“There is nobody against this—nobody, nobody, nobody, but a bunch of mothers!”
Jane Jacobs passed away today in Toronto. She was 89 years old.
As a married mother of two in the 1950s, Jacobs wrote what has become probably the single most influential book on urban planning — The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The book is famously “bottom-up” and pragmatic. Jacobs carefully observed her neighborhood in Greenwich Village, as well as other neighborhoods and other cities, and tried to figure out why they succeeded (or failed) on a most fundamental level. The answer was, basically, diversity. Diversity of use, diversity of lifestyles, diversity of income, and diversity of design. The book assaulted and eventually buried the foundations of then-ascendant modernist ideals of “urban renewal” — razing the ghettoes in favor of high rise public housing, aggressive highway building, and single use districts. And the new urbanist ideals that have taken hold in the last few decades — live/work; dense, walkable urban neighborhoods; increased public transit; public housing integrated with private housing — are direct descendants of Jacobs.
But beyond her intellectual achievements, Jacobs’ greatest success was saving lower Manhattan and contributing to the demise of Robert Moses’s stranglehold over the development of New York City. At the height of Moses’s power in the early 1960s, he determined that three vast freeways were necessary to cross Manhattan — one in Harlem, one in midtown, and one right through the heart of Greenwich Village and Washington Square Park. As chair of the Joint Committee to Stop the Lower Manhattan Expressway, Jacobs organized the community, protested, and eventually defeated Moses’s plan. The quote in the title of this post is Moses’s remark at a public hearing on the proposed highway. Moses continued on with other projects, but he was forever discredited in the eyes of many New Yorkers. Jacobs’ views, in contrast, are now seen as common sense.
So what does all this have to do with Mormonism? Not much, I guess. But if we are serious about thinking of Zion as a city, rather than a sprawling, gated set of suburban cul-de-sacs, then it is worth trying to figure how cities actually function, and how we can foster the kind of cities we want. The work of Jane Jacobs is a great place to start.
65q, 1.450s
Nice post, Greg. I recall you also made a couple of comments at my own Mormon Cities post last year. That post also has a comment by Nate giving a citation to an LDS scholar’s dissertation on the same general topic.
Understanding the relationship of physical space to lifestyle is important. Understanding the impact of architecture, planning is a huge step to understanding why neighborhoods become what they are and why society is what it is. If we plan cities without understanding how they work we end up with places that don’t work very well.
Ms Jacobs book has come under criticism, but forms part of the foundation for any serious study of cities and life in them.
Speaking of cities and how they function, here is a new development going into West Jordan, Utah, that is aiming at a very different way of creating a neighborhood than what is usually done here in the U.S.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/07/new.town.ap/index.html
And there’s even going to be a new temple smack-dab in the middle of this new Daybreak development in West Jordan (per lds.org). It sounds a lot like Disney’s residential community in Florida, called Celebration: http://www.celebrationfl.com/
And there’s even going to be a new temple smack-dab in the middle of this new Daybreak development in West Jordan (per lds.org). It sounds a lot like Disney’s residential community in Florida, called Celebration: http://www.celebrationfl.com/
Being a native NYer who has seen and benefitted from his handiwork firsthand, I am not going to let you badmouth Robert Moses so easily. The man’s accomplishments are exceptional. Everytime you see Live from Lincoln Center on PBS, you can thank Robert Moses. Yes, at times his methods were rather heavy handed and he didnt always make everyone happy, but how could you in that kind of job? Its impossible. In order to build the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts a lot of tenaments had to be demolished, and the people who lived in them didnt like that, but the upside is there is now a world class center for the arts in NYC. Same with pretty much everything else he did. Jane Jacobs fought him and won a couple of battles? OK. She is now “common sense”? I think most NYers would agree the benefits of Robert Moses’ many public works are equally common sense, and you would have a heck of a time getting into those entirely un-zion-like neighborhoods Jacobs preserved without the highways Moses built.
I suppose that it would be hard to watch Live from Lincoln Center if there were no Lincoln Center, but there was a Metropolitan Opera House before Lincoln Center was built, and Carnegie Hall was built long before Avery Fisher (nee Philharmonic) Hall. And, the less said about the NY State Theater, the better. And that plaza–too often it’s a windswept wasteland. So, Kurt, I think that I’ll pass on the paean to Robert Moses even when enjoying an evening at the Metropolitan Opera.
And, as to those great highways Moses built? There is a terrific way to get to most neighborhoods in New York City–it’s called the subway. Fast, efficient, cheap, non-polluting. And the subways don’t destroy great swaths of the city, the way highways did. See for example the South Bronx, which only now is rising again nearly 60 years after the Cross-Bronx Expressway choked the life from it. (And, have you ever driven on that monstrosity?) Or try Red Hook. A nice working-class neighborhood that was ruined by two of Moses’s creations: the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and a huge public housing project. And if you want another wonderful driving experience, try the BQE.
And then look at the neighborhoods that were saved from the idiocy that Moses suggested: Greenwich Village. How would that look with the equivalent of the Cross Bronx Expressway running through it? Or what if Moses’s proposal for a Brooklyn-Battery Bridge had been approved. Think of the acres of “tenements” that could have been converted into approach ramps! Instead, those buildings are now being renovated and they provide housing for thousands of families. Finally, look at Brooklyn Heights. Under Moses’s plan, that would have been the route for the BQE. All those fine brownstones, gone, replaced with six lanes of asphalt. No promenade, just the guardrail on the southbound lanes of that ugly scar on the landscape.
The automobile is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to cities, and Robert Moses was not on the side of the angels in this one.
That being said, the sad thing about Jane Jacobs’s influence is that it seldom extends beyond the academy. The great roadbuilder developer industrial complex by and large pays no attention to her ideas–just find another 50 acres, connect it to the rest of the world with four lanes of asphalt, make sure it’s just housing–no dirty stores, restaurants or businesses–give it some tacky name and presto, you have 200 new “homes” and a “neighborhood.”
It’s nice to see those heirs of Joseph’s legacy, the Kennecott Copper Company, developing a sensible community. Odd that it’s the gentile strip miners, and not all those good Mormon folk in Utah, that are leading the way.
Kurt:
I wasn’t really badmouthing Moses. He did some good things. I think the best was Jones Beach. But, as Mark points out, for better or worse his legacy will be the expressways that sliced through and thereby detroyed working class neighborhoods, and the gargantuan housing projects that everyone now admits are a failure. Jacobs’s ideas are now common sense: I don’t hear many urban planners arguing for more public housing towers, for more freeways through cities, or for less density. And I’m not sure what “un-zion-like” neighborhoods you’re talking about, but New York’s neighborhoods are still best accessed without a car.
Looks like Mark B read The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the fall of New York by Robert Caro.
Mark, you can thank Giuliani for the subways that are safe enough to ride, because before he came on the scene the subways were rolling garbage cans and the platforms were open urinals. Me and my friends would play “Spot the Prostitute” on 42nd St and whoever counted up the most won, that was before Giuliani forced all of the seedy 25c show shops and anonymous sex both shops out and cleaned the place up. As for the relative merits of Greenwich Village, they are debatable. Vintage vinyl is cool, but bondge and leather shops? Yeah, you know, I just wore out my ball gag, and need another one, so its really convenient to have one within walking distance.
OK, Mark and Greg, how do you propose to get people to the city if not by car? What world is this you live in that cars can be disposed of and everyone walks or takes mass transit to work? You going to tell me the LIRR is going to get people into Penn and then they all take the Subway to work? Right. Shut down the LIE and force everyone to telecommute. Uh huh. Move to Sweden already.
As for un-zion-like, the entire city is. What neighborhood in NYC do you suggest is Zion-like? Please let me know, I need a laugh. Let me suggest one: Hell’s Kitchen.
Sorry Kurt. I haven’t got to The Power Broker yet. But if Caro agrees with me, I won’t complain.
The subways were safe enough for me to ride in for the 80’s and 90’s, and few of the stations were, as you say, open urinals. I never went looking for hookers at 42nd Street, so I would have to defer to your experience on that one. Same with the leather and bondage shops. Frankly, I don’t keep a list in my notebook for those.
Actually, the train is a great way to commute, and the automobile is the worst possible. Have you driven on I-15 in Utah recently? Rare is the car with more than one occupant, and each car takes a space 15 feet wide by 70 feet long (assuming approximately 10-car-length spacing between cars). And, each car burns a gallon of gasoline every 20 miles or so.
The only problem with telecommuting is that it’s hard to give the finger to people on the “tele” who do stupid things.
Kurt,
Yes, we all read the Power Brokers. But you are making a basic mistake in history writing. Just because New York subway system collapsed in the 70s and 80s until Gulliani, doesn’t mean it was always horrible. And you are overlooking how the funding structure that Moses set up fundamentally shafted mass transit funding starving subways, LIRR and other rail systems while building roads that failed on their own terms. Further, the LIE was supposed to relieve congestion on the Northern State. But now there are two parking lots instead of one. The LIE is a failure in its stated objective. It became an object lesson in what is now a standard line for highway construction: you cannot build your way out of congestion. Further, since the LIE was the last possible corridor for an additional rail route, when Moses vetoed (behind closed doors and without democratic process) having it be mixed use with a center rail-line he killed off any possible expansion of the rail system.
Even Jones beach is basically a fiasco until you get your drivers licsence (since busses can’t get htere thanks to the too low bridges. Which may not seem bad until you consider that in NYC and Nassau county the driving age is 18 and 17 respectively.
Somehow, you don’t notice that Moses’ projects killed neighborhoods that were viable, killed farms by aiding sprawl, and that he never, ever, built the public housing that he promised to replace the housing he tore down. He killed the city’s tax base.
You may not like what the folks in one neighborhood did with that neighborhood, but most of the folks there aren’t Mormons.
Jopseph Smith’s ideas as expressed in the Platt of the City of Zion and as built in small towns across the Southwest accord far more closely with Jane Jacobs than with Robert Moses.
Mark,
I am under the impression that the subway works well for New York, but that blasphemous I-15 makes a lot of people happy. Specifically it carries gazillions more people to and from where they live to where they work than the light rail out here does or ever is likely to. Presumably this is because the SLC area is low density and NYC is high density. You are welcome to your Brooklyn, but forgive me if I am happy in Provo.
Mark B, so convince all of America that you are right and to ditch their cars and get onto all of those railroads and subways into the pedestrian centers of cities, which are really great, or at least they would be if Robert Moses hadnt single-handedly destroyed every single urban center in America with all those roads he built. Oh, wait a minute, he only built roads in NYC, right? Well, then who built all those same kinds of roads all over the rest of America? Other people, who saw thats what Americans wanted and needed for their cars, because they didnt want to live in congested, cramped, overheated cities with no parking? Oh, OK.
Western Dave, youre right, everything is Robert Moses fault, all of it, urban decay, inner city poverty, race riots, its all his fault. Nothing he ever did was any good. Not any of those hundreds of parks and recreations facilities and pools he had built. And Lincoln Center, that just sucks too, that should have been left as tenaments. Yeah, Jones Beach is a fiasco alright, thats why they have millions of visitors every year. And guess what? You can catch a MTA Long Island bus or take the LIRR to Freeport and then the local JB62. Nice cheap shot on the Northern State and Southern State parkways having bridges too low for buses, too bad it was totally misplaced and the LIE and LIRR fixed that alleged problem.
What I dont understand is how you critics of Robert Moses can sit there and fault him for something that was happening all over America, and pretty much every other industrialized country in the world, as though it is all his fault. Guess what? Roads and highways and bridges were being built all over the place at that very same time and there were fights going on about it at the very same time and it had nothing to with Robert Moses. There were supposed to be three concentric beltways around DC, and there ended up only one, because the neighborhoods that were supposed to be demolished to make way for the other two inner rings fought it. And look at how vibrant and quaint and liveable they are now. Ha! And now the traffic in DC is awful, despite the Metro. You going to tell me that was Robert Moses’ and Jacob’s doing? Whatever. Were these two prominent in the debate and events of the time? Sure. Because NYC was the big place spending the most money on these things. But were they the ones responsable for the worldwide revolution in transportation changes and attending debate? No way, not even close. And casting Robert Moses as some kind of rabid monster, blaming him for urban blight and suburban sprawl, ignoring all the good he accomplished, is just bull, you are scapegoating a guy who was doing what pretty much everyone else in his position in every metropolitain area in America was doing.
Okay, you’re all wrong.
Robert Moses did a lot of really, really good things. He built gazillions of parks. He built the Triboro bridge, which for better or worse gets the job done. He built Lincoln Center, Jones Beach, the Henry Hudson (much of it on unusuable land), and Flushing Meadows. All of those are very good accomplishments.
He also committed his share of blunders. He destroyed the Bronx; broke the back of the Grand concourse; killed Red Hook; killed Spuyten Duyvil; and tried unsuccessfully to do many worse projects – the most egregious of which included putting expressways through Greenwich Village and through Central Park. But those didn’t happen.
He was a very important man for his time. His biggest crime was an inability to see into a crystal ball – but then, we all suffer from that defect.
Jane Jacobs famous work “Death and Life…” is among my favorite books, though she didn’t predict the eventual gentrification of my neighborhood, Morningside Heights. In fact, Jane was principally for low-rise housing, which has never worked out for Manhattan, since everyone wants to live in a tower.
Frank,
When shortages in petroleum supplies make driving prohibitively expensive, I-15 will be an empty monument to an exceedingly wasteful form of urban development. You’re right that sensible public transportation is difficult in an area as thinly populated as the Wasatch Front, and the inevitable rise in transportation costs (as supplies decrease and demand increases, prices will go up, won’t they?) cannot be easily remedied by redevelopment into a pedestrian- and public transportation-friendly city.
It’s interesting that you inferred “blasphemous” from my earlier comment about I-15. In terms of our stewardship of this planet, “blasphemous” may indeed be an appropriate description for the US’s addiction to automobile transportation, but my earlier comment simply described the waste of space and energy that the highway represents.
Kurt:
I particularly like your “everybody else was doing it” defense of Robert Moses. That always works when my children use it as an argument for whatever they want permission to do, so I suppose we should let Mr. Moses off as well. By the way, I don’t think that I blamed Robert Moses for all the urban ills in all the cities across the US (he didn’t Californicate Los Angeles, after all).
Describing automobiles as an “addiction” is just silly. Automobiles have been extremely popular and successful all over the world from the moment they were invented precisely because they are just really convenient, compared to the alternatives. They don’t work as well in Manhattan, but they work pretty well an awful lot of other places.
And you’re going to have to wait a long, long time before I-15 will become an empty monument. Cars would still be the most efficient form of transportation for most purposes in a place like Utah even if gas were $10 per gallon. And we could probably just about double gas mileage in a few years if people would just switch to smaller cars and hybrids, even using current technology. As to what technology will be like in 50 or 100 years, it’s anyones guess.
Mark,
“When shortages in petroleum supplies make driving prohibitively expensive, I-15 will be an empty monument to an exceedingly wasteful form of urban development.”
Mark, we’ve been using oil for a long time, and the real price of oil has risen about 50% in the past 50 years (ignoring the recent spike from current events). In that same time, wages have risen far more as have miles per gallon. Thus, as a percent of income, driving (based on the price of gas) would appear to be getting cheaper. This is not good for your argument.
It seems to me quite plausible that electric (or close) cars will keep that freeway humming even if gas prices rise sharply decades from now. although there is no reason to expect a long-term price spike. That does not mean it might not happen, just that based on the past, we would expect steady rises in the real price of oil, but that those rises will not keep up with income growth.
But now I see that Ed already hit this point.
Indeed, I thought you might like the “blasphemous”.
Jane Jacobs also did a lot here in Toronto where she lived for the last few decades. Among her accomplishments was helping to kill a major expressway that would have cut right through the heart of town. As a result we have a very livable city, especially in the downtown core, with lots of neighbourhoods and tons of public transit. So it can be done. She will be sorely missed.
Frank,
We have not been using oil for a long time–the internal combustion engine (by far the largest consumer of petroleum products in the U.S.) has been around for just over 100 years, and the huge increases in use have occurred since the end of World War II. And two potentially huge economies in Asia are bellying up to the bar, so expect consumption to rise even faster now. As rates of consumption rise, the pressure on prices will increase, and real prices can be expected to rise even faster.
Your “cost of driving as a percentage of income” analysis is meaningless, when petroleum is viewed, as it should be, as a finite resource. Though real prices may be lower now than 50 years ago, there’s no reason to expect prices to continue to fall as demand continues to rise and supplies remain constant or begin to fall.
Your argument about expected “steady rises in the real price of oil” reminds me of the old joke about the three guys on the desert island who discover a case of canned goods. The economist’s solution for opening the cans: “let’s suppose we have a can opener.” Your argument is based on “let’s suppose that there is an inexhaustible source of oil.”
We don’t, and what’s left is getting harder to find or more difficult to extract. At some point the energy inputs required for pumping oil out of the ground rises to equal the energy that the oil could generate, and that’s when the field shuts down, even if there are still “reserves” of petroleum down there.
Mark, when do you think oil is going completely run out?
I hope you are buying a lot of oil futures contracts. You will certainly have the last laugh when the oil prices skyrocket and you become incredibly wealthy, while all the so-called “experts,” who forcast future oil prices for a living and have every incentive to be right, look like fools. It should a be a wonderful way to protect you and your family from the coming disaster. By the way, oil futures prices are now trading at record highs of around $70 or so a few years out, but the current prices decline slightly rather than increase as you get farther into the future, indicating that those silly “experts” think that energy prices will stabilize as new technologies and sources are brought online in response to the recent price increases.
(For some intelligent discussion of these issues, I recommend the blog econbrowser, for example this post. You’ll notice that this distinguished economist-blogger does not, in fact, assume that oil supplies are infinite.)
Mark B., I admit it, I am addicted to driving my car. I have been mainlining diesel for years now, and just cannot stop. I also huff natural gas at home, and cannot stop that either. I wish I could. Maybe someday I will be a true non-consumptive net-energy producing breatharian like you, but until then I will consume hydrocarbons in any form i can get my hands on.
As for I-15 becoming an empty wasteland when we run out of oil, I hate to break this to you, but we really do have an “an inexhaustible source of oil”. Its called organic material. Yup, anything organic can be turned into oil, for about $80/bbl, by these guys, using thermal depolymerization, so you can forget about cars going away and living in a pedestrian utopia of solar powered skyscrapers that magically recycle all their own waste in organic gardens. Welcome to the future of transportation: cars.
As for letting Robert Moses off because he was doing what everone else was doing, you obviously missed my point, entirely. But, hey, what difference does that make? Tell you what I am going to do, I am going to let you off the hook for being tricked by a liberal Marxist academia that is detached from reality.
Ed, I don’t know if you intended to sound condescending and dismissive of Mark’s comments. But the idea that we are headed for an ugly oil situation is not without merit. I’m not in a position to evaluate the “peak oil” arguments, but what I’ve read sounds plausible. It’s not certain, but worth worrying about.
Kurt, did you realize you can disagree about the merit of Robet Moses, and make the point that technological advances might help us avoid the problems of an oil supply that is increasingly difficult to extract, without being a complete butthead? You can, really. Try it, you might like it.
Kurt,
When did I universalize Moses’ work outside NYC or even Long Island? I grew up on the North Shore so short of taking the train into the city and then back out or thumbing a ride to the South Shore, Jones Beach may well have been Myrtle Beach. New York and it suburbs is a distinct place and Moses took one success, the Triboro and tried to universalize that success without understanding the reasons behind the success or changing conditions of the time. More importantly, Moses’ methods were fundamentally undemocratic in ways that are simply appalling. Sunshine laws were invented to prevent exactly the kind of stunts that Moses used to pull. Further, Moses’ use of imminent domain was hardly the kind of thing that people who like freedom should be pleased about. Moses’ was pretty much a central planner statist who was very, very good at manipulating non-democratic agencies and keeping the public’s prying eyes away from his doings. I have a problem with that.
I am not LDS, but I did write a history of Western New Mexico for a history dissertation. To do that work honestly and thoroughly, I had to study the Church and its people. I was fortunate in that I already knew Dick Bushman a little from a previous job, which proved helpful. I was very, very lucky to meet Dean May who guided me through much of the literature and was generous with his time and thought. I still miss him.
The Platt of the City of Zion and the way it was implemented in the small towns of Western New Mexico (Bluewater, Ramah) indicated a balance between central planning and local use and put a premium on face-to-face interactions and mixed uses. These seem to be far more in line with Jacob’s way of thinking than Moses’.
Although Jacobs’ methods were liberal, her argument at its core was a deeply conservative one that placed a premium on the integrity of private property enmeshed in the community and bonds of recipricol obligation. Again, this sounds far closer to Joseph Smith than Robert Moses.
Kaimi,
Does anything go on at Flushing Medows? Other than scenes from Men in Black, I mean. Do you count Shea and Arthur Ashe as part of it?
Jonathan,
I don’t know if you hear the same “appear compelling but aren’t” arguments again and again in your field, but the one Mark’s putting forward is a classic in the natural resource literature. People have been predicting that we’re going to run out of this or that for a long long time, not recognizing that new finds and technological innovations have steadily outpaced our diminishing supplies, thus meaning that natural resource prices have typically been falling for a long time. I don’t know why God has blessed us with such massively improving technology, but he continues to do so at a rate that makes the “you must be an idiot who assumes infinite supplies” argument just look plain dumb. The “doom around the corner!” argument has been around for at least a century and it has never looked less compelling. Nevertheless, if you have some reference you’ve read, I’d be happy to take a look at it.
So Mark, “there’s no reason to expect prices to continue to fall as demand continues to rise and supplies remain constant or begin to fall.” would be fine given a constant supply and technology. But the point is that we appear to be increasing our extraction efficiency and use efficiency faster than we are running out of oil. And that efficiency process will become more intense as prices rise (which they haven’t done much yet).
Certainly India and China are becoming more advanced, but that may well be a net gain. The biggest limitation we have appears to be not enough smart people thinking of solutions. As those countries develop, we should expect them to be a real boon to technological innovation that lets us continue to increase the energy we get from each unit of fossil fuel, as well as coming up with other ways to get energy.
I think the real point is this, you note that the internal combustion engine is only a century old. And you speak of the ramp up in the last 50 years (which lead to the modest rise in real prices I discussed). If you think a century (or 50 years) is the short term, then I agree absolutely that oil prices will rise in the long term (several centuries). But at no point is it obvious that the cost of driving (internal combustion or not) a mile will ever be noticeably more expensive than it was 30 years ago. We’re a long way from the Thunderdome.
Jonathan Green, I dunno, you think maybe I should go around accusing people of being condescending and dismissive and calling them buttheads instead or actually addressing the topic being discussed? You seem to like it, maybe I would like that too?
Western Dave, growing up on North Shore LI, why would you ever try to even go to Jones Beach? Of course there is no mass transit to get you from the North Shore of LI to Jones Beach, on the South Shore, that would make no sense. You had your own closer beaches right there.
Smith’s platt and the general Mormon way of laying out towns in UT/AZ/NM was obviously pre-automobile. There is a great discussion of the geographical factors associated with that in The Making of the American Landscape. I dont have any problem with seeing Smith’s platt view of developement as being in line with Jacob’s views, but it was also the pretty standard way of doing development back then, way back to William Penn and all that. Smith wasnt doing anything revolutionary, and Jacob’s was just trying to maintain that in the face of disruptive technologies (e.g., cars and modern construction to build highways, skyscrapers, bridges and causeways), which Moses was applying in full force, as was every other person tasked with urban development at the time.
As for the liberal academic stuff, that was aimed at Mark B’s notions of cars and highways being abandoned. Isnt going to happen, no matter how much Al Gore would like it to.
Frank,
“The ‘doom around the corner!’ argument has been around for at least a century and it has never looked less compelling. Nevertheless, if you have some reference you’ve read, I’d be happy to take a look at it.”
You might want to read this. Also this. Though I admit that one of the primary sponsoring agencies behind these studies is the Department of Energy, a revolutionary Marxist organization if there ever was one.
Mark B.: “It’s interesting that you inferred ‘blasphemous’ from my earlier comment about I-15.”
Frank: “Indeed, I thought you might like the ‘blasphemous.’”
It has been my experience that some conservatives and economists like to indulge in the fantasy (which I assume most of them are, in truth, smart enough not to believe) that the various flakey English-department environmentalist whackos they run up against occasionally in academic settings in fact constitute an awesomely powerful normative orthodoxy that controls discourse and policy-making at all levels in American society, against which they, the lonely free-thinkers, rage furiously and good-naturedly, risking blasphemy and excommunication in the name of truth. It allows them to feel all heretical and rebellious and wise inside. (See also “David Horowitz.” Also, “politically correct.”)
Kurt,
If you are not “addicted” to driving your car, you are (if you’re like most Americans) likely to be almost completely dependent upon your car for all your transportation needs. Give up your car for a week. Get to work, church, shopping, school, the bank, the post office, the dry cleaners, etc. etc., without a car. If you can do it, more power to you. If you cannot, then you are as dependent on your car as a heroin addict is on his next hit.
It is true that virtually any organic matter can be converted into fuel with properties similar to petroleum distillates–lightweight, easily transportable, and powerful. But what are the “inputs” required to create that organic matter, and harvest it, and convert it into that fuel. We too often forget that the high yield agriculture of our day is based almost entirely on fertilizers which are derived from petroleum. If shortages in petroleum make those fertilizers prohibitively expensive, or if they’re unavailable altogether, where will we obtain the organic matter to create the biofuels?
Even if I am, as you suggest, a spineless sap in the grip of “liberal Marxist academia,” the current automobile-based model for urban development is wasteful and ugly. Commuting alone by automobile to work is a foolish waste of a precious limited resource.
I’m not sure why you are so exercised. Did I propose that your car be taken from you by force? Did I suggest that cars be banned? I don’t think so. I owned a car for over 20 years. I still drive a car (thanks to Zipcar or Avis) a few times a month. I’m surprised by the vehemence with which people support their right to drive everywhere they need to go. I’m also surprised by the joy people seem to gain from driving through Lehi at 5 mph on I-15, which seems to happen nearly every evening at rush hour.
Is it simply because your emperor has no clothes that you have to sink to ad hominem attacks?
Oh I’ve made a dreadful mistake. I’ve argued about natural resource use and completely failed to work Malthus into the conversation. Please forgive me.
Frank, everything I know about oil production can fit inside a thimble of electrons, and is derived more or less from this article. When it comes to oil, I don’t think that we can assume that new finds will save us. Many smart people at very efficient and profitable corporations invest billions of dollars in finding more oil, and there hasn’t been much forthcoming recently; it’s reasonable to assume that all the major fields of easily-exploited oil have been found. Likewise with technology, ExxonMobil doesn’t employ dummies to figure out how to pump oil more efficiently. I agree that rising oil costs make alternative fuels more economically viable, and one can expect more resources to go into funding innovation in the field.
But–you need to take into account the massive oil-based infrastructure our country has built in order to import, process, and distribute petroleum products that can’t be quickly replaced or modified. In the long run we’ll undoubtedly work out something, but what happens in response to short-term massive price spikes? The transition costs seem likely to be very high and coupled with considerable disruption for some people. Or?
But I think between “liberal Marxist academia” and “the emperor has no clothes” this thread has managed to work in more than enough cliches to make up for my failing. :)
Oh, right, and also “Malthus.” Because of course everyone knows that no environmental scientist anywhere has read a single book on economics or resource use published less than 150 years ago. Very important to keep emphasizing that point as well.
Hey guys Americans vote with their feet and their wallets. Guess who won?
The suburbs and automobiles. (of course driven by extremely poor public schools in the urban areas)
The great American cities are now inhabited by the poor and the liberal upper classes. Middle America now lives in the suburbs and small towns. The jobs are even following them.
“Middle America now lives in the suburbs and small towns. The jobs are even following them”
Not with these gas prices. True, I work in an (inner-belt) suburban office park, but my wife and I are in the process of buying a row house in another inner-belt suburb. Why? Because an equivalent-priced, decent-sized single-family home would be so far away that the gas (and wear and tear on vehicles) would be an extra $400 a month that we don’t have.
Jonathan,
I’m sorry, I was not talking about short term price spikes. Those clearly do happen. But even this one is nowhere close enough to close down I-15. I am just talking about the long run. In which case we do have the time to substitue out infrastructure for other things without taking nearly as big a hit. Just like we built the infrastructure we now have over the long run.
“it’s reasonable to assume that all the major fields of easily-exploited oil have been found.”
I don’t know. This might be reasonable. But then we don’t really know how much oil is in Alaska, and there is an awful lot of water in the world to hide oil under. And I have no idea how extensively they’ve searched for oil in some of the less occupied parts of the world. I am sure Exxon has looked where they can look, but that’s given today’s prices. Many places are politically off limits or perhaps not worth even surveying at the current price, but will be if prices, for example, double.
That article is interesting, but it seems to be arguing that we have fixed yearly supply that will likely continue long into the future. This is not a doomsday scenario that will empty I-15. At that point, you’ll have gradually rising prices with gradually rising demand. The price increases will be mitigated by new technology of use and extraction and new alternative energy sources that are worth doing as prices rise.
The Drum article seems very interested in a particular view. For example, he notes that the Saudi’s use the best tech in the world, and then infers that there is nothing left to be done technologically? But why can’t technology improve over time? It’s been doing that at a staggering rate for, I don’t know 250 years. Is there some reason to expect it to grind to a halt now? His arguments for no new capacity also seem quite weak. He clearly admits that we don’t really know very much about where or what quality of oil we’ll find in the future, although he does his best to downplay it.
Then he wants to create doosday scenarios about how if one pipe breaks, prices will skyrocket. OK, but if that becomes a constant issue, where price variance becomes huge, entrpreneurs will start stockpiling oil in order to reap the benefits when prices skyrocket. One bids up the current price a little more and starts stockpiling for a rainy day. People are smart like that and it can smooth out expected high price variance.
Some environmental scientists do, indeed, understand economics.
Still, it’s remarkable how often you hear arguments by intelligent people that seem to assume that the oil will just suddenly run out someday, apparently without anybody seeing it coming, and prices will all of a sudden go through the roof, leaving 1-15 as a ghost town, etc. etc.
Because if the experts could see it coming, then there are very good reasons to expect that we would see prices rise gradually over a long period of time. If I’m an oil producer, why would I sell you any oil today if I could anticipate that the price will be much higher tomorrow? (In fact this explains why oil inventories right now are at record highs, even though prices are high: because the futures prices a few months out are even higher.)
We may, in fact, be starting to see such a long term increase, although Frank rightly points out that such predictions have often been wrong in the past…usually some new technologies come in that substitute for or extend the depleting resource.
entrpreneurs will start stockpiling oil in order to reap the benefits when prices skyrocket
A recent glimpse at reported earnings and reserves of Exxon, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips suggest that it’s not only “entrepreneurs” who might do so.
Is there an econometrically responsible way to decide whether the right price trend to use to predict the future is the one based on the past 50 years, or the one based on the last 18 months?
Mark,
I guess you’re right, I’m “addicted” to my car. (I’m also addicted to the DC Metro, which I ride to work every day.) I’m addicted to the grocery store where I buy my food, and I’m addicted to various merchants where I buy my clothes. Of course I’m also addicted to the electricity, gas, and water services provided to my house. What a pathetic bundle of addictions I am! Maybe I should enter some sort of 12-step program.
Mark B., since when is humor an ad hominem? Isnt accusing someone of ad hominem when there isnt one an ad hominem? Hmmm. Nah.
Not only am I not addicted to my car, I run to work, bike to the post office, fly by telekinetics to Church, and have my groceries teleported to me so I consume absolutely no petrochemicals for my transportation needs. Holier than thou. Oh, and I dont dry clean my clothes, since I am a nudist, because clothes are a foolish waste of a precious limited resources, and wasting Mother Earth’s precious gift of cotton on clothing is a sin.
“where will we obtain the organic matter to create the biofuels?” From all the total suspended solids you are shoveling onto this blog. So, not only are we running out of oil reserves, the world is running low on organic matter too! Wow, now there is a scary thought. Guess we’ll just have to pull a Soylent Green, huh? That, or plant something that photosynthesizes. And, yeah, all those organic farmers really are having trouble keeping their yeilds up without the petrochemical inputs, so we are doomed…DOOOMED!
The current automobile-based economy is wasteful and ugly? I beg to differ. My 1987 MB 300D gets 30mpg, has over 250K miles, can go 7K miles between oil changes, and is a very attractive shade of blue, even if I do say so myself. And she doesnt like you either. But, I see your point, those subways are so much more aesthetically pleasing and efficient and clean and when they run on electcity from nuclear power then there isnt any greenhouse gas emission, just loads of heinous radioactive waste and potential for serious massive nuclear disasters. So, Mark, tell me, what is this this magic clean innexpensive energy source with little or no downside that we should be using instead? There is none? Oh, OK.
If anyone’s emporer is without clothes, its yours, and Al Gore nekked aint a pretty sight. Ick.
But, you know what, Mark B., just to show you there are no hard feelings, if you want to buy me a Prius, I’ll drive it. I prefer silver, but whatever color you pick is OK by me.
P.s., not getting exercised or vehement, just think your ideas are so divorced from practical reality they are bordering on loony.
justaguy,
I don’t think I’ve said much of anything about crazy English professors being the culprit or resource management people being dumb. I’m talking about specific arguments being hard to take seriously.
I took a look at the second link you gave (the first wasn’t working), and it was way better than the Drum article. But it had all of one page on the effect of prices on market outcomes. Most of it was about the horrors of price volatility, not how speculation can dampen volatility (as well as exacerbate it in a bubble). To put it in context, they expect that demand will rise (linearly it looks like) and that mitgation efforts will be completely effective if they take place twenty years in advance. So their scenario at its worst (peak is now) means that we have to speed up mitigation (at some cost) because we have excess demand. OK. To repeat, this is something worth thinking about, but hardly the doomsday Mark referred to.
And, as you’ll recall, it is that doomsday scenario that I have been scoffing at. I would think, if you wish to disassociate your field (I’m just guessing here) from loony theories, that you would be even quicker to dismiss such holocaust scenarios.
As for Malthus, he was doing a wonderful job of extrapolating past trends. He did not have the advantage of knowing that productivity was about to take off. Paul Ehrlich had no such excuse.
Seriously, people interested in this topic should check out econbrowser.com. It’s written by a well-known economics professor who understands the issues but is not an ideologue.
John,
You are still in the suburbs though correct?
Where I grew up in suburban Chicago over time fewer and fewer companies actually had offices/plants in the city. That is just the way it is in modern America now. Its a pipe dream that someday Americans in intact families will return in numbers to the cities. I used to hear all the time while at U of I at Chicago that with correct urban planning middle class families would return to Chicago to raise families. When professors would say this the students would literally laugh at them in class. We knew exactly what the realities of modern American housing patterns were. We would always reply that the city was for the single and the childless or the super wealthy that could afford either Catholic schools or private ones.
Typical pattern in Chicago was Great Grandpa in the city, Grandpa 50% city/50% suburb, parents in the suburbs and the kids when raising families in the exurbs
I’m a bit late to this conversation but isn’t one of the main arguments against oil is the pollution? What about the natural resources required to build and maintain the cars? Does that even matter to Mormons or is the economics of oil all that matters?
I understand the need to be a “realist”, but isn’t there ANY room to admit that our current system is an irresponsible use of our stewardship? God built this earth using sustainable principles, why are we defending our waste? Less bad doesn’t equal good, does it?
It depends on how you define suburb. I am in the middle of the northeastern megalopolis, and while I live and work in suburbs of Wilmington, to a great extent Wilmington is a suburb of Philadelphia – and New York. But keeping things centered around Wilmington – currently I work seven miles from downtown, live nine miles from downtown, and live three miles from work. The house we’re buying is four miles from downtown and five and a half miles from work – and looks like it’s in a safer neighborhood than the apartment we’re in now. The example I gave of a suburban community that would be affordable if not for gas is 28 miles from downtown and 21 1/2 miles from work.
What I’m observing here is that eventually sprawl has nowhere to go, as the commuting distances (never mind costs) become prohibitive. Most people here live in one suburb and work in another. Those who live or work in the city tend not to do both.
To bring in an LDS perspective on this: in the metropolitan division known as Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ, there are three counties, one in each state. The Maryland county (Cecil) has one meetinghouse, that houses a branch. It is 26 miles from downtown Wilmington. The New Jersey county (Salem) has one meetinghouse, that houses a ward. It is 17 miles from downtown Wilmington. With some give and take, each of those units covers its county.
In the Delaware county (New Castle) there are three meetinghouses. The former stake center just outside Wilmington is three miles from downtown, and houses two wards and a Spanish branch. The current stake center just outside Newark is sixteen miles from downtown Wilmington (and three and a half from downtown Newark); it houses two wards and a YSA branch. The third meetinghouse is just outside Smyrna, and houses one ward. It is 37 miles from downtown Wilmington, and 16 miles from downtown Dover (the nominal state capital, and seat of the next county south.)
Yes, Smyrna and Rising Sun’s (the building in Cecil County) meetinghouses wouldn’t have been built without sprawl. But if there hadn’t been as much sprawl then there’d just be a bigger meetinghouse somewhere else in New Castle County. Wilmington once held (in 1940) three-quarters of New Castle County’s population. To hold that proportion of population now would require it to hold four times as many people as it does now. We looked at several houses inside the city – the one we’re buying is bigger than most of them, and in much better condition than any that we looked at of this size, but only slightly farther out of town than most of them.
I agree that the price of oil (and gasoline) is going to gradually climb. Considering our infrastructure is built around $1/gallon gasoline, the transition is going to be very painful. But it too will be incremental, as people like Alisa and me decide a big yard isn’t worth the distance. (In our case, it helps that we’re not changing wards, and the ward members in our new neighborhood like it.)
Bbell raises an interesting point, “that Americans voted with their feet” as if concious and uncouncious government subsidies played no role in suburbanization. It is one thing for elected representatives to choose to subsidize single homes over apartments as in the GI Bill. It is quite another for unelected regulators in cooperation with a few members of the banking industry to decide who benefits from those regulations in arbitrary ways by allowing redlining practices. Moses, who never held elected office, was the master of actively subverting democracy to acheive his ends, he had little faith that voters would agree with him. Hence the very accurate title of this post. In Moses view, nobody that mattered opposed him. The fact that “nobody that mattered” turned out to be almost everybody was, in the end, part of his downfall but only after his heyday.
The larger point is we can acknowledge that Americans did choose cars over mass transit, but they were ecouraged to do so in many ways that made that choice seemingly natural and unconcious or conveniant. I am not saying there was a conspiracy for cars, (although for Moses in NY it comes much closer to that than in other places) but that federal policy after World War II ended up favoring cars for a variety of reasons that were not necessarily based on rational decisions or anybody asking voters. It was an unintended consequence of a set of seemingly unrelated policy decisions.
Kurt, have you been to the North Shore “beaches”. The geography is against us. All that beautiful sand on the South shore and up north we got rocks, more rocks, gravel, and rocks. And maybe some sand shipped in from somewhere else. I understand the harbors are excellent however but I wasn’t in the yacht club set. I’m from the poor egg.
You are right, of course, about the Platt being a fairly conventional vision of 19th city planning. I live in Philly now and I would argue there are some pretty definitive differences between Penn’s vision and Smith’s but these are probably more of degree than kind when compared to Smith and someone like Levitt.
But to return to the original question (hey! remember that?) are Mormons bound by visions of city planning that connect to the City of Zion. Should Mormons be bound by them? Will they become manifest after or before etc. etc.
“But to return to the original question (hey! remember that?) are Mormons bound by visions of city planning that connect to the City of Zion. Should Mormons be bound by them? Will they become manifest after or before etc. etc.”
I think the better question is, What can we learn (in terms of both what, and what not, to do) from the ways that were attempted over the years to implement that vision? How can we apply these lessons in dealing with the present infrastructure and developing future infrastructure?
Not to mention, why didn’t my instructors at BYU (where I majored in planning, of all things) at least attempt to show the contributions of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to the planning process? (They did bring in Pierre L’Enfant, Robert Moses, and Olmstead and Vaux.)
And for those of us who served “foreign” missions: What can we learn from the perspective of where we served? Italy’s cities are laid out much differently in many respects, for instance.
I was a missionary in Toronto and fell in love with public transportation there. Great benefits were the obvious fuel debate, great way to meet people (especially as a missionary), time to do what you want (rather than watch the tailights of the guy in front of you), and the best benefit of lots and lots of exercise.
Now work is 40 miles of I-15 pavement from where I live. They are currently building a heavy commuter rail for those of us north of Salt Lake (you Utah county people really ought to vote for the continuation of this railway). If I were to take this into Salt Lake and take the other light rail and busses that I would need to get to work, it would take well over two hours, one way. I may love public transportation but I love my time with my family more. Hoorah for Legacy Parkway!!!
(As I know someone will ask why I commute so far in the first place, it came down to money. I was able to afford a house in Davis County where I couldn’t in Salt Lake County. I guess I love money more than a short commute to work.)
By the way, I think this light rail business is lousy use of public funds. Salt Lake needs real public transportation if they are really going to compete with the auto. Part of why people don’t use public transit around here is becuase it is just plain weak. Get busses coming more often on a good grid system with a great subway-type main line and people would have much more of a reason to use public transit.
It’s odd that so many are arguing so strenuously in favor of wasteful exploitation of resources. Or in favor of continued pollution of the air. But, what would I, a loony, super wealthy single childless liberal English professor whose children attend private schools (where’d they come from, since I’m childless?) know about logic? Or stewardship? Or being “holier than thou”?
Since most of the rest of the world (even the developed world–Japan and Western Europe) live in communities that are much closer to the model I’ve suggested than either Los Angeles or Orem, I wonder why you think my ideas are divorced from “practical reality”, whatever that is. They are the reality for most of the world.
#46
I don’t know the time frame of all the buildings in Salt Lake City, but the church office building was built in the late 60’s or 70’s. Probably one of the first high rises in the city. Then of course there is the 1+ billion dollars the church is spending to beef up the down town. I think the church continues to enforce the idea of community rather than this urban sprawl.
Perhaps your professors where a product of the times. Hindsight being 20/20, perhaps they would have changed their ideas and instructions. I really doubt the church told them what to teach.
By the way, for those not in the know, that billion dollars is not your tithing funds at work. Don’t worry.
Mark,
You do know that you are a “outlier” right? How many other LDS families CHOOSE to live in NY and not own a car? Like I said people vote with their feet and their wallets. Your ideas are divorced from the average LDS Middle Class Father guy. I would be careful saying that your ideas are correct from an LDS standpoint if you are in the distinct minority amongst your peer group.
You are aware of course that many large US cities are rapidly loosing their children to the suburbs right? Heck SF CA has more dogs than kids now. NPR has done a piece or two on how the cities Boston, Seattle, SF NY are gradually seeing the numbers of Children dwindle
Mark,
I’m going to assume you are talking to Kurt here as I don’t recognize my comments in your caricature.
Rusty,
“I’m a bit late to this conversation but isn’t one of the main arguments against oil is the pollution? ”
Pollution is a perfectly good topic, just not the one we happen to be having, which is about oil as a natural resource. I am all for avoiding “waste”, but waste is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I can walk to work if I wish, but does that make Nathan, who commutes, “wasteful”? Maybe it just means he is making a different choice.
Help me understand how I am to know that something is wasteful as opposed to somebody choosing differently. I know how “waste” is defined in economics, but I am not sure that is what you had in mind.
bbell,
Are you suggesting that what the majority of LDS families do is best? Because everyone else is doing it it’s okay? The “LDS standpoint” isn’t necessarily the Church’s standpoint or God’s standpoint.
Frank said: I am all for avoiding “waste�, but waste is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I can walk to work if I wish, but does that make Nathan, who commutes, “wasteful�? Maybe it just means he is making a different choice.
This is absurd. The “eye of the beholder” can work for beauty because it’s a feeling inside us, not a natural resource. You can’t say waste is relative. If something is depleted then it’s depleted. If it’s burned away into CO2, then it no longer exists as oil.
And yes it does make Nathan wasteful because our current system of transportation (whether that’s cars or subways) is not sustainable, it’s not a cradle to cradle system in which the resources can be used again and again at its maximum capacity. The world used to use its resources over and over again, it’s not doing that anymore.
And Frank, your point about choice makes no sense. Waste is waste and has nothing to do with choice. I don’t know how you define waste in economics, but I’m sure it’s something very wordy and over my head.
I just don’t understand why we keep defending something that is bad, but call it a good and justify it because it’s less bad. Can anyone here that is pro-car please, please admit that burning fuel is bad??? You don’t have to admit that it will destroy the earth, but just that it’s not good for it. Anyone?
bbell,
I don’t know which blog you’ve been reading, but I have a hard time seeing any of my comments in your description of them.
Did I say that all LDS must follow my ideas in order to be true LDS? Have I judged any individual on his use/misuse of his stewardship of this earth? Have I said that my ideas are the gospel?
I’ll be careful, Mr. Bell, but you should be careful in ascribing to my words meanings that are not there.
Rusty, if the amount of oil is fixed, then it would seem that using any oil at all, ever is unstustainable, and according to your definition, wasteful.
Do you really think the world would be a better place if we’d never used any oil at all, and just left it in the ground? (This is a not merely a snark, it’s a serious question for those who advocate “sustainability” as a criterion for decision making.)
Also, I’m not sure why you are dismissing Frank’s question. I don’t quite understand how you distinguish between “using” something and “wasting” it.
Rusty,
2 points: it looks like your definition of waste is that waste is using a resource at an unsustainable rate. I am not sure why this is a good definition. We may not need hardly any fossil fuels in a hundred years, so would we be wasting them to not use them now? Do you see the problem with this definition? Sustainable requires thinking about future use and technology.
2. Choices are very relevant. Suppose I tell you I just burned a gallon of gas to get somewhere. Whether or not that is a waste depends very much on where I went. If it was to the hospital– probably a good move. If it was back and forth on my driveway, that’s a waste. If it was out for a scenic drive, is that a waste? Not if I enjoyed it enough, then it was worth it. And it is worth it to some people to have a long commute so they can enjoy other things (live where they wish, work where they wish, etc.). You demand that this must be waste. I think that you are ignoring the benefits people reap from those activities.
If I took my daughter out to have some ice cream at Ben and Jerry’s so we can have a nice daddy-daughter date, even though I may be poor, would this be wasting my meager resources?
Some may argue that I could go to the grocery store and buy the same thing at a cheaper price, or even down grade my choice of ice cream. In their eyes I was very wasteful in their expertise of what I should have done. Perhaps now I won’t have enough money to buy my big screen TV that to them is so much more important.
No, being wasteful is completely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t waste in my commute becuase my family has a larger place to play and feel as though they can go outside at night and enjoy the twinkling stars, the croaking frogs, chirping crickets, and not be worried with traffic or congestion. The gas I use in my commute is a price I am willing to pay for my family’s happiness.
And that price of gas is the price society is telling me I have to pay if I wish to have what I have.
Western Dave, yes, well, the trailing back end of terminal moraines do tend to be a bit rocky, but come on, you are telling me you havent been to Wildwood or Sunken Meadow or Hobart Beach or McAllister? What about Orient Point? I know that one is cheating a little, but that is still north shore.
Mark B, if you mean by “the rest of the world” places like India, China, and other un[der]developed countries where the majority of the population doesnt even own a car, then, yes, your version of reality, which has pretty much nothing to with industrialized America or Europe when it comes to history/society/government/etc, is a nice fit. So, yeah, all you have to do is pretend America doesnt have what it has, and that all of the underdeveloped nations dont wish they did have what we have, and there you have it. And, in case you havent noticed, nobody is arguing in favor of wastefully consuming recources, its just your particular POV that is being argued against.
One problem with using price to determine value is that it’s a crude approximation at best.
Price doesn’t include the costs imposed on others by your use of the car. If I remember Prof. Wimmer’s class from 30 years ago, the economists call them externalities.
Those externalities include air pollution, traffic congestion, and the overall structure/design of the city based on universal automobile use.
Still no takers on admitting that burning oil (especially at the rate we’re doing it) is bad for the earth? Does everyone believe that burning oil is GOOD for the earth? I’m not talking about good for our current families or for getting from A to B, I’m talking about the earth that the oil is derived from. I guess this could lead the conversation to “things we need to sacrifice to live as happy families” and consider that the earth is something it’s okay to damage as long as our families are happy. Is it out of the realm of possibility to believe that we can be good to the earth AND transport ourselves from A to B and have happy families?
Frank,
Your choice to drive to the hospital or move back and forth on your driveway only defines waste as it relates to you, not to the existing property of the oil. The oil burns either way, it’s not coming back either way, its gases damage the atmosphere either way.
Nathan,
You’re right, oil usage doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but what I’m saying is that there can be (are) less wasteful alternatives with the same results. Why do we need to keep defending oil? It’s served it’s purpose! We know of less wasteful (i.e. earth-damaging) ways of getting from A to B, why do we keep grasping and humping the old, dirty, wasteful one?
The funny thing is that I’m not even an environmentalist or even a liberal. I’m just having a hard time understanding why everyone is defending oil when we have the technology to not need it.
Kurt,
If you’d reread my comment, you would see that after “the rest of the world” I said “(even the developed world–Japan and Western Europe)”. Perhaps your browser is set to exclude parenthetical statements.
Your missing that parenthetical makes me wonder how much more of my arguments you have read. I’d be interested in hearing what you think my point of view is, since many of your arguments (and others’) seem to be aimed at things I haven’t said.
Rusty, because oil is cheaper than anything else when it comes to energy return on investment. And people do generally prefer things that are less expensive over more expensive, which is why more people eat at McD’s and Taco Bell than Ruth’s Chris Steak House to get their energy.
Mark,
Most of those externalities, albeit approximation as you say, is met by the taxation of the gas (or producers of fuel). The government although imperfect at best, does watch out for those externalities. As others do come up and society says we need to watch out for them, no doubt taxes will go up.
But alas, Economist I am not. But Frank is, perhaps he could enlighten me if I am remember incorrectly the governments role in those externalities.
Rusty,
I have had this discussion before with a greenpeace loving environmentalist. Even he conceded that money wins. Hence the reason he does not drive a hybrid.
But you are right, emissions from burning fossil fuels, to date, is bad for the earth. I can’t wait for Mr. Fusion. (back to the future)
Kurt,
Does that make it right or acceptable?
Thank you Nathan. That’s all I needed. Now we should be able to rationally talk about how to improve the resources we have.
Frank, if I understand the peak oil argument correctly, and your reaction to it, then
1. The worldwide daily demand for oil is close to matching the current daily supply;
2. Demand for oil is quite inelastic, as people still need to drive even if gas costs $10/gallon;
3. Demand is increasing, particularly because of economic development in Asia;
4. Oil-producing nations may not be able to increase their supply in response to greater demand;
5. At some point, demand could outstrip supply, leading to inflation and incremental change;
6. But the really worrying scenario is: what happens if, say, Venezuela and Nigeria go offline overnight? Gasoline might become prohibitively expensive for a lot of people and stay that way for a long time before market corrections or technological innovation straighten things out again.
If I understand you correctly, you haven’t objected to #1, 2, 3, or 5, but you have doubts about the severity of #4. Perhaps there are massive oil fields waiting to be discovered somewhere, or better ways of pumping it out of the ground. I’m skeptical (how many new ways are there to pump oil?), but there are reasonable arguments to be made either way. The fun part here is that we should know the answer in a reasonable length of time, like 5 years.
But what about #6? Does the futures market see all? I can see how gas futures could smooth out volatility, but a smooth ride from $3/gal to $10/gal would still be painful. (I don’t think paying $3/gallon for gas is a price spike. Triple that, and then we’re cooking with gas. Or not.)
Mark B.,
Trying to sit there and say I havent been reading your stuff and I misunderstand your POV is lame. You say “It’s odd that so many are arguing so strenuously in favor of wasteful exploitation of resources” when nobody is, and when that is pointed out now you say nobody is understanding you?
To address your last comment, even though you dont usually bother to address mine, you ended “They are the reality for most of the world.” The most of the world is represented by China and India, which is what I made reference to. Got it? The reality for the most of world is not that they prefer pedestrian city centers with mass transit, its that they cannot afford anything else. It is just not even a choice for them. And, the Western Europeans do love their cars, as do the Japanese. While they do have more mass transit than us, they also enjoy a much more compact geography, so it makes more sense.
Rusty,
Economics isnt all that concerned with right or acceptable. How many people consider eating at McD or TB a matter of public ethics or personal morality? Its the same with buying organic, its more expensive and while the market is expanding, cost concious consumers arent abandoning non-organic in droves when an organic alternative becomes available. Thats just plain old reality. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak…and that applies to economics as well as spiritual matters.
Rusty, waste is expending more energy to accomplish an action than is actually required. So driving back and forth in your driveway is wasteful, because at the end of the day your car is only at the end of the driveway, which you could have accomplished with a tablespoon of gas.
Driving a car to work is wasteful, because you don’t need two tons of steel at your office, but rather just your body, so you’ve expended lots of energy to move your car when much less would have moved your body. There might be reasons why this waste is acceptable to you, however (your office is 60 miles from your home, you value your time, everyone at work laughs at the bus commuters, etc.). Some solutions to the commuting problem are relatively wasteful in terms of energy and expense compared to others (taking a helicopter rather than driving, driving a 4-ton dump truck instead of a car).
Re: Nathan’s #47.
It’s sadly ironic that some PR flack turned politician decided to name a highway “Legacy”. Because in fact that is an enduring legacy that we’re leaving to our children.
I don’t know any of the details of that road, but I do know the history of building roads to solve congestion: it doesn’t work.
It seems that commuters are economic animals, after all, and that they assign some cost to the time spent commuting. When new roadways are built, the costs of that particular commute drop, and that low price draws additional commuters up to the equilibrium, where the commuting time will be essentially what it is now on I-15.
It’s happened with every new freeway opened in the Los Angeles area for the past half century, and there’s no reason to believe that the laws of economics will be suspended in Davis County.
Kurt,
You’re right, economics is information based on what has happened in the past. I’m talking about what we should do in the future. Because that’s the way things are done now doesn’t mean that’s the way we should continue to do them. We know fast food is bad for us, we know burning oil is bad for the earth, we should at least strive to change those things.
Jonathan,
I’m not disagreeing with you. We were talking about oil consumption and my point is that burning oil to do something that we now can do without burning oil is wasteful.
someday a budding Bill Gate like guy will invent a pollution free source of energy. Till then we have what we have.
I always find it amusing to hear from politicians/celebrities about how important protecting the environment is. Then realize that they live in mansions, own fleets of cars and fly in private jets. Its hard to take them seriously. John Kerry used to show up at campaign stops in a private Jet and drive around in huge convoys of armored limo’s from he and his wifes multiple mansions scattered across the country
Its easier to take seriously somebody who does not own a car though.
Till then we have what we have.
That’s the spirit of progress!
Sustainability isn’t just an environmentalist ideology. According to our prophets it seems to be part of our theology as well. But I guess that would require one to believe that self-sufficiency and sustainability are related. And fwiw, there are indications that the Church is opposed to fossil fuels and is trying to learn how to ween themselves off of them.
Rusty, I ask you again, what do you mean by “sustainability?” Does it mean that we shouldn’t use any oil, ever, because to do so is unsustainable? If not, what does it mean?
Ed,
A definition commonly used is “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” And future generations shouldn’t have to change their needs in order to meet them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t use any oil ever, but because the way that we are using it is not sustainable (not usable for future generations and harmful to current/future generations) then we should try to figure out a better alternative.
I’ll betcha there are people right now trying to come up with new ways to get about that will not use oil. Heck, the Fuel Cells are probably just around the corner.
Darn that Prometheus, giving mankind fire and civilization. May his immortal liver be eaten day after day. Whenever concerns for the fate of the planet arise, Lynn Margulis comes to mind. She pointed out that if all animals and flowering plants died, the bulk of life and its diversity would still be there in the microbes. She’s a woman who really likes microbes.
So Rusty, you are predicting that future generations will have a lower overall standard of living than the current generations, because of current oil use? Or are you saying there will be some specific “needs” that will go unmet, relative to the current situation? I’m having trouble understanding what you’re predicting.
They are, Nathan. But it’s a big corner.
Fuel cells run on hydrogen, which is the most plentiful of elements. Only problem is that virtually all of the world’s hydrogen is in compound form, and it is an energy-expensive process to extricate it from those compounds. To paraphrase Coleridge (remember, I’m a loony English professor) “Water water everywhere, and not any free hydrogen.”
Besides which, transporting and storing hydrogen is dangerous. Generally, the only time cars explode is in the movies, and a can or puddle of liquid gasoline will burn only slightly faster than a can of sterno. Believe me, I’ve tried it. But hydrogen–just remember one line “Oh the humanity!” Need I say more?
Rusty, I haven’t gotten through all the recent comments, and I don’t know if I will today, but let me just hop back in to say that burning oil has a downside. It does put pollution into the air and it means we can’t use that oil later. Those are bad things. If you were worried that I didn’t know that, let me assure you that I do.
Now that we’ve discussed the costs, perhaps we can talk about the benefits (financial and non-financial) too. And then we can maximize the difference between the costs and the benefits to get the optimal oil usage (welcome to economics).
JG,
“I can see how gas futures could smooth out volatility, but a smooth ride from $3/gal to $10/gal would still be painful.”
I also think #2 is overstated _over the long run_. In the short term, people carpool, take the bus, take fewer trips, etc. In the long term (2-5 years) they buy fuel efficient cars. In the very long term they move closer to work, etc. So the demand inelasticity is probably overblown, but one could probably find an estimate in the literature on this, which would be better than me guessing. And that elasticity is exactly what you need to know in order to know how much prices will rise as supply declines. Essentially, imagine a vertical supply curve for a given year. A supply drop moves you left, up the demand curve. You get higher prices, but how much higher depends on the slope of the demand curve. And we know that that curve is much flatter the longer the time frame. Flatter curve means less of a price rise for any given shock.
So here’s the scenario, futures markets and stockpiling mitigate (but don’t stop) price shocks in the short term, higher demand elasticity mitigates them in the long term. And as you or someone else noted, in the long run we have time to switch our infrasctructure and our driving habits and our technology. If this peak oil thing is really an issue (and I am sure I don’t know), I don’t see any reason to think it is the end of the automobile as Mark predicts. But definitely one should see moves to other energy sources, etc., as people react.
Ahhhh, the effeciencies of an open, free market (with some government involved, but you will likely never get away from that)
Thanks, Frank. You make me want to go back to school for the economics major I opted out of.
Frank,
Your analysis of consumer responses to higher oil prices makes sense, and it may well be that demand is more elastic than some think.
On the other side of the analysis, in the very long term, is the inelasticity of housing supply. There’s no quick or easy way to convert single family housing of 10 dwellings per block, for example, to mixed (single family/multiple dwellings) housing of 30 dwellings per block–and that inelasticity of supply will increase the pain of that transition, even in the very long run.
I am with you regarding the issue of peak oil–I’ve read those who predict that we are nearing 50% of the reserves known or likely to be known (this last requires a knowledge of geology and the likelihood of finding oil in new places that is beyond me)–and it is probably better to leave that end of the discussion to someone other than economists or lawyers (I am not a loony English professor, no matter what some may say).
Even leaving the issue of depletion of oil off the table, I think it’s time for a new paradigm in urban planning–one which I think many of us would awake to and say, “Gee, this is nice. Why didn’t we think of this years ago?”
Nathan,
The efficiencies of an open market at times are like the efficiencies of a democratic system. The two wolves do in fact decide to eat the sheep for supper. Efficient! :-)
Mark, I can’t agree with your comments about there being no quick or easy way to convert single family housing to mixed housing. I see it happening every day in my neighborhood. Twenty years ago it was entirely single family housing, but with the steep rise in LA house prices and our relative proximity to downtown LA we have seen an explosion of condo building. One or two houses on larger lots get torn down and are replaced with ten to twenty two story condos with subterranean parking. That process has occurred five times in the last few years in just the few blocks near my house.
It’s pretty quick and easy if you’ve got available capital, friendly zoning and demand. People see an opportunity and exploit it… one of those efficiencies of the open market.
Frank,
Yes, the benefits are legion. But it’s nice to know that you can admit that there are costs.
The influence of Utah Valley on world oil production is a well-kept secret. The majority of wells drilled anywhere in the world use polycrystalline diamond (PCD) cutters from (in order of sales) U.S. Synthetic (Orem), Smith-Megadiamond (Provo), or Reed-Hycalog (formerly Novatek), (Provo.) Use of PCD, both on roller bits and shear bits, has revolutionized drilling technology and has led to new discoveries and increased utilization of existing discoveries. All three companies trace their technology to Tracy Hall, Sr, of BYU.
http://ussynthetic.com/
http://www.megadiamond.com/
http://www.reedhycalog.com/
http://www.novatekonline.com/
Another Provo company, IntelliServ, founded by Novatek but now wholly-owned by Grant Prideco, of Houston, intends to revolutionize intelligent drilling with a communication network based on wired drill pipe utilizing “user transparent” inductive coulings in the pipe joints. The IntelliServ downhole network offers communication rates of 1 million bits per second, compared to exisiting mud-pulse technology of 6 bits per second. The technology is now being introduced commercially after drilling about 40 miles of test wells. Intelligent drilling with sophisticated new downhole measurement-while-drilling and logging-while-drilling tools should greatly enhance exploration and development of difficult formations.
http://www.intellipipe.com//
As a participant in this industry, I am convinced that new technology, driven by high demand, will continue to find and develop new oil and gas reserves that were not previously thought possible.
Those stuck on I-15 in Lehi at 5 miles per hour may notice a new kind of vehicle adding to the congestion — unmarked oil tankers delivering crude oil from Wolverine’s new discovery near Sigurd, in central Utah, to the refineries north of Salt Lake City. This discovery, in the Navojo Sandstone formation, is based on “out of the box” thinking by a geologist who re-analyzed decades of unproductive seismic work in central Utah. Some believe that it will prove to be the largest oil discovery in the continental U.S. in 30 years.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/04apr/covenant.cfm
http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/NEWS01/505050343&SearchID=73207161050086
All the vast vistas of bleached Navajo Sandstone throughout the Colorado Plateau were once saturated with hydrocarbons — one of the largest hydrocarbon reservoirs ever known. Its uplift and erosion may have, at one time, influenced global climate. The Wolverine discover shows that formation still has plenty of buried pockets with trapped hydrocarbons.
http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2FG19794.1