it less.

It's 73F here today. It's normally nice april - june, then hot and muggy.

Check out any residential area close to mass transit. The cost of housing is higher if the building is within walking distance of a train, light rail or even bus. The area near the new light rail system in Jersey City, NJ (directly across from Manhattan) has resulted in a redevelopment boom. Long-term plans are for this system to extend into the more suburban surroundings but these projects take far too long.

Buses do provide some flexibility and can certainly provide a degree of mass transit. We took a family vacation to Cancun some years ago and the very basic, but cheap and convenient, bus took tourists and locals back and forth along the hotel strip. Parts of suburban North Jersey were once well served with buses but most busing is now strictly for commuters. You can take a bus to the mall if you have a couple of hours or more for your trip.

Nearly everything about the automobile is subsidized. Parking, road construction and maintenance to name the obvious. Then there are the indirect health costs, environmental degradation, and wasted time to consider. That's why I always get this feeling that my head will explode when hearing the anti-Amtrak mantra of excessive government subsidy.

We all want world peace and the elimination of poverty too, but we are not likely to have those things either.

The matter of automobiles, like the matter of food, will probably involve a forcible catastrophic adjustment which will largely be out of the hands of humanity as a whole.

Some people may be able to afford cars in what follows, but I'll bet it will be a rarefied bunch ultimately. Everyone else will, to the extent that they can stop suffering long enough to think, will simply - when they think of cars - do so only long enough to curse their forbearer's, their selfishness and their stupidity. The forbearers in question would be us.

I have never been optimistic that rationality can prevail. I am less inclined to think so than ever. I do my best to foster whatever realism is possible, but in response, mostly what I hear is wishful thinking. The denial is not fading, it is getting stronger. The wolf is at the door and still most people cannot see him drooling.

Human beings -- and Americans specifically, for a multitude of reasons rooted in our national psychology -- are not rational animals. However, there are instances of human beings who do demonstrate significant capacities for rationality. Just look at this forum as an example.

One area in which I think that Kunstler will be somewhat correct in a post-peak oil world is in the return of localism. Localism will come to rule the day out of necessity, simply because it will be impossible to maintain large, centralized social organizations and the current distribution networks of goods and services. Of course, this will have positive and negative effects.

However, for those of us who are aware of these problems and start making significant changes NOW, the pain of transition will be lessened considerably. I still believe that by finding other like-minded people and joining together with them to implement lifestyle changes, we can not only prepare ourselves for future catastrophe, but we can also serve as an example for those who see signs of danger approaching but feel powerless to do anything.

Until I started at this forum, I was unaware of some of the cool thinkers on energy and the environment, Lovins, Kunstler, et al.

Finally I became curious and began reading what these folks have to say, as opposed to trying to figure everything out for myself.

I am skeptical of futuristic predictions about energy and the environment both negative and positive. Mostly they are notable for being wrong, some my own included, especially those of my youth. Hopefully I am wrong about what I think is going to happen with global climate change and fossil fuels.

I was surprised to see how much I agree with Kunstler on so many things. I note that he says he hopes he's wrong too.

In some areas, I find him a bit too pessimistic, and in other places way too optimistic, but in a large part, I think he's on the mark. I think he overstates the impact of oil n as an irreplacable resource, understates the risk of global climate change, and overstates the case that the transition to localism will somehow redeem something. Technically oil is relatively easy to replace if prices are higher - the question is how to do it. The answer to that question will, in turn, may determine whether humanity exists at all. On the last point, I note that the entire planet is sleepwalking.

All told though, Kunstlers's an interesting thinker, a cut above your average journalist on vision. I was very surprised to learn that a Rolling Stone journalist could agree with me on nuclear issues, but here, his vision is somewhat narrow. It's not all about the light bulbs.

I'm not sure that a "return to localism" will happen without fantastic upheaval though. I think that pastoral future, should it come to pass, will involve great loss, almost irretrievable loss. We look at Dafur and those kind of places and think it can't happen here. But it can happen here. As noted on another thread, the Dafur game is a resource war. It's about water.

Sometimes I can't look my children in the face, because I know what we have done.

Most options involving "localism" aren't sustainable without a serious fence.

In other words, if you've got everything going well in your local pocket, what keeps me from moving there? How many immigrants can you handle? No doubt, your small locality will vote to exclude the immigrants somehow: you'll prohibit new buildings, you'll enact zoning ordinances to keep your bucolic land pastoral. Great if you happen to live their before, or if you happened to inherit some property - them that has, gets, and all.

For example, consider Sweden, perhaps a paragon of Democratic Socialism. How many people could be employed? How many people fed and watered? How many could use the healthcare system? Who would coordinate all of these activities? Would the existing Swedes so warmly embrace immigrants such that the newcomers would have homes, and food, and healthcare?

If, likely, Sweden couldn't handle an unregulated influx of people, who would be allowed in, and who would be left to the chaotic wastelands?

If the political/economic system truly worked, the parliament could simply direct more people to be employed, given healthcare, housing and food. We know this not to be possible, but yet we insist it works for the Swedes. Why not then for another million immigrants?

Conversely, if the free market that the republicans used to scream about could allocate resources effectively, we wouldnt' be in the predicament we're facing, would we?

What to do? Invest all our authority in a benevolent but powerful government? How do we keep it benevolent?

I suggest changing the economic rules, specifically, the nature of ownership. Currently we allow individuals to own bits of the world, and then charge others for it's use, or it's transfer (sale). I can own 1000 acres, and demand you pay me to grow food there. I can own the water rights to a river, and demand you pay me to drink from it. Looking back through the ages, we realize that none of these 'titles' or deeds are based in an honest transaction: they were invariably taken by conquest. The only logical assignment of rightful ownership of nature would be to humanity as a whole, as a common birthright of everyone.

Practically, this presents problems. Perhaps a river flows enough that all could drink from it without causing problems, but what of irrigation? Who has a right to use the river for irrigation? What about building a house - who would build a house if everyone had an equal claim on the land their house sits on? We may still assign individual owners, that is people who have an exclusive right to a certain lot, or flow, or other 'chunk' of nature. However, those owners must justly compensate those they exclude. How do we determine a just rate of compensation? Regular and periodic auctions. Who collects the compensation? A representative of the community - an assessor. Who receives the compensation? The entire community, either through the funding of public goods, or through a direct cash demogrant.

Such a change in the nature of ownership would lead earth's bounty to be put to highest and best use, wherever such a scheme were adopted. This does not necessarily mean that the plains woudl become covered with skyscrapers, but rather that urban areas, at transportation nodes and population centers, would be fully developed, rather than sprawled accross miles and miles of less desireable building places. Such a change would mean that water would be put to highest and best use - as determined by the market of people equipped with money from the very act of auctioning the water rights. Such a change is fundamentally the same as allocating each individual a portion of the water flow, and then allowing them to trade their allocation for fungible credit.

Fortunately this flow of value presents a wonderful opportunity, the opportunity to return to people what is most certainly theirs: their own labor. Currently, in order to legally work, we must pay a tribute of 15-50% of our income, directly. Eliminating taxes against labor would increase demand for labor - increasing employment and wages. Completely eliminating labor taxes int he US would completely eliminate permanent unemployment while drastically increasing wages. Eliminating unemployment would allow employees to demand good wages and working conditions.

Eliminating unemployment, while freeing up land and other resources, would lead to unmet demand for labor. Unmet demand for labor, would allow for immigration without fear of depressing wages. Furthermore, immigration would increase demand for land and resources, increasing the amounts of rents collected by the public. Increased public rents means increased public goods, and public demogrants. It becomes a positive reinforcement loop: increased human development leads to increases in human development.

;)

My understanding of the problem with communism is that nobody is invested in the success or failure of their business, and nobody has an interest in working to maintain their homes or land because there is no long term incentive for doing so.

It calls to mind the old Onion headline: "Marxists' Apartment a Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn't Work."

Also, you used Sweden as an example. According to the CIA World Factbook, 6.54% of the country is arable land, of which 0.01% is cultivated to permanant crops. They grow barley, wheat, sugar beets, meat, and milk.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

Furthermore, the high latitude of the country would shorten the growing season immensely. They may have the Gulf Stream to ameliorate the temperature extremes, but they're still up at the latitude of Alaska.

The deal is that virtually every nation and region on earth would have drastic, drastic problems existing as an independant pastoral society. We're lucky in the US to have a huge, environmentally stable breadbasket region in the center of the country. Even if the populations of most countries totally crashed, world food supplies are vitally interconnected, with most countries in danger were their importted food supplies to be cut off.

I live in California and we could grow a lot of our own food in our backyards most years, but last summer we had late heavy rains into the spring, then suddenly the weather shifted to 100 degrees overnight and the crops never had a chance to harden off. Everyone's backyard gardens did poorly, going to show that even in the best of conditions there's still a lot of room for the vagaries of nature to take a major toll.

No taxes on labor
No taxes on man-made capital or returns to man-made capital
No taxes on sales (except pollution taxes)
No taxes on imports or exports (except pollution taxes)
Full annual rental value taxation on land, extraction rights, broadcast rights, other privileges.

Employment is not reduced by labor taxes.
Productive investment is not reduced by taxes on capital.
Commerce is not reduced by sales & transaction taxes.

Land & Natural Resources are not (cannot be) reduced by taxes on them. They already are or they aren't. If full rents are collected, users must by pragmatic with their use, rather than wanton, leaving more for others or for nature.

For the US:
GDP $11.75 Trillion.
Estimated Rents 1/4 to 1/3 of GDP (vs. Wages and Interest) = $3 Trillion.
Per Capita: $10,000
Current Per Capita Government Spending: $13,300

Obviously rents are not enough to fund current levels of government spending. However, there are two methods to rectify this:
One is to increase rents, which would happen naturally as privileges are shared and distortions eliminated: as individuals stop losing ~30% of their wages, employment improves, and wags increase, the going rate for renting resources will increase. In fact, the ~$4T reduction in other taxes would largely return to resource values (consider how real estate prices increase to 'absorb' available incomes).
The other is to reduce government spending. Obviously (to most DUers) we can reduce the $2,100 per capita military spending by a significant amount. Perhaps not so obvious is that, with increased wages and virtually zero unemployment, the need for most social spending is reduced.

So, in my rosiest of forecasts, we could raise $13,300 and spend only $6,700 per capita. This leaves a $6,600 per capita demogrant ($550 per month?). A family of four would receive $2,200 a month, just for being here. Considering that jobs, housing, and healthcare would be plentiful (and relatively cheap compared to today), this is pretty nice. In case you're wondering, housing would be cheaper, though it would probably be a condo or small-lot home.

This is more or less the idea proposed by Karl Marx's contemporary Henry George, of whom Marx had to say: "Henry George is Capitalism's last stand".


Per capita spending on Military (Incl Iraq & Afg): $2,100
Per Capita spending on Medicaid & Medicare due to inneffective Health Care System: $1,800
Per Capita spending on

I can see how it encourages more responsible land use, but (for instance) suppose I run a copper mine. The supply of copper in that mine is finite. No matter how responsible I am, I will eventually use up the copper in that mine, unless I simply stop mining it, which amounts to the same thing: no more copper comes out of the mine after some period.

I suppose no economic model can change that fact of life. It's simply conservation of mass in play.

Maybe the better question is, does this economic model favor recycling over resource extraction? Maybe so. If labor and capital investment are not taxed, then I can run a recycling business pretty much tax free. Not so for a copper mine, which will be taxed somehow.

As unextracted resources become scarcer, do taxes on land which contain the remainder go up?

and make no mistake about it, no one taxes just like this, so we're all in the realm of reasonable conjecture.

I think you've got it:
A copper extractor bears heavily on 'Land' while a copper recycler bears heavily on 'Labor' and 'Capital'.
Much like a coal plant bears heavily on 'Land' while alternatives typically bear heavily on 'Labor' and 'Capital'.

The question, often asked of this type of scenario, is does this type of economic model encourage more rapid extraction? I suppose the answer depends on how well we assess externalities and how we set up the assessment of extraction right leases.

Consider an oil well:
If the right to extract were auctioned, without limits to extraction, the the owner would tend to want to extract as much as was economically possible. If oil is scarce and demand is high, oil would be extracted quickly, as the price would allow for heroic methods of recovery. Conversely, if all significant taxes were collected on Carbon emissions, as well as other pollution, the demand for oil would be reduced, and the price for crude would only support more conventional methods of recovery. If the externalities were collected, likely tar sand recovery would never be economically feasible.

Extraction of renewable, but limited resources would likely require a scientific determination of a sustainable yield - a process that would possibly be distorted by lobbyists. However, it would be an improvement over current, 'owned' rights - where the rights to fish, or otherwise extract, are tradeable and profitable for the owners - encouraging speculuative hoarding and acting as a barrier to entry for more efficient extraction.

As unextracted nonrenewable resources become scarcer sources of that resources become more valuable, but then so does recycling and alternatives. Market preference would determine whether it was more economic to conserve, use alternatives, extract more, or recycle. The rates for such leases would be set by what the market would bear, either by open auctions or by assessment.

to ask "where does the species' self-restraint enter the equation?" In your model, it must enter in the valuations used to assess "land" taxes and "footprint" taxes.

Any system can be subverted easily enough, if the underlying self-restraint isn't present. We've seen this in the United States political arena, over the last 5 years.

but the general theory of taxing income & gains due to ownership of 'Land' more than that due to ownership of 'Labor' or 'Capital' both controls ecological footprint size AND improves economic efficiency.

Many of the valuations would be done by auction. There is no bias there, it 'discovers' the true value.

Others, say land title assessments, would be done by assessment. These assessments can be made more accurate by occasionally having the public purchase a property, clear the land, and auction it. Furthermore, between any two similar lots, there should be very little difference in assessment. Currently, assessments must attempt to valuate a house and it's interior: lot assessments can be done from a map.

I believe 80% of economic 'Rent' can be valuated as above, IMO very objectively.

Still others, and this is where I believe your point is most valid, are more difficult. When we try and assess an externality that doesn't cause a direct and measurable financial burden, it is difficult to quantify the externality. Take atmospheric carbon emissions: how much can the ecosphere handle? In some cases such as these, it may be better to simply assess fairly arbitrary and increasing tax - we know what direction to go, we just don't know how far. (We being the world - I would bet that the DU E&E forum agrees to go pretty damn far.)

I believe that IF the revenues from such taxes are used to the benefit of EVERYBODY, particularly if they are used to fund a universal Dividend, popular support would demand maximization of revenue. In the case of a Carbon Tax, maximizing revenue would probably be a fairly good way to balance the minimization of carbon emissions with the economic needs of society: It'd a be a fairly steep hill, but not so steep as to upset the apple cart.

The other collections of rent also tend, regardless of valuation, to minimize ecological footprint. Fore example, collecting land title rents tends to develop compact communities, which also minimizes transport energy & costs.

I'm trying to imagine the entire lifecycle of my hypothetical copper mine, in this new economic system.

In the very beginning, we start with a parcel of land, and nobody knows there is copper under there. It's assessed at some value. Let's suppose that it's owned by the federal government. (but what if it was actually seven private lots, owned by seven separate citizens?) Then some mining-company geologists survey the land, and discover copper deposits, however they do that.

Now, we don't want copper-company-A or copper-company-B to purchase either the land itself or the mineral rights at their pre-copper-discovery value. Does the government step in and say "OK, now that copper has been discovered here, we run an auction for the mineral rights?" Then company-A and B compete in an auction, and company-A wins. The value of those mineral rights is determined by the winning bid of the auction, and taxes are assessed. Does company-A pay taxes on the mineral rights? They just paid for those rights at auction. If the land is owned by the feds, do they pay taxes to themselves?

In this new system, nobody owns mineral rights forever. They must be periodically re-auctioned. So, five years later, company-A and B go head to head in a new auction. This time, company-B wins! Now, they get to mine the copper. But, company-A has spent five years building up capital on that mining site: they've dug the mines, built the mining machinery, the buildings, the infrastructure, etc. It's their capital. But now, does company-B get to use that capital? Do they have to purchase it? Can company-A burn their infrastructure to the ground, and bury the mine, and say "go poke yourself, company-B, invest your own capital?"

Also, what if, while mining, they discover that they've got copper, but also some huge veins of silver and gold? (all copper mines seem to also produce some amount of silver and gold). Do we attempt to adjust the taxes for the unexpected silver and gold?

Sooner or later, the copper, silver and gold start to peter out. Eventually, they hold an auction and nobody even bothers to bid. The mineral rights become worthless? Until somebody discovers uranium there?

If a parcel of land isn't known to have significant mineral resources, it will be priced as a normal piece of land, either by assessment or by auction. If an individual knows it to contain mineral resources, he has an information advantage, and can obtain it under-valued. This is fine, he put the effort into searching for resources, and deserves some sort of 'finder's fee'. However, he doesn't get to keep this lnad forever, only for the first assessment period. After that period expires, however long it is set to be, the parcel will be set at market value.

The rights to a piece of land are separable. One title may give the right to occupy, another to the mineral rights, and still another the right to conduct a specific type of mining. Each of these is an economic license, and should be priced by the public at full market value - and recovered by the public.

If, at the end of the initial period, a separate entity 'wins' the mineral rights, they would still have to acquire the inseparable Capital of the original company. I think it likely that, instead of assessing the value of the Capital, and forcing the 'new' right-holder that price, the land-rights wouldn't be auctioned. Like residential real estate, the land value would be assessed, and the buyer would have to bid (to the owner - not the public) on the capital.

However, as the rights are separable, the extraction rights (vs. the land rights) would probably be auctioned. If one corporation owned the land & capital, and another owned the license, the former would have to pay the latters price to use the license. (Alternatively, the latter must pay the former's price to use the land & capital). IOW, neither one has an absolute stranglehold over the other. While the owner of the license may demand a very high price for the right to extract, he must then also pay a very high price to obtain that right from the public auction. Or, put another way, the company with the land & the capital has a strong incentive to bid well at auction. No matter what, extra-ordinary profits are captured by the auction prices, leaving only the 'normal' (and untaxed) returns to labor and capital, while the returns to land & license are returned to the public, without bearing on labor and capital.

Compare this to the current method, whereby the company must pay the market rate anyway, but it goes to a private landholder or a private licenseholder, OR he can get the (known value) mine for less than market rate, due to a political favor.

More to follow

If additional minerals are discovered, they'll affect the value of the lease, when the lease is renegotiated or re-auctioned.

There is a debate among geoists as to whether an extraction fee would be necessary, I believe it would be. I would think that a certain charge would be assessed per unit of extraction, in addition to the previous 'rents'.

For example, consider a farmer who obtains a piece of land with a 20/100 soil rating (I just made this up). He farms it for 10 years, and then leaves it with a 10/100. He has effectively mined the nutrients from the soil, and left the value of that parcel lower than when he found it. He should be held accountable for that shortfall. Conversely, if his practices built the fertility of the soil, he should be compensated for this as well.

Eventually, a mine plays out and becomes worthless. I consider this similar to a farmer who denudes his soil. Either way, the occupant has 'taken' something from the commons, and left it useless.

So, all told, a mining company would

have to compensate those it excludes from an area of the earth's surface (land title)
have to compensate those that it excludes from access to mineral wealth (mineral rights to minerals beneath a specific area)
have to compensate those who it excludes from mining rights (say, if a large group of parcels could only have 3 pit mines operating at any given time).
have to compensate those who it excludes from actual natural resources (per unit mass charges)

The first three are assessed or auctioned in a fairly straightforward manner. I'm not sure how to set the fee for extraction.

I wonder if the "auctioning" method might provide a way to evaluate land-depletion in a very general way. If I'm a farmer, or a miner, or for that matter anybody, each time various land titles are auctioned, I'm assessed for the difference between the previous auction value and the new one.

So, if I'm a farmer who used land for ten years, and left the soil more depleted than when I got it, that should be reflected in the new auction value. It will take a lower price at the latest auction. Suppose that 10 years ago it auctioned for $100K, and now it auctions for $50K. Then I am taxed for removing $50K of value from that land. That could be problematic for title holders, since they might be charged a hefty tax at the end of their tenancy. On the other hand, it would mean they would be highly motivated to avoid reducing value of land, so that they can avoid that tax. Or, at the very least, if they know they are irretrievably reducing land value (like mining), then they had better plan on paying that tax. For that matter, we could allow pre-payment of such taxes, similar in spirit to quarterly IRS payments, to smooth out the finances.

Though, in most places, a farmer could completely denude his soil for 20 years and have his land still be worth more at the end of his tenancy. So, I think it would be difficult without some form of assessment.

I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with much of what you are saying, because a lot of it has merit for dealing with things on a macro level. However, what I have become much more interested in through my life experiences and ongoing education is the micro level. In fact, I think that it is the part of the equation that is left out most often by most people because it involves looking at the ways in which your own life affects the world around you, and things that you need to do in order to reduce your impact on things. It's not that the two are unrelated -- I just think that often we have a tendency to ignore the micro in favor of macro solutions that involve someone else (i.e. government) doing something to alleviate all of this.

Personally, I think that we should essentially tax 3 things -- energy, land and capital gains. If we go back to the ideology that was at the heart of the founding of the Republican Party in the 1850's, a reverence for labor was central. I think we'd both agree that a respect for labor has been long sacrificed for a reverence for "capital". I agree with much of your promotion of land taxation. The problem is that land taxation and zoning are pretty much local issues -- the place to go if you want to change those policies isn't Washington, DC, but rather whatever locality in which you live (which in your case is one and the same). As for the other two, obviously you have to go to either the state house or DC to address them.

But there is another reason for my belief in localism -- that I believe we must learn to pay a lot more attention to our social capital and moral economy, and reduce the importance of "markets" in our everyday lives. Essentially, I believe such notions to actually be at the heart of Marxism -- that the nature of industrial capitalism was that it removed the social aspect from market transactions and everything became commoditized (including labor). The end result is one in which there is no longer any "moral economy", and our social well-being has suffered tremendously as a result. In fact, I consider such a line of thought to be the essence of socialism -- an emphasis on the "social" as opposed to an emphasis on "capital". The only place in which such transformations of consciousness can occur is at a local level, where we still can deal with each other face-to-face as people, rather than as commodities.

I think you'd like the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LETS
http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/
http://www.letslinkuk.net/

I think a locality could have great success with taxing the things you mentioned: Energy, land, & capital gains. I think that if a locality embraced such a plan, it would quickly outpace those economies around it. It would become the local hub of commerce & social interaction. Other localities would have to adopt similar methods, or lose people, business, and value to the localities that did. Eventually, a whole state would adopt these policies, and other states would have to choose between geoism and losing population and value.

I like the idea of localism, if this is what you mean.

If you mean building a fence, and becoming a micro-isolationist, I don't like it.

I'm not a fence-raiser by nature. In fact, I'd argue that we need to knock down more fences in order to re-invigorate a viable sense of community....

When I speak of localism, it's in the sense that large government bureaucracies at the state and federal levels are pretty much handicapped by inertia to take serious action against any of the many problems we face as a society. Impetus for change will come more from the local level, IMHO, because that is where ideas can be better tested to figure out what works better for each region and/or locality. I think it should be reasonable to state that what works for the NYC metro area for sustainability will not necessarily be the same as what works for St. Louis or Houston or Los Angeles or Seattle, even if there are many commonalities.

Is this LETS system similar to what I've read about recently regarding Burlington, VT moving toward adopting a local currency for local economic exchanges? There are some articles about it in the archives of energybulletin.net, I believe....

What I see as a problem with this, however, is that it would only create a snowball effect in two instances. The first would be if the locality adopting these measures is disproportionately influential in the realm of commericial activity and residential capacity as compared to surrounding communities. Otherwise, those people who wanted to maintain the American dream of their suburban house with an acre of unused property (except for "lawn") would simply move to the localities that didn't change their zoning laws. Of course, this would then make property in the other town LOWER in cost, and actually might encourage movement to town centers by people who are middle class and working class -- the same people who currently can't afford to buy the homes "in town".

The other instance would be if things degenerated into crisis mode, in which localities would be eager to adopt measures that alleviated the crisis.

I don't see it as very fast, because I doubt many localities (absent a crisis) would adopt severe changes to their laws.

But consider three localities
Redville, where most public funds are raised from sales taxes,
Blueville, where most public funds are raised from income taxes, and
Greenville, where most public funds are raised from land-property taxes.

Initially, all three are exactly the same.
Commerce in redville is reduced by a drag on commerce - sales taxes.
Commerce in blueville is reduced by a drag on incomes, people choose not to live there, and those that do have less to spend.
There are no taxes/drags on commerce in greenville

Real estate in redville and blueville is expensive, though many lots are vacant. Once owned, it doesn't cost much to keep property, so people buy lots as an investment.
Real estate in greenville is valuable, because few lots are vacant and many people and businesses want to locate their (no taxes on people or businesses - just the value of the land they occupy). Land is valuable, but it doesn't cost very much to purchase. It does, however cost a good bit to keep. For a new buyer, its about the same as in Redville or Blueville LESS an interest payment and LESS 10-20% in speculative value. Oh, and it's paid to the town treasurer rather than a mortgage company.

Eventually, Greenville would be a thriving town, limited only by how much it could expand - either up or out.

I admit I am not optimistic that our society can enact the radical changes required to modify our self-destructive course but changing our targets for taxation could be a meaningful start.

IrateCitizen has good suggestions. If I may build upon them....

1. Tax land, not improvements, especially in the urban areas. I believe this has been done in some local jurisdictions. Currently owners of vacant, or below standard, urban properties are in effect penalized for improvements because of the increase in taxes. Taxing just the land would provide a more stable tax base while encouraging, not discouraging, sensible development. It can be a difficult transition from the standard property tax to a land-value tax. This can be seen as a partial solution to sprawl and the abandonment of some of our urban areas.

2. Tax capital gains. It goes against the American work ethic that unearned income is so lightly taxed. Of course, this is a great benefit to the rich, who are subsidized by the middle class. The middle class have been sold on the idea that taxes should be low for the rich because everybody wants to be rich and if you were to get rich, why should you have to pay high taxes?

There is also the argument of double-taxation, where your money is taxed pre-investment and then taxed again on gains but it should be the gains that are taxed at the same level as the worker pays on his/her earned wage.

I would make a partial exception to encourage savings, making savings interest tax free up to a point, as what used to be the case pre-Reagan.

3. Tax energy consumption. This is controversial as the majority feel it would hurt their wallet and it would. But energy taxes are high in Europe, particularly on gasoline, and behavior reflects that. There are far more small, sensible cars instead of the behemoths that roam our roads.

I think at some point we must move to a sustainable growth policy. Politicians and citizens alike believe that growth should, and can, continue year after year and decade and decade.

Logically this makes no sense. Pick any statistic be it debt, income, energy use, or overall economic growth. Nobody thinks growth of one or two percent is good. Politicians want to brag about double digit growth. Well think about the famous lily pad example, compound growth is simply not sustainable and I believe this is the true elephant in the room.

Yet you find little discussion or consideration of this topic. I have read one book on the topic, Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train. It is written by a biologist, not an economist. Economists seem incapable of addressing the facts that housing prices cannot rise forever, that even 5% compound inflation is ultimately a bad thing, and that economics will not solve the problem of depleted resources.

At some point we must learn to live within our means. Some individuals learn a hard lesson from living beyond their income. Of course, one major problem today is that this type behavior is basically encouraged by the attitude of "there is a free lunch". I wonder how much pain will be necessary before we all agree that the current model of development doesn't work.

Good Post.

Caution on Capital Gains: Some capital gains are EARNED. For instance, a person who owns a company that develops the goodwill of it's customers will be worth more than an otherwise similar company without goodwill. Most capital gains aren't though. In an ideal world, those capital gains would be taxed at the item that actually gained in value: a land title, an extraction right, a broadcast license, etc.

Generally, a high capital gains tax means that companies must pay their (earned & unearned) gains as dividends rather than reinvest them. Ideally (again) if the gains are taxed at the point of gain, only the earned gains could be kept by the company, which could then choose to reinvest them (for a gain in share price) or divest them as dividends.

In the extreme form of rent-sharing, all those things that gain in value due to society are taxed annually. To exclude others an 'owner' would have to pay annual (or every 5 years, or whatever period you choose) 'dues' to the public and any of this revenue above the minimum needed to provide public goods would be shared as a Citizen's Dividend. In the US, Alaska does this with its Permanent Fund, derived from Oil extraction leases.

I love my car, I love driving. I love personal time. Add all 3 together and I'm in heaven.

Yet, I still understand, in facts and figures, if not in my heart, that cars are enormously energy inefficient. Their mass use is made possible, at least right now, soley by the cheap energy we get from petroleum.

When that petroleum runs out we simply won't be able to power all the cars we do today.

Now, I know there are alternatives. None seem ready for prime time today, but a few seem capable of doing the job, once developed properly.

The problem is that so far our civiliation seem to lack the foresight to develop these alternatives ahead of time. We're most likely going to have an energy crash, and have to get by without nearly so many cars for a decade or two. Maybe more if the energy crash does worse than just strand cars.

So, if you hate cars, start planning to take over peoples lifestyles during that decade of energy scarceness. Your changes might stick.

... you'll be motivated to pay for the privilege.

Part of that "payment" will be your committment to encouraging, buying into, and advocating new automotive designs, technologies, and ways of doing things. In the future, for instance, your car may be much smaller, be run on electricity, but may get the equivalent of 120 MPG while being able to cruise at over 100 MPH (or as fast as the laws permit) -- all from a decade, a generation, of concerted engineering efforts to re-design driving.

The "easy motoring" of which Kunstler rants is a different kind of driving. It's also called "cruising", using automobiles getting low mileage and emitting huge amounts of hydrocarbon pollutants, and it's not really a good idea in an age with $3, $5, $10 per gallon gasoline and a 1.6-degree temperature increase from all that carbon in the atmosphere. But the alternatives may not have these problems.

And the crossover period? You're living in an era in which you will have a say in what gets developed.

Of course, there is a very good chance that we -- H. sapiens -- is just plain screwed. But if we aren't, you will probably have some kind of private road vehicle in the future. You'll probably pay more for a smaller, higher-tech vehicle. It will be different. But if you love driving, you will probably find things to love about the new cars.

--p!

as soon as China and India figure that out,
off they go

Does DME have to be stored as a compressed flammable gas or can it be stored in a substrate like acetylene?

DME is liquid at reasonable pressures

The corresponding figures for propane are critical temperature of propane are 97C and boiling point of -44C.

Thus DME would be stored in a manner very similar to the way we store propane, as a liquified gas. One difference is that on a very cold day, say in North Dakota, one might be required to gently heat a DME container, owing to the rather high boiling point.

The high heat of vaporization of DME suggests that the liquid could eliminate the need for pumps and coolants for air conditioners in DME fueled cars.

which makes it a fire hazard. (not that this isn't insurmountable - liquid gasoline is also heavier than air, and usually has a flammable vapor above it)

He is a Transit Engineer who divides his time between the Urban Mass Transit Administration and Engineering Schools in the DC area. A truly creative thinker.

His PhD thesis was a "Maslow's Need Hierarchy" of transit ridership; how long will people wait for randomly arriving transit, for accurately scheduled transit as functions of how far they have to walk to transit, how long the transit ride is, etc.

He has also been credited with promoting the idea of transit lines (typically rail and light rail) in the middle of expressways, and multi-modal transit villages, etc.

I haven't seen Jim since our grad student days -- but I occasionally Google him (more precisely "Engineering Index" him) because he is such an entertaining, enlightening, "off the wall" and "outside the box" and "pushing the envelope" thinker.

He's been giving some speeches about micro econo cars that are used in a "rent it here -- drop it off there" mode in connection with transit systems.

Whoops! lost my post. Will try again.

I think that in the U.S. consumers are stuck for innovation because "The loudest of the old advocates are now the greediest of the capitalistic lot too." Corporations try to decide what people want and give them something but, not necessarily choices.

One spring I saw a Stanley Steamer outside a cafe. The owners came out, got in and drove away silently!
How nice Silently. I realize that this was an antique car. Restored but beautiful all leather and polished brass from about 1906. What happened to them?

I recently read that Ford had designed a car body that was made out of composite hemp and nearly indestructable. Steel won that war.

I have recently seen on web sites battery packs for bicycles that can be recharged like a notebook PC. Great idea. Also there are some with plexiglass covers for inclement weather.

If there are various options for vehicles then it would seem more plausible to make the change from cars as we know them. Where I live it is a 20 mile drive to rail transportation.

I think Europe does a better job in many ways. A transportation ticket can be used for a day on either subway or bus. No need to know your departure time/location and arrival time/location. I like this idea.

I also like the idea of sitting at a cafe for coffe/tea rather than styrofoam much more people friently and I didn't see trash along the streets like there is in the U.S. We in the U.S. eat in our cars and we are the country that is becoming obese.

In Europe there are still deliveries of certain foods which make it possible to limit the number of trips to stores. Here in the U.S. what we have arrived at at the big box stores that we have to drive to and they are only for the convenience of the owners not the consumers. For disabled people there is no place to sit in a big box store AND it is necessary to walk to the farthest corner of the store to purchase milk because the store finds that customers purchase more products while on the walk but, it is very inconvenient for the customers.

The bottom line makes all the decisions here in this country. More and more I seen this decision process as a failure for customers.

Why do U.S. customers have to purchase a foreign car to get something innovative?

End of rant.