Are the oil reserves half empty or half full?
Running on Fumes
By Sasha Abramsky
The Nation
10/17/2005
Why $5 Gas is Good for America
By Spencer Reis
Wired
12/2005
The reality of increased gas prices for the blue collar, working class, and poor in remote regions of the country, is an inability to get to the places they have to get to in order to survive – work, school, the store.
The reality of increased gas prices for the world of science is more interest (and, therefore, more funding) for alternative sources of fuel and power.
The thing that stuck out to me the most was the absolute reliance upon gas that the people in the remote California town of Yreka. They were cutting back on food so that they could pay for gas. I have lived in highly remote places with no viable form of public transit. I know that what is described is real because I have lived under those conditions myself, however I am lucky enough to have done so during periods of time where I could (just barely) swing the price of gas on either full or part-time jobs.
This is one of those realities that many people in public office neither think about nor address because they have not experienced it themselves and the people living it have nothing in the way campaign contributions or political power to make their situation of interest.
It’s also something (I guarantee you) that is being celebrated by the oil companies. That kind of importance placed on a product is the kind of customer loyalty (or need) all companies simply drool over. It’s the ultimate power and the ultimate income security. Which means that no one is going to do anything to address the needs of the people in these smaller towns because that will push them to support the continued fight and search for more oil. It’s money in their pocket and soldiers at their frontline. What more could they possibly ask for?
On the other hand, scientists are looking at the situation as a prime opportunity to push for further support of things they have been developing for ages. Some of which have been in use for ages, but have been traditionally undercut by the low cost and easy availability of oil.
In my opinion (if you care to know it) there is neither reason nor benefit for either members of government or managers at oil companies to take this time and find ways to get past it by reducing (or eliminating) our need and reliance on oil. This is one of those situations where the most logical course of action will not be taken until there is absolutely no other possible option. They will push us to the edge and beyond before they stop to think that…maybe…they may have gone to far.
So (again, my opinion), this is an issue that would e best addressed by activists and individuals and basement scientists (and actual working and credentialed scientist, if they could be persuaded to join in). There are other options, and here are a few examples:
1) Reduce the need for a vehicle and transportation. There was a time in history when people lived and worked in their towns. No long commutes, no need for distance travel (save on special occasions or in emergency situations), and supplies brought into the town were a community concern. No one had a Wal-Mart or a fast food chain to instantly supply them with whatever they thought they needed at any time. The development and support of small businesses (most particularly NON tourist trade) providing for the needs of the community (in more than one way) is an excellent place to start.
2) Reduce reliance on outside sources of products and energy. Manu factor (or create by hand) the things everyone needs in town. Identify what is needed to get by (for example: a survey of the town and the foods everyone states are required on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis) and find ways to meet those needs locally, and through bulk purchases that are shipped in.
3) Sustainability. Houses, businesses, and schools that are built to provide heat and air conditioning through the technology found in green architecture (read: solar energy, greenhouses in buildings that provide heat, composting toilets, etc) will reduce the cost of maintaining the building and reduce the reliance on outside sources for things like heating oil. Also, farming practices that purposely work to provide as much as possible to meet the needs of the local community, and the community support of the foods provided by these farms, will reduce the need for outside sources shipping products in, increasing prices, or becoming a necessary (and, therefore, political) presence in a community completely dependent upon them for supplies. Combine that with focusing as much farming as possible on plants and animals native to the area, and the ability to sustain the production will be increased.
4) Biofuel and generators. Find a way to replace the vehicles with diesel, set up a system for creating BioFuel in every home (or with a general depository serviced through recycling bucket style pickups throughout the town) out of discarded vegetable oil (and similar items like corn and soybeans), and help people to identify when they need to drive and when they don’t. The less they rely on outside sources for their diesel, the better.
Now, that’s a lot of change and probably just the beginning. But, what I’m illustrating here is the fact that it’s possible. A determined group of activists with connections in the environmental and sustainability communities would be able to pull together the information, and some work and networking could turn up sources for supplies. As always, finances will come into play, but with the increase in funding for research, a town could (potentially) offer itself up as a ‘research experiment’ managed by the likes of MIT.
Or, they could work out a plan that allows them to make changes slowly, over time, and with the most immediate needs (or actions that are simply possible to achieve) being addressed first.
One way or the other, it would have to be a community effort coming from within the community and made a reality through everyone’s involvement. Don’t expect anything except discouragement and roadblocks from the government, because their interests lie more with the oil companies than with its citizens (disagree with me if you like, but I am not seeing evidence to the contrary).
Essentially, I am not saying the government SHOULDN’T do it, I’m saying the WOULDN’T do it. There’s a difference between can, should, and will.
These suggestions are not the same as the philosophies and actions various survivalist or separatist groups across the nation, because it’s not an attempt to cut off the rest of the world, simply to reduce (or eliminate) the NEED for the outside world. If your community can survive (albeit with tightened belts and careful budgets) without any help from anyone outside the city (or county) limits, then contact from beyond is only going to improve the financial (and lifestyle) situation.
By Sasha Abramsky
The Nation
10/17/2005
Why $5 Gas is Good for America
By Spencer Reis
Wired
12/2005
The reality of increased gas prices for the blue collar, working class, and poor in remote regions of the country, is an inability to get to the places they have to get to in order to survive – work, school, the store.
The reality of increased gas prices for the world of science is more interest (and, therefore, more funding) for alternative sources of fuel and power.
The thing that stuck out to me the most was the absolute reliance upon gas that the people in the remote California town of Yreka. They were cutting back on food so that they could pay for gas. I have lived in highly remote places with no viable form of public transit. I know that what is described is real because I have lived under those conditions myself, however I am lucky enough to have done so during periods of time where I could (just barely) swing the price of gas on either full or part-time jobs.
This is one of those realities that many people in public office neither think about nor address because they have not experienced it themselves and the people living it have nothing in the way campaign contributions or political power to make their situation of interest.
It’s also something (I guarantee you) that is being celebrated by the oil companies. That kind of importance placed on a product is the kind of customer loyalty (or need) all companies simply drool over. It’s the ultimate power and the ultimate income security. Which means that no one is going to do anything to address the needs of the people in these smaller towns because that will push them to support the continued fight and search for more oil. It’s money in their pocket and soldiers at their frontline. What more could they possibly ask for?
On the other hand, scientists are looking at the situation as a prime opportunity to push for further support of things they have been developing for ages. Some of which have been in use for ages, but have been traditionally undercut by the low cost and easy availability of oil.
In my opinion (if you care to know it) there is neither reason nor benefit for either members of government or managers at oil companies to take this time and find ways to get past it by reducing (or eliminating) our need and reliance on oil. This is one of those situations where the most logical course of action will not be taken until there is absolutely no other possible option. They will push us to the edge and beyond before they stop to think that…maybe…they may have gone to far.
So (again, my opinion), this is an issue that would e best addressed by activists and individuals and basement scientists (and actual working and credentialed scientist, if they could be persuaded to join in). There are other options, and here are a few examples:
1) Reduce the need for a vehicle and transportation. There was a time in history when people lived and worked in their towns. No long commutes, no need for distance travel (save on special occasions or in emergency situations), and supplies brought into the town were a community concern. No one had a Wal-Mart or a fast food chain to instantly supply them with whatever they thought they needed at any time. The development and support of small businesses (most particularly NON tourist trade) providing for the needs of the community (in more than one way) is an excellent place to start.
2) Reduce reliance on outside sources of products and energy. Manu factor (or create by hand) the things everyone needs in town. Identify what is needed to get by (for example: a survey of the town and the foods everyone states are required on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis) and find ways to meet those needs locally, and through bulk purchases that are shipped in.
3) Sustainability. Houses, businesses, and schools that are built to provide heat and air conditioning through the technology found in green architecture (read: solar energy, greenhouses in buildings that provide heat, composting toilets, etc) will reduce the cost of maintaining the building and reduce the reliance on outside sources for things like heating oil. Also, farming practices that purposely work to provide as much as possible to meet the needs of the local community, and the community support of the foods provided by these farms, will reduce the need for outside sources shipping products in, increasing prices, or becoming a necessary (and, therefore, political) presence in a community completely dependent upon them for supplies. Combine that with focusing as much farming as possible on plants and animals native to the area, and the ability to sustain the production will be increased.
4) Biofuel and generators. Find a way to replace the vehicles with diesel, set up a system for creating BioFuel in every home (or with a general depository serviced through recycling bucket style pickups throughout the town) out of discarded vegetable oil (and similar items like corn and soybeans), and help people to identify when they need to drive and when they don’t. The less they rely on outside sources for their diesel, the better.
Now, that’s a lot of change and probably just the beginning. But, what I’m illustrating here is the fact that it’s possible. A determined group of activists with connections in the environmental and sustainability communities would be able to pull together the information, and some work and networking could turn up sources for supplies. As always, finances will come into play, but with the increase in funding for research, a town could (potentially) offer itself up as a ‘research experiment’ managed by the likes of MIT.
Or, they could work out a plan that allows them to make changes slowly, over time, and with the most immediate needs (or actions that are simply possible to achieve) being addressed first.
One way or the other, it would have to be a community effort coming from within the community and made a reality through everyone’s involvement. Don’t expect anything except discouragement and roadblocks from the government, because their interests lie more with the oil companies than with its citizens (disagree with me if you like, but I am not seeing evidence to the contrary).
Essentially, I am not saying the government SHOULDN’T do it, I’m saying the WOULDN’T do it. There’s a difference between can, should, and will.
These suggestions are not the same as the philosophies and actions various survivalist or separatist groups across the nation, because it’s not an attempt to cut off the rest of the world, simply to reduce (or eliminate) the NEED for the outside world. If your community can survive (albeit with tightened belts and careful budgets) without any help from anyone outside the city (or county) limits, then contact from beyond is only going to improve the financial (and lifestyle) situation.
posted by A at 8:14 AM
<< Home