On Jun 8, 9:11 pm, "Matt Barrow" wrote:

Think of technology 100 years ago. Understand, too, that our biggest gains
are in the past generation and technology is accellerating. Geometrically,
not linerally.

Certainly our technology has grown in a century.
However, frequently in the past, civilizations and societies have
collapsed because they have outstripped the natural resources upon
which they depended. Maybe water, maybe wood, whatever.
It can happen again. But now it could also be widespread, as in
worldwide, because of our communications and transportation links.
(Refer for example, to Jared Diamonds very readable book "Collapse",
about the way civilizations fall.)
I'm surely optimistic that we can avoid major problems, by more
quickly developing solar, etc. However, if we don't there could be
huge problems. Primarily I am aware that huge amounts of (primarily)
oil allow us to get food and water to cities. RAPIDLY cut the oil,
and stuff can't get in and people can't get out. Food production
itself is highly oil-dependent.


Given what I pointed out above, I'd say you're full of poop.
I doubt that. But given the enormous stakes, I would hope we do
enough soon enough to avoid the major problems.
After all, there is no
downside to using less fuel to do the same thing now, is there?

Depends on what you cut. BTU's per $GNP has been falling for 20 years.

Fuel use is motive and it's that factor that moves our economy, our
prosperity, and our well being.

There is so much induced waste that could be eliminated, but it would
require politicians and bureaucrats to get off their asses.
They want to stay in office. They will primarily support what we want
them to. And most of the citizenry in this country don't care.
Furthermore, we can act without them. I work to lower my power and
water use, but my neighbors and some family think I'm crazy. They
might be right, but efficiency and conservation are still excellent,
immediately available, low-tech, low-investment ways to stretch our
resources until alternatives are more accepted.

Having said that, I notice a lot of people hotrodding away from traffic
lights. At the same time, I see cities and towns stiffling traffic flows to
produce traffic fine revenue and gridlock. In case you haven't figured that
last one, inducing gridlock gives the bureaucrats a great media ploy for for
money, resources, authority.
I might agree with your "result" but not generally with your motive.
There's just a heckuva lotta cars out there.
Refer to rec.autos.driving for a whole lotta people who agree with
your government conspiracy ideas.

If you answer to nothing above, answer just this: given governments
propensity to create shortages, what would you propose?
I'm guessing more government regulation and coersion. See my remarks about
"gridlock" above.
Not so much MORE regulation, as a shift in what they do, to things
that make more sense.

1. Stop subsidizing energy and resource consumption.
2. Shift some tax burden to fossil energy consumption, and use the
funds to subsidize clean energy, such as solar. (A side benefit of
having solar panels on every house is that the generation is
distributed, and therefore less susceptible to disaster/sabotage/
terrorist events.) Note that I don't want more total tax, just a
shift.
3. Very gradually, but persistently, raise the taxes on gas and
diesel. Use the proceeds to correct the diminishing road funds (they
need to be corrected for inflation), and make sensible fuel-efficient
mass transit. Make it clear that this will happen so that people and
companies can make plans and develop alternatives in good order.
4. Plan cities so that people can live, work, and shop all in close
proximity. We are currently forced to drive to get just a quart of
milk. Many standards actually preclude people from doing this. A few
cities are wising up.
5. Raise the energy standards for home construction. I live in
Phoenix, and the walls in this oven have the same insulation standard
as coastal California: R13 batts from the 1950s, improperly
installed. Raise the minimum standards for air conditioning
efficiency. Most homes being built here now could not be designed to
consume MORE energy if you really tried.
I firmly believe that we could reduce out energy consumption by about
50% with little or no real change in lifestyle. But here energy is so
cheap that we don't care.

Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY