We have the problem that people occasionally need a 4WD for towing, dirt roads or carrying 6 people but in practice spend most of their time in slow moving traffic. Perhaps genuine workhorse models could be speed limited to 90kph or painted a dull brown which may not be so chic in the affluent suburbs.

However I think discouraging big cars could be too little too late if some forecasts prove correct. One prediction is of a 50% drop in world oil production by 2020 and another says exports could be down that much in 5 years if producers suddenly realise the need to conserve. No doubt there will be more battery powered cars with in-wheel electric motors. Urban dreamers who rationalise their current 4WD ownership might then have to revise plans to do the Birdsville Track. Provided society doesn't split into mobility have and have-nots the 4WD boom could be over in a few years.

Hurray ... finally someone's said it! I've been driving 20km below the speed limit and blogging about it at A Year In A Day since I found out that I could reduce my emissions by 20% that way. People don't realise that speed limits are limits, not targets!

I'm keen to get a more efficient car but hanging out to see if the government will drop sales tax on hybrid cars so that they become more affordable .... and hoping that suddenly some other brilliant new type of transport option might appear.
www.stoplaughing.com.au/wordpress

Peter,

Your superficial understanding of energy, peak oil and the way the world economy works is demonstrated by your focus on 4WD vehicles, the removal of which from roads would have little impact on overall oil use. When you have read and understood a little more you may realise that food production, not transport, will be the most critical aspect of our lives impacted by peak oil. You will also understand that becoming more energy efficient is not a solution if you do not stop population and economic growth - in fact it is dangerous since growth on the back of efficiency gains leaves you will less ability to reduce energy use when ultimately required. You may also realise that the economic impacts of energy decline mean that there will be very little in the way of infrastructure reforms (e.g. fleets of new, efficient vehicles) that are possible due to the sky-high price of any activity and that high-tech solutions will be unsustainable.

Do some more reading Peter - rather than bashing out half-thought through articles in rapid succession!

Oh dear, why do I get the feeling that PeterMcM was recently intimidated by some person in a 4WD?

An article that means well with slightly foggy numbers: transport is where "most of our oil use" goes: about 55%. The rest is in manufacturing and agriculture. My car (a sedan) is most fuel efficient at a tad over 90km/h. There is a tradeoff between fuel consumption per km/k and consumption per minute spent travelling. Congestion is a major fuel user and I'd like to see LOTS more wide flat highways and arterial roads. Later (in 10+ years) they can be easily converted to bus and light rail routes. Nowhere in the article is another real per person fuel guzzler--air travel--mentioned. Maybe Dr. Pete likes to fly a bit.

When Hurricane Katrina hit and crude priced jumped the sale of 4wd's in the US slumped (it's why both GM and Ford had massive losses: they were making the 'wrong' vehicles) so, to some extent, the market does an efficient job punishing those who ignore the smoke signals. Governments can influence behaviour with taxes and restrictions and should do so but singling out obvious, but possibly minor culprits---if the INCREMENTAL 4wd useage is more than a few percent I'd be surprised---is a fairly ineffective, gets those users offside and makes the rest of us wonder if we'll be targeted next.

To my knowledge no Aussie government had acknowledged the threat of PO and the Feds believe it's 30 years away. That's where the real work needs doing. I'm just about to write to my local MP. I don't think I'll get an enlightened response.

This article smacks of the author's personal loathing of 4wd's, no mention of v8's or v6's. This is one of the big problems with the "green" movement. It allows/encourages people with their own agendas to push for changes under the guise of helping the environment. Next comes the death squads that take care of people that display "sheer anti-sociality". Erosions of freedom are happening at an ever quickening pace and the garbage espoused by this author does nothing but encourage it. The word "flogger" comes to mind.

A proper sentiment and a very good article. However peak oil is not when we have used half the total oil. Each oil field reaches a peak when it is fully developed and from there on, for that field, it is downhill. If oil could be found at the rate it is being used the overall oil peak would be a long way off. Exploration is now only finding one litre for each four litres used so much of our consumption is coming from wells that are on the downward slope and this is not be ing compensated for by new fields coming into production. All the fields in mainland USA reached their cumulative peak in about 1970 and the North Sea fields of the UK and Norway in the late nineties. There are still significant reserves in the politically unstable Middle East and in the oil sands of Canada and Venezuala. Oil sands are expensive to mine and process both is money and energy cost so all considered there is now no alternative to economy and substitution. I would suggest some further restrictions. Engine sizes could be limited to say 2.5 litres for both petrol and deisel and weight to 1200kg (early Holdens were about 1000kg). The grey nomads can tow a moderate caravan with a modern 2.5L deisel engine. Registration fees could be based on standardised fuel consumption tests for each vehicle. Each individual adult or family unit could be allocated a fixed number of litres per month at the base price and charged extra for fuel above the allowance, in effect a reverse shopper docket system.
We then need substantial infrastructure investment in both city and inter-city rail systems. Cities such as London are already well off in this regard. We do not need private equity to do this. We face a virtual war and in war finance is obtained by government borrowing. Its cheaper than private equity!
Foyle