I am by no means an expert in this field, but I'd like to have my $0.02
worth in this discourse. Isn't part of the problem the following two key
elements:
1. The short term solution is "rewarded" in that it is least politically
risky to try to bite the bullet of sustainable transport (and industry!),
despite the reality that ignoring the problem is suicidal in the long
term. Hence the woeful history over the last half century of the leading
firms "buying and burying" more environmentally friendly private transport
technologies (e.g. LH2) and the lamentably poor level of funding for either
research into alternative technologies or support for lifestyle changes
such as telecommuting.
2. The issue is distorted in that the power elite are least impacted, even
by the comparatively minor vagaries of energy costs we are experiencing
(which I would strongly agree are considerably less than the "real"
environmental costs). They continue to be chauffuered around, cocooned in
their "gas guzzlers", oblivious to the situation. Those who would be
required to make the "hard decisions" would also be those less impacted by
them.
I may end up being flamed here but I'll throw in a few points and questions
because I'd be interested in list members' reactions.
1. My impression is that it is ultimately impossible to develop a public
transport mode that even approximates the convenience of private transport
(I exclude European cities from this generalisation, obviously). While the
Olympic transport system I was fortunate enough to avail myself of
yesterday _was_ as efficient as a private vehicle would have been, this
standard as only been attainable through a massive, short-burst, national
effort, involving commandeering a high proportion of the entire country's
bus fleet. Ordinarily, in my own location in inner suburban Sydney, I
would be sacrificing almost an hour a day to move to public transport. Is
this a global experience?
2. Based on (1), this admitted assumption of mine has meant that any move
(enforced or voluntary) on the part of we mere mortals to sustainable
transportation entails a lifestyle sacrifice, i.e. less free time at home
as we stand in queues on railway platforms, slog home on the sidewalk, or
wait at bus stops. This sacrifice would also be being demanded at a time
when the ruling elite are demanding more and more working hours, as labour
market competition globalises.
3. While I agree in principle with making energy prices reflect the
environmental costs, how would you handle it in reality? In Sydney (and
all the Australian capitals), we would be basically rendering it impossible
for hundreds of thousands of workers in far flung suburbs to commute. What
is to happen to them? A 50 km pushbike commute every day is very difficult
for all but elite athletes. The public transport system would be
hopelessly overwhelmed - not to mention the social costs of adding three or
four hours per day to the ten to twelve hours work being demanded by
mainstream corporate employers. What about the unemployed? What about
child care?? Places are short now, but if parents were waiting in
kilometre-length queues for buses, trains or ferries, for many hours each
week, the child care workload would dramatically increase. What about the
inflationary impact of additional delivery costs? Our rail network
couldn't possibly cope with delivering all freight across the country. And
these are just the challenges a comparatively wealthy country (Australia)
would face....
Hence, we face a major problem of matching long term necessity with short
term practical reality. My own inexpert opinion is the only way that we
could meet such a challenge is to treat the situation of the "wartime
equivalent" emergency that it is. That means sacrifice being proportionate
to the resources individuals, and nations, have gained from our current
unsustainable means of production.
Maybe the ruling elite might have to do without a high proportion of their
several hundred million dollar p.a. remuneration packages? Perhaps the
$100 million floating mansions currently gracing Sydney Harbour may need to
be pruned to a fraction of that size? Could it be that corporate arms
might need to be twisted to help the captains of industry accept that they
CAN still operate with a significant proportion of their workforce
telecommuting?
I should add that I am most certainly not a socialist, but unfortunately I
see no evidence whatsoever that the free market will factor in the kinds of
realities I have described above. Nor do I see the leadership potential or
inspirational vision there among the upper echelons to drive that kind of a
necessary transformation. Too negative? Don't know. As I said I am no
expert, though I would really appreciate the perspectives of those who are,
on these issues because they are vital to our survival. I echo Chris's
concern about the depletion of the US reserves.
Brad
>This is an excuse for continuing to do nothing. What *is* known is that
>the costs of the *present* transport and energy systems (fossil fuels)
>are MUCH HIGHER than what consumers are paying for fuels today. Adjust
>the fuel prices to the actual costs (environmental, public health and
>infrastructure damages) *first*, and then talk about the costs of
>alternatives.
>
>Anyway, due to the catastrophic effects of CO2 on the global climate,
>phasing out fossil fuels would be necessary even *before* the last
>reserves are consumed.
>
>In this context it is terribly ironic that Mr. "Earth in the Balance"
>(Al Gore) is advocating to deplete the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
>in order to lower oil prices.
>
>Chris
