The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion > Comments

The defining issue for transport planning is peak oil, not traffic congestion : Comments

By Stuart McCarthy, published 19/10/2007

The peak and subsequent decline in world oil production will soon become the defining issue for transport planning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
"The overwhelming percentage of commutes will continue to be by private transport for two reasons. The first is convenience and the second is there is no other practical option."

I read this sort of comment often. The idea is that things will continue as they are because they must. How silly. Of course, they will only continue as they are if they can - and they cannot due to Peak Oil. That is the tragedy of the situation.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:15:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of fairly sweeping generalizations here, dnicholson.

>>Were oil start to become genuinely scarce, it's somewhat unlikely this will be the case. Businesses will shed staff, and even fold<<

Why? Which businesses? Why will they not simply move to another sector? You are assuming that "genuinely scarce oil" automatically means disaster. Having actually lived a period of my life in a period where we used far less oil than we do today, I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to achieve. I don't have to speculate. I've been there.

>>many of those lower-income car-dependent families will have little choice but to cut back on any non-essentials just to afford the commute. Surely that's quite enough of a "negative consequence"<<

It is a form of negative consequence, of course it is. But as I said before, if the people cannot travel to work, then - believe me - work will travel to them. I have been running businesses both small and medium-sized for the past twenty years, and I know that if a business needs people to survive, it will go to extraordinary lengths to get them.

There are businesses already that have shifted significant percentages of their workforce into "working from home" mode. We certainly have the technology and the knowhow to make it work, it's just that in many cases the will is lacking. Especially among middle-management, who seem to need people physically present to make them feel valuable.

EasyTimes states the obvious.

>>Pericles we could all get used to walking around naked living in grass huts again if we were pushed but do we want to?<<

That's precisely my point. Very few people want to do that, so they will find ways to ensure that it does not happen. On the other hand, there is an increasing contingent who have already made the switch, and are learning the art of self-sufficiency - I know several who have done so, and seem to survive quite well.

They don't have wide-screen TVs though.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 October 2007 10:53:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, genuinely scarce oil doesn't automatically mean disaster, but it would today, if sudden enough. Our economy is very much as dependent on oil, as it was in 1973 and 1979, and in both years, oil shortages caused serious economic damage (though Australia fared much better than many parts of the world, due to our then-abundant domestic supplies).

BTW, good list of examples of countries that are already struggling due to oil and other energy shortages:

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak+oil-renewable+energy-shortages/490

Australia is not immune.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:09:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
New report from Energy Watch Group says peak oil in 2006 and global oil production is currently about 81m barrels a day - EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts significant falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

The whole report should be available here soon

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Reports.24+M5d637b1e38d.0.html
Posted by Tonye, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Stuart; Brisbane is not the only city gone mad over tunnels.
There is an intention to build an 8 KM tunnel from the F3 at Hornsby
in Sydney to Beecroft at the M2. It was planned to be finished in 2012
but that date has slipped. The politicians simply refuse to accept the
thought that the road will be finished just in time not to need it.

There is only one whisper in the wind that someone in government is
aware or peak oil. The state government as started taking delivery of
500 new buses. What are they doing with the old ones ?
Not the usual sell or scrap, but mothballing them; hmmmm.

You notice that there is not one mention of fuel problems ahead of us
in the current campaign. They are just too frightened to mention it.
Because the public has become aware of global warming (what global
warming ?) thats the donkey they will flog.

I have tried to get both my state & federal members to accept that they
should actually do something, but all I get is they will refer it
off to some one else's in tray.
The problem is politicians do not want to talk about bad news as they
are afraid the public will want them to fix it.
After looking at it they realise they cannot fix it for "business as
usual" and they are simple too timid to tell it as it is.

What is needed is a politician who will stand up and say;
Our policy is to sign the transition protocol and introduce petrol
rationing !
Ban interstate trucks and force long distance freight onto rail.
Cancel all major road works and divert the money to light & heavy rail.
Reduce airlines fuel to 10% of present consumption.

That is what is needed over the next couple of years or so but where
is there a polly with much guts ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 22 October 2007 1:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

EasyTimes overwrought comments aside, the issue brought up in the article is very real. Its not that there are no workarounds to the peak oil - there seem to be lots. The issue is the time and money it will take to make them work.

The car can as you say be replaced by public transport. Well, public transport that is powered by something other than hydrocarbons. But its going to take us 10 years to upgrade the overload Brisbane - Gold Cost link. Now multiply that by doing it for the North, West and East at same time, and the problem starts looking big. Certainly doable over the same time span we took to get addicted to oil (50 years or so). But in 5?

Or we could alter our housing to look more like Singapore, say - all living 20 story apartment blocks. Certainly it would work - but it will take 50 years at least to rebuild all our housing stock.

Hydrocarbons accounted for around 7% of our farmers costs in 1999. Its doubled already. Now double it a few more times in a 5 year span. So maybe we could replace all our farm machines with ones that use coal fired steam engines. Can we do that in 50 years? Easy I would of thought. Can we do it in 5? I doubt it.

And that is the issue. Sure we can go back to how we did things 30 years ago - given another 30 years. But if we leave it until after it becomes obvious oil has peaked we will be confronted with a very rapid price rise - literally from "the car is the cheapest way to work" to "only the rich can afford to drive" in 3-5 years. Its not obvious to me that we can handle such a rapid change. The answer is to extend the time frame by planning ahead - by building rail lines instead of roads say. But we aren't. Apparently our planners aren't even aware such a change will be required in the near future.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 22 October 2007 2:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy