Exactly. Which is why it is foolish to make predictions like this, that go out for 50+ years.
For economic reasons, not supply reasons. It was cheaper it ship it from the middle east.
There we have it again.
I agree, but so far the peak oil proponents seem to be wildly missing the mark as to whether we are on the back side of the curve. (Although there are theories that oil isn’t really dead dinosaurs, there is some as-yet unknown process going on which is causing oil formation within the planet.)
Peak oil isn’t about cheap and easy, it’s about how much oil is in the ground, and getting that oil out of the ground.</p>
<p>When you factor in inflation and efficiency improvements, gas is no more expensive on a cumulative basis that it was 30 years ago, that is, if I am spending $20/week now on gas, that’s probably about what I was spending on an inflation-adjusted basis 30 years ago, assuming I am driving the same number of miles.</p>
<p>Take a look at the chart on this page, it’s not attributed so I don’t know if the author created it or got it from somewhere else, but is it very interesting:</p>
<p>@gladgraddad - Are you reading my posts before responding? I never said people are or should do without cars in cities like Phoenix and LA. I said the demand has significantly increased for lifestyles that do not depend on cars. That means, even in those cities, the places where people can walk or bike have surged back to life and the vehicle miles travelled by younger people has plummeted. It doesn’t mean they’re not driving at all. Many need to for work or family issues, even if some might not want to drive so much. That’s life.</p>
<p>Likewise, the exurbs of Phoenix, Vegas, and other Sun Belt boomtowns of yesteryear have collapsed like the rust belt cities did before them.</p>
<p>I never said people should never learn how to drive or be locked to the same job forever. In fact, I said the opposite, but I have no idea what that has to do with anything. I hardly know anyone who drives often locally and they all reguarly bounce between jobs as much as anybody.</p>
<p>You made a snide little comment about it being an okay lifestyle if people never want to go where there is no transit, but I had already pointed out that many people who do not own cars rent cars for a day or weekend to travel to places that have no public transit or to get out into natural settings. You can rent cars for less than $25 for 24 hours or a couple hundred bucks for a week. Do that once a month or so and it’s not exactly a budget buster.</p>
<p>This isn’t a sacrificial lifestyle. It’s quite pleasant and easy to do, actually.</p>
<p>@notrichenough - I’ve never heard anyone define peak oil as actually running out of oil. It’s about running out of oil that is cheap enough to extract without charging large amounts to the consumer. Government already pays people to drive by subsidizing the oil industry. Enough of this Socialism.</p>
<p>I have a car…and if I did not have to drive to work…I would only need that car twice a week or so. Outside of getting to work…I have driven 5 miles the last 5 days. </p>
<p>Many people don’t need a car much…</p>
<p>I do take my parents for a car ride once a week.</p>
Interesting, because I’ve never heard it defined using an economic filter. Here’s what wikipedia says:</p>
<p>“Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.”</p>
<p>Nothing about price or method of extraction…</p>
<p>I would love to be able to retire someday to some place that is “walkable”, the question is whether I will be able to afford it. In South Boston, which is often used as an example of a walkable community, a small condo can cost $500,000+, to rent is $2500 on up.</p>
<p>If the trend of young people not owning cars and driving less continues when the economy recovers and we are at full employment, then I might agree it is a lasting change. How much of the lowered driving is because they don’t have jobs and are living at home, so they can’t afford a car and have nowhere to go?</p>
No need to start getting nasty and worked up over this applejack. I said what I did in the context of people needing cars, learning to drive, etc. and comments by some posters about not needing a car at all. It wasn’t a snide comment - it was a realistic one for those who don’t drive.</p>
<p>Whatever your intention, the tone and content of this paragraph sounds like you’re saying, “If someone doesn’t ever want to do anything different or go anywhere new, then going carless can work great for such boring people!” That’s pretty snarky. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You were directly responding to me, but I never said people should never learn how to drive or never use a car, so I’m sure you can understand my interpretation.</p>
<p>I think $7K is high based on what we buy for cars, but sure, there is a saving. You’ll have to pay for other transportation, no idea what this would add up to.</p>
<p>I don’t think I would want to go carless though, I think it is highly unlikely that all the things I want to do on a regular basis will be accessible via walking or public transportation.</p>
Maximum rate is directly linked to cost because methods of extraction are generally increasingly complex and expensive, even with new technologies.</p>
<p>Either way, this shift away from cars really isn’t fundamentally about oil. We’ll eventually get smart enough to move on from oil and there will remain plenty of reasons to avoid sprawl.</p>
<p>
I’m sure you’re aware of the ample research showing this lifestyle shift predates the economic collapse of 2007 by more than a decade. </p>
<p>Studies - like the one linked to this very thread - also refute the argument that only the poor and unemployed are moving away from cars. It’s the higher level incomes that are driving this shift - the people with the most choices.</p>
<p>So, you should be convinced by now since we’ve addressed your concerns.</p>
<p>Okay. Your perception wasn’t what I meant - I didn’t express the point well enough and you read too much into it. I meant it pretty literally and there are lots of people who live in that way. It actually supports the viewpoint some are expressing about how some don’t need to own a car or learn to drive - and I know you didn’t say not to drive, but others on the thread discussed how many of the kids are not learning to drive at all or learning much later. If I wanted to live that lifestyle not having a car wouldn’t be much of an impact but if I want to be far more mobile and flexible in the area I live and in some of the cities mentioned (and I’ve lived in at least one of them before and I’ve been to all of them) it’d be pretty limiting to not drive. Both sets of people can lead interesting and productive lives - just different. I said multiple times that there’s not one correct answer for this. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>applejack gives us studies saying that more and more young people are choosing lifestyles where either they don’t own cars, or they do own cars but don’t drive them much.</p>
<p>And then romanigypsyeyes says she lives in Michigan and loves her cars, and her friends love their cars.</p>
<p>We don’t have a contradiction here. Some young people, like romani and her friends, like cars. An increasing number of young people are choosing car-lite lifestyles. Both of these things are true.</p>
<p>Right, and I never disagreed with that. I said I’m not seeing it around here and it’s not possible in the vast majority of Michigan. I kept it to local generalizations for a reason.</p>
<p>You can think of the consequences of peak oil as “running faster and faster just to stay in the same place.”</p>
<p>All these expensive, complicated new sources of oil we’re finding are not significantly adding to our net oil supply, they are <em>replacing</em> the old, traditional sources that are being depleted because, in many cases, they have individually peaked. Check out graphs of Europe’s oil supply - the once-vast North Sea oil fields are coming up empty and their production is plunging.</p>
<p>We have to work much harder and spend much more money just to keep our oil supply more or less where it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, worldwide demand (particularly in China) continues to grow.</p>
<p>Some of my online bike friends in Michigan (and Minneapolis, and Montreal, and other cold areas that begin with M) get around by bike, even in the winter. Then again, we’re kind of crazy. But typically, it’s easier to go without a car than you think, and easier than you think to use your car less.</p>
<p>All my life I’ve been told it’s impossible to do whatever I proposed to do without a car: ride from the San Francisco airport to Palo Alto when I moved here, live in the California suburbs, ride in the rain (hello, I’m not made of sugar, I don’t melt in the rain), shop for groceries, take a kid to daycare, take a boy and his goalie equipment to hockey practice, take the cat to the vet. So far, none of those things have been impossible. </p>
<p>And it’s not impossible to live in Michigan without a car; we have an existence proof of that, because plenty of Michiganders don’t have one. When my son lived (briefly) in Michigan, he didn’t have a car.</p>
<p>My son and DIL lived in Michigan without a car but they had the fabulous UM bus system and they did rent zip cars if they needed one for an hour or a day. Whatever. They now both have cars due to work issues. It was their first purchase out of grad school. That said they saved oodles by not having a car through undergrad and graduate school. They are hopeful about getting rid of one of the cars as soon as their situation allows it.</p>
<p>I am in a situation where I can walk to work. I have been blessed. I live within walking distance of everything in the city where I live. A bad knee is making this harder. Something to think about as you age. I do have a car that is an antique with 35,000 miles on it at 22 years of age. If I need it, I use it. Mostly it stays happily in the garage. When I move back to the states, I will be carless, live where I can walk around, even with the knee. If I need transport, I may in the end buy some little putt putt. I will have to see. I am also planning on a greyhound road trip in August, and the train. I will have access to both and a lot of places to see.</p>
<p>And I’ve said, it’s possible in most college towns here. That’s one of the FEW places in Michigan with public transportation.</p>
<p>If you’re an avid biker. Great. However, for those of us who can’t bike for many miles every day, as most of us don’t work close to our homes, then you NEED a car in Michigan. In Lansing/East Lansing and Ann Arbor, no, not as much because they’re college towns and they’re about the only two towns in Michigan with reliable public transportation.</p>
<p>Yes, there are exceptions. I’m speaking in generalities. For the majority.</p>
<p>What we’re seeing is areas that have good transportation options becoming more popular among young people, and areas where most people feel they need a car becoming less popular. Is Michigan gaining population, or losing population? If I recall correctly, it’s the only state in the union that actually lost population in the last census.</p>
<p>However, I really don’t think the main motivation for people to leave is because they’re going somewhere more public transportation friendly. There are just no jobs here.</p>
<p>Even those that are trying to create more walk-able cities, like Royal Oak which apple pointed out, are losing population.</p>
<p>True, but we’re getting out of the recession. Michigan is a beautiful state with a low cost of living. One way for it to attract business would be to make some areas more attractive for young employees by making walkable areas where they could live and work. Hard to break the vicious circle of no jobs and young people leaving, though, I know, but the auto industry is rebounding so now’s the time.</p>