£1.40 a litre

Really2

AD9898 wrote: »

Without cheap oil feeding the economy just what are you going to be doing when you get to work ? Although fossil fuels are required for 95% of global transport. Cheap oil is required for every part of our lives.

From plastics, food, metal fabrication, mining. It even takes a cup full of oil to make a disposable nappy. So although transport is a significant issue, it is just one of the myriad of problems that we will face over the coming years.

Yes, so would the idea of using less of it not make it last longer and stay cheaper for longer?

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

Of course you are correct, the earth can sustain approx 2 billion people without the fertilizers. The simple proof of this is take a look at the earth's population over the last 1000 years, broadly flat, rising slightly until around about 1930, then we see a massive increase, the reason for this, well it's pretty obvious. Cheap and abundant oil.

And there was me thinking it waas because of sexual intercourse!

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I do like these types of responses.

If I could build my life around not needing a car, can you tell me how I would do the 40 mile round trip every day for work purposes?

No doubt you will tell me to get a job closer to home. Good idea. Shame if I did that, I'd probably be taking a 60% pay cut at the same time.

So how do you propose people carry out your solution?

It's fine if you live in a town and work just 5 miles away on a bus route and theres a bus stop within a mile or so of your door, but I'm talking reality here.

People can still only claim 40p a mile for the first 10,000 miles business mileage, I doubt that covers the cost of fuel on a normal saloon now, let alone wear on tear. Theres far more of an impact to the UK as a whole than just saying "well dont drive as much".

People have a living to make.

Could you not move closer to work?

I did this and it has really enhanced my work/life balance. I have a 20 min train journey and a 10 min walk. I read novels on the train and relax while someone else does the driving. I get home happy and refreshed after my little walk, ready to spend quality time with the family. Bliss.

p.s. both my kids go to local schools and both walk.

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

Having read through this thread I am puzzled as why it's concentrating on cycling to work etc.. Without cheap oil feeding the economy just what are you going to be doing when you get to work ? Although fossil fuels are required for 95% of global transport. Cheap oil is required for every part of our lives.

From plastics, food, metal fabrication, mining. It even takes a cup full of oil to make a disposable nappy. So although transport is a significant issue, it is just one of the myriad of problems that we will face over the coming years.

What are you doing to prepare yourself for this? According to your recent posts, you only have between 2 and 5 years to sort yourself out. What are your plans?

Really2

AD9898 wrote: »

Of course you are correct, the earth can sustain approx 2 billion people without the fertilizers. The simple proof of this is take a look at the earth's population over the last 1000 years, broadly flat, rising slightly until around about 1930, then we see a massive increase, the reason for this, well it's pretty obvious. Cheap and abundant oil.

Sorry never read this AD but there is one massive factor you miss.
Penicillin

The population is not as it is because of food. It is there in main to life expetanancy.
1900 average life expetancy world wide was 30 now it is over double that. But it was virtually double that in in 1985 also (it has only increased 2 years since then)


In reality it was not the 1930 when it all took off there were sharp increases from the late 1800's this is mainly down to industrial revolution and health care, education etc. Not oil.

Batchy

RenovationMan wrote: »

And there was me thinking it waas because of sexual intercourse!

Hilarious! :-)...

At the end of the day, the last time we had a world war, was 60 odd years ago.

We now have more technology, medicines, and less currupt governments (supposedly)

I think as we see the population stabalising, we will see prices increase still, since most of the population still lives in proverty anyway.

The UK, generally does not suffer this consequence, we actually have a very good standard of living.

I really wish people would stop moaning.

My gf moaned the other night, as I went through pension forcasts, and altough she is on a final salary scheme (gold plated), its very rigid and any deviations off the beat and track results in financial punishment to a certain extent. I loke the flexibility of being in control of my fund, and long may it continue to grow, there will be bad years however. I think the years of 5% growth have gone for the medium term at least. I just hope it takes a few years for my employers to realise this so I can jump a few rungs on the earnings ladder.

N1AK

Joeskeppi wrote: »

As for 4, swapping cars for a more efficient one is hardly outlandish is it?

Actually, in my case that is true although I doubt it is for many people so giving it as carte blanche advice is what I took exception to.

Assuming I'm still in a position to pick my own car in 1-2 years (due to travelling for work it may be a company car by then) I would like to get a more cost effective replacement.

I'd like to get an eletric car with a ~100 mile range. We're a two car household so having one car that can't do long distance travel isn't an issue. When I bought my current car in 2008 I considered 'green' alternatives but the cost didn't seem justified and I wanted to keep as much of my savings as possible for a house deposit. Now I have the house deposit, I'm in a better position to buy an efficient car (potentially new) if it will save me money in the long run.

Davesnave

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry never read this AD but there is one massive factor you miss.
Penicillin

The population is not as it is because of food. It is there in main to life expetanancy.
1900 average life expetancy world wide was 30 now it is over double that. But it was virtually double that in in 1985 also (it has only increased 2 years since then)


In reality it was not the 1930 when it all took off there were sharp increases from the late 1800's this is mainly down to industrial revolution and health care, education etc. Not oil.

I don't think AD meant that oil caused the population to increase, just that oil-based fertilizers (as opposed to animal poo) sustained the population which was growing for a variety of reasons.

These fertilizers enabled the Green Revolution, without which the population in the developing world could not have increased in the way it did. It also powered the agri-machinery, particularly in the 'bread basket' areas of the globe, like Canada.

Now we have the greater population and system of feeding them based primarily on oil products. Reduce the amount of oil, or have it prohibitively expensive, and some of the people won't be fed.

Not hard to guess who they will be.

Really2

Davesnave wrote: »

I don't think AD meant that oil caused the population to increase, just that oil-based fertilizers (as opposed to animal poo) sustained the population which was growing for a variety of reasons.

These fertilizers enabled the Green Revolution, without which the population in the developing world could not have increased in the way it did. It also powered the agri-machinery, particularly in the 'bread basket' areas of the globe, like Canada.

Now we have the greater population and system of feeding them based primarily on oil products. Reduce the amount of oil, or have it prohibitively expensive, and some of the people won't be fed.

Not hard to guess who they will be.

I know what he meant, but it was not oil based agriculture which lead to that.

from 1850 - 1930 a new born babies average life expectancy shot up from 38 to 59.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ghwBatlqPM0J:www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html+life+expectancy+1920&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

So food production and health must have increased pre oil boom also as nearly led to a 50% rise in population.

Oil makes cheap fertilizers and is a reason why population is held up. But it is not the the cause of a population boom around that time.

It was going to be higher without cheap oil, cheap oil has enabled it to be higher. But that is not to say without cheap oil the population was going to be higher than 2B anyway.

vivatifosi

AD9898 wrote: »

Cheap oil is required for every part of our lives.

From plastics, food, metal fabrication, mining. It even takes a cup full of oil to make a disposable nappy. So although transport is a significant issue, it is just one of the myriad of problems that we will face over the coming years.

We're the same species that arose from Africa and learned how to use tools to subjugate the other animals on the planet before learning how to build pyramids and great cities, to build transportation machines to fly to the moon. We can adapt. That adaptation may require a different solution to each problem: using terry nappies again for example instead of disposables, but its something that we are capable of.