Implications of Peak Oil for Industrialized Societies
Guy McPherson & Jake Weltzin
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, June 2008, Pages 187-191
Abstract:
The world passed the halfway point of oil supply in 2005. World demand for oil likely will severely outstrip supply in 2008, leading to increasingly higher oil prices. Consequences are likely to include increasing gasoline prices, rapidly increasing inflation, and subsequently a series of increasingly severe recessions followed by a worldwide economic depression. Consequences may include, particularly in industrialized countries such as the United States, massive unemployment, economic collapse, and chaos.
So, we have a professor of evolutionary ecology, and the director of something called the "USA National Phenology Network." And not enough economics between them to power a 3-watt fluorescent dim bulb.
Oh, and check this. Remarkable.
Reminds me of another famous bed-wetter, Paul Ehrlich. Some of his predictions:
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. —Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. —Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. —Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion. —Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
Finally, remember global cooling? It went like this:
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. —Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)
It turned out that the solution to "global cooling" was to....end capitalism. I could give you 20 more quotes from equally reputable, equally certain, scientists of actual credentials. In 1971, there was a consensus, among the kind of pop scientists that Al Gore now likes to quote, that there was global cooling. Really. (Source for these delightful quotes here)
Could we have riots, and inflation, because of energy prices? Yes, yes if we could. If we try to interfere with the price mechanism. If we let prices alone, then other technologies will come on line smoothly, as they become profitable. (Yes, you're right, we should also stop fighting stupid wars over oil, but that's a different subject, more like "pique oil.")
And what about global cooling...ah....warming? It could be bad, too. But not so bad that "peak oil" lunatics can't make it worse.
(Lagniappe: My own thoughts, discussed with Russ Roberts, on "peak oil." And, don't forget "the bet.")
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query peak oil. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query peak oil. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, May 26, 2008
Monday, October 08, 2007
Baby, It's Cold Out There!
I first read this, and assumed it was a parody.
Well....it IS, but not an intentional one.
There was a power failure, and Dr. Roth sat and thought of how this temporary, storm-caused power failure give "some insight into some of the issues likely to confront us as peak oil and gas approach."
Russ and I took up this lunacy a bit on our podcast. So, that's all you really need to know: Peak oil--dumb concept. Sitting in four layers of clothing and thinking about peak oil while wearing a beanie--Pointless.
Well....it IS, but not an intentional one.
There was a power failure, and Dr. Roth sat and thought of how this temporary, storm-caused power failure give "some insight into some of the issues likely to confront us as peak oil and gas approach."
Russ and I took up this lunacy a bit on our podcast. So, that's all you really need to know: Peak oil--dumb concept. Sitting in four layers of clothing and thinking about peak oil while wearing a beanie--Pointless.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Death of the Peak Oil Idiocy
Oil production is skyrocketing, and the only reason it is not going up even more is that we have stopped drilling.
I'm fine with that, there's no hurry. But the point is there is PLENTY of oil. Peak oil is peak idiocy.
I'm fine with that, there's no hurry. But the point is there is PLENTY of oil. Peak oil is peak idiocy.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Peak Idiocy
Of all the idiotic things that people believe, the whole "peak oil" thing has to be right up there. It is literally impossible for us to run out of oil. We have never run out of anything, and we never will.
If we did start to use up the oil we have...(though, counting shale oil, we still haven't used even 10% of the total KNOWN reserves on earth, and there are lots of places we haven't looked)...but suppose we were on our way to using it up. Three things would happen.
1. Prices would rise, causing people to cut back on use. More fuel effcient cars, better insulation on houses, etc. Quantity demanded goes down.
2. Prices would rise, causing people to look for more. And they would find more oil, and more ways to get at it. Quantity supplied goes up.
3. Prices of oil would rise, making the search for substitutes more profitable. At that point (though not now!) alternative fuels and energy sources would be economical, and would not require gubmint subsidies, because they would pay for themselves. The supply curve for substitutes shifts downward and to the right.
This is econ 101. Even Paul ("I sold my soul to become a wanker") Krugman would credit this scenario.
But we ignore econ 101. And so we get this debacle. Ethanol was bad enough when it was just inefficient to produce and wasting more energy than it created. But we actually went further and bought too much of the stuff.
Yikes.
(Nod to Anonyman)
If we did start to use up the oil we have...(though, counting shale oil, we still haven't used even 10% of the total KNOWN reserves on earth, and there are lots of places we haven't looked)...but suppose we were on our way to using it up. Three things would happen.
1. Prices would rise, causing people to cut back on use. More fuel effcient cars, better insulation on houses, etc. Quantity demanded goes down.
2. Prices would rise, causing people to look for more. And they would find more oil, and more ways to get at it. Quantity supplied goes up.
3. Prices of oil would rise, making the search for substitutes more profitable. At that point (though not now!) alternative fuels and energy sources would be economical, and would not require gubmint subsidies, because they would pay for themselves. The supply curve for substitutes shifts downward and to the right.
This is econ 101. Even Paul ("I sold my soul to become a wanker") Krugman would credit this scenario.
But we ignore econ 101. And so we get this debacle. Ethanol was bad enough when it was just inefficient to produce and wasting more energy than it created. But we actually went further and bought too much of the stuff.
Yikes.
(Nod to Anonyman)
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Peak Oil is Peak Idiocy
Oil may get more expensive. Oil may cause pollution, depending on how it's used. We may at some point find a way to use something else.
But we are not going to run out of oil. That handsome Mark Perry has some facts for us.
But we are not going to run out of oil. That handsome Mark Perry has some facts for us.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Credit Where Credit is Due
Two predictions on crude oil prices:
1. Me, September 2007, driving car pool to school for my son--"There is no fundamental reason why crude oil prices should be above $45/barrel. It makes no sense, given production costs and the difficulties of enforcing cartel discipline. Prices will come back down, mark my words."
2. Shawn Tully, of Fortune Magazine: "Why the Boom Will Eventually Bust."
The current price of crude oil: $43.40/barrel
The current credibility of those "peak oil" morons: Zero, same as always.
1. Me, September 2007, driving car pool to school for my son--"There is no fundamental reason why crude oil prices should be above $45/barrel. It makes no sense, given production costs and the difficulties of enforcing cartel discipline. Prices will come back down, mark my words."
2. Shawn Tully, of Fortune Magazine: "Why the Boom Will Eventually Bust."
The current price of crude oil: $43.40/barrel
The current credibility of those "peak oil" morons: Zero, same as always.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Video on Gas Price Hypocrisy
It is remarkable to watch how the ideological bias of the media condihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftions the response to higher gas prices. And the president's scorn for SUVs is impressive, especially since this is his ride.
We have talked before about how higher prices may have some useful effects. In particular, we are not going to "run out" of oil, even though the peak oil harpies shriek about it.
But you can't say the effects of X are bad if Republicans are in power, but good if Democrats are in power.
We have talked before about how higher prices may have some useful effects. In particular, we are not going to "run out" of oil, even though the peak oil harpies shriek about it.
But you can't say the effects of X are bad if Republicans are in power, but good if Democrats are in power.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Rolling Stone Gets it Right!!
Kudos to RS and Jeff Goodell for this article (intro posted below):
The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.
Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to f*** off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."
This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.
So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.
Rolling Stone: not so good on music but aces on political economy!!
hat tip to Mark Perry.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Monday's Child is Full of Links
1. Some people jabber about food deserts. Turns out they live in brain desert. Grocery store access does not cause people to eat more healthily. (Healthily?)
2. You won a Dem primary and you don't drive a hybrid?
3. Angus (rightly) made fun of people who say, "If raising the minimum wage is good, why not raise it more?" A problem is that there are some people who advocate the minimum who actually do make EXACTLY this argument. Elizabeth Warren, for example, who presumably knows better.
4. And just when we were worried that there might not be enough self-absorbed idiots on the Republican side of the US House....Mark Sanford comes to the rescue!
5. Icarus flew too close to the sun, and got burned. The nations of the world are trying to fly too close to the solar panels, and taxpayers are getting burned. Let me guess: the answer is more regulation, and possibly even government production.
6. Solar power is a net loss of resources. It takes more energy to make the panels, in the form of various subsidies, than the panels can return from the sun. That's okay, it's not the panels' fault. The problem is the government subsidies. We are investing in solar not because it helps the environment, but because we can get paid subsidies. When the subsidies stop, solar turns out to be a big waste of money.
7. My kind of environmentalist, from Top Gear. The whole packaging thing does bother me. I'd rather buy less packaging. And drive old cars much too fast.
8. The sell-off in muni bonds, from the always interesting Sober Look.
9. Peak oil was peak idiocy. And always will be.
10. So many of our young entrepreneurs are in jail. There are many things with our society, but that's a big one.
11. Secret, and actually illegal, internet census. Very cool.
12. Not the Onion. Who could possibly have thought this was a good idea?
2. You won a Dem primary and you don't drive a hybrid?
3. Angus (rightly) made fun of people who say, "If raising the minimum wage is good, why not raise it more?" A problem is that there are some people who advocate the minimum who actually do make EXACTLY this argument. Elizabeth Warren, for example, who presumably knows better.
4. And just when we were worried that there might not be enough self-absorbed idiots on the Republican side of the US House....Mark Sanford comes to the rescue!
5. Icarus flew too close to the sun, and got burned. The nations of the world are trying to fly too close to the solar panels, and taxpayers are getting burned. Let me guess: the answer is more regulation, and possibly even government production.
6. Solar power is a net loss of resources. It takes more energy to make the panels, in the form of various subsidies, than the panels can return from the sun. That's okay, it's not the panels' fault. The problem is the government subsidies. We are investing in solar not because it helps the environment, but because we can get paid subsidies. When the subsidies stop, solar turns out to be a big waste of money.
7. My kind of environmentalist, from Top Gear. The whole packaging thing does bother me. I'd rather buy less packaging. And drive old cars much too fast.
8. The sell-off in muni bonds, from the always interesting Sober Look.
9. Peak oil was peak idiocy. And always will be.
10. So many of our young entrepreneurs are in jail. There are many things with our society, but that's a big one.
11. Secret, and actually illegal, internet census. Very cool.
12. Not the Onion. Who could possibly have thought this was a good idea?
Monday, June 03, 2013
Monday's Child is Full of Links
1. Victory through commercial sponsorship?: "The United States might not be the most popular country in the Middle East these days, but in addition to Chevrolet, [Arab Idol's] sponsors include Pepsi, Twix and Kentucky Fried Chicken"
2. It's really BAD that a Chinese company is buying Smithfield Foods, because....well, because it's really BAD!
3. France worried that it will be swamped by English-speakers, because it is losing out on English-speaking students because it is so aggressively obnoxious to English-speakers. Just reading this makes you realize how justifiably worried the French are to be French. They are headed to a hard-earned and well-deserved irrelevance.
4. Capitalism: Laugh track, or last laugh?
5. Prof. Fisher of Yale replies to socialist Stokes, on disappearance of interest rates.
6. The folks at SCOTUS show a "remarkable outbreak of harmony."
7. A man who takes spelling VERY seriously.
8. US Political Polarization, Duke study.
9. Tinfoil Hat on grant system, and on how it wastes resources
10. Come the revolution, we won't need no stinkin' religion!
11. Ripped from the pages of Atlas Shrugged: I would not have believed this, but it's true.
12. Gun Free Zone App: really?
13. Could Anonyman's generation be any more self-absorbed and solipsistic? Answer: No. Some evidence.
14. Taylor Swift bought a giant beach house, and walked around downtown, in the LMM's hometown. In Westerly, this is the biggest thing since Roughie threw that putter through a car windshield. Heck, maybe bigger.
15. NASA seems to be dealing with the sequester just fine!
16. Scott Adams delightfully trivializes P-Kroog.
17. Peak Oil is peak idiocy, more idiotic every day.
18. The Tiger Stripes of Enceladus (sounds like a Heinlein novel title, says Angry Alex)
Headline Meme:
1. Beavers attack people in Belarus
2. Worrying New Trend Sees Diet-Conscious Drinkers Inhale Alcohol to Avoid Calories
3. N.M. driver drove drunk while having sex . (Although, this story is NOT all contained in the headline. It gets much better, reading the whole thing)
Monday, July 01, 2013
Monday's Child
1. Nuclear power, arise?
2. The first mass school shooting. In Germany, no less. In 1913.
3. Peak Oil is peak idiocy. A good discussion of why.
4. How social Darwinism made modern China...
5. Bill Gates on "giving up using the government."
MUCH more after the jump...
2. The first mass school shooting. In Germany, no less. In 1913.
3. Peak Oil is peak idiocy. A good discussion of why.
4. How social Darwinism made modern China...
5. Bill Gates on "giving up using the government."
MUCH more after the jump...
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Your Latin America Roundup
1. Venezuela: the girl can't help it! Hugo, the serial nationalizer has done it again. On top of his recent announcement of nationalization of the cement industry, he is now going to nationalize the main steel producer in the country, which is an Argentine firm. These nationalizations are well beyond screwing with the USA as now firms of neutral (Mexico) and allied (Argentina) countries are being targeted. Predictably but sadly, these action are touted as the way to reduce shortages and lower prices domestically.
2. Ecuador: Standin' on shaky ground. President Correa's campaign to bring the military under his control has hit a very rough patch.
3. Cuba: Be it ever so humble. "Thousands of Cubans will be able to get title to state-owned homes under regulations published Friday, a step that could lay the groundwork for broader housing reform. The measure was the first legal decree formally published since Raúl Castro succeeded his brother Fidel as president in February. It came a day after state television said the government would also do away with wage limits, allowing state employees to earn as much they can as an incentive to productivity. The housing decree spells out rules to let Cubans renting from their state employers keep their apartment or house after leaving their jobs. They could gain title and even pass it on to their children or other relatives. Those who could take advantage of the new law include military families, sugar workers, construction workers, teachers and doctors."
Wow that sounds cool. Any fine print??
By law, Cubans still are not permitted to sell their homes to anyone but the government, though they may swap housing with government approval — a process that can take years.
ouch!
4. Mexico: Little by little. President Calderon has introduced legislation that shine a little light into the black hole that is PEMEX. "But the limited measures effectively ended any expectation that Mexico would soon take steps to open important parts of its energy industry. With one of the world’s most protected energy sectors, Mexico is the third most important supplier of crude oil to the United States. But production by the state-run oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, has fallen more than 10 percent since reaching a peak in 2004. Crude oil exports, too, have begun to slide. Pemex has failed to invest enough in exploration or refining, and pipelines and storage facilities have deteriorated. Mexico now imports 40 percent of its gasoline. Analysts predicted that the proposed legislation would do little to change all that. “They are maybe taking 50 tiny steps in the right direction,” said David Shields, an analyst based here who writes extensively on Pemex. “That’s better than nothing, but it’s not much better than nothing.”
2. Ecuador: Standin' on shaky ground. President Correa's campaign to bring the military under his control has hit a very rough patch.
3. Cuba: Be it ever so humble. "Thousands of Cubans will be able to get title to state-owned homes under regulations published Friday, a step that could lay the groundwork for broader housing reform. The measure was the first legal decree formally published since Raúl Castro succeeded his brother Fidel as president in February. It came a day after state television said the government would also do away with wage limits, allowing state employees to earn as much they can as an incentive to productivity. The housing decree spells out rules to let Cubans renting from their state employers keep their apartment or house after leaving their jobs. They could gain title and even pass it on to their children or other relatives. Those who could take advantage of the new law include military families, sugar workers, construction workers, teachers and doctors."
Wow that sounds cool. Any fine print??
By law, Cubans still are not permitted to sell their homes to anyone but the government, though they may swap housing with government approval — a process that can take years.
ouch!
4. Mexico: Little by little. President Calderon has introduced legislation that shine a little light into the black hole that is PEMEX. "But the limited measures effectively ended any expectation that Mexico would soon take steps to open important parts of its energy industry. With one of the world’s most protected energy sectors, Mexico is the third most important supplier of crude oil to the United States. But production by the state-run oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, has fallen more than 10 percent since reaching a peak in 2004. Crude oil exports, too, have begun to slide. Pemex has failed to invest enough in exploration or refining, and pipelines and storage facilities have deteriorated. Mexico now imports 40 percent of its gasoline. Analysts predicted that the proposed legislation would do little to change all that. “They are maybe taking 50 tiny steps in the right direction,” said David Shields, an analyst based here who writes extensively on Pemex. “That’s better than nothing, but it’s not much better than nothing.”
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Private Bus Systems
How long before the public transit authorities try to outlaw this? After all, if the public monopoly starts to lose ridership...well, there ought to be a law!
March 10, 2007 NEW YORK TIMES
Google’s Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush
By MIGUEL HELFT
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — The perks of working at Google are the envy of Silicon Valley. Unlimited amounts of free chef-prepared food at all times of day. A climbing wall, a volleyball court and two lap pools. On-site car washes, oil changes and haircuts, not to mention free doctor checkups.
But the biggest perk may come with the morning commute.
In Silicon Valley, a region known for some of the worst traffic in the nation, Google, the Internet search engine giant and online advertising behemoth, has turned itself into Google, the mass transit operator. Its aim is to make commuting painless for its pampered workers — and keep attracting new recruits in a notoriously competitive market for top engineering talent.
And Google can get a couple of extra hours of work out of employees who would otherwise be behind the wheel of a car.
The company now ferries about 1,200 employees to and from Google daily — nearly one-fourth of its local work force — aboard 32 shuttle buses equipped with comfortable leather seats and wireless Internet access. Bicycles are allowed on exterior racks, and dogs on forward seats, or on their owners’ laps if the buses run full.
Riders can sign up to receive alerts on their computers and cellphones when buses run late. They also get to burnish their green credentials, not just for ditching their cars, but because all Google shuttles run on biodiesel. Oh, and the shuttles are free.
But if the specifics sound quintessentially Googley, as insiders call the company’s quirky corporate culture, it is the shuttle program’s sheer scale that befits Google’s oversize ambitions. This is, after all, a company whose stated goal is to organize the world’s information — and whose founders’ corporate jet is a Boeing 767.
“We are basically running a small municipal transit agency,” said Marty Lev, Google’s director of security and safety, who oversees the program.
Not that small, really. The shuttles, which carry up to 37 passengers each and display no sign suggesting they carry Googlers, have become a fixture of local freeways. They run 132 trips every day to some 40 pickup and drop-off locations in more than a dozen cities, crisscrossing six counties in the San Francisco Bay Area and logging some 4,400 miles.
They pick up workers as far away as Concord, 54 miles northeast of the Googleplex, as the company’s sprawling Mountain View headquarters are known, and Santa Cruz, 38 miles to the south. The system’s routes cover in excess of 230 miles of freeways, more than twice the extent of the region’s BART commuter train system, which has 104 miles of tracks.
Morning service starts on some routes at 5:05 a.m. — sometimes carrying those Google chefs — and the last pickup is at 10:40 a.m. Evening service runs from 3:40 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. During peak times, pickups can be as frequent as every 15 minutes.
At Google headquarters, a small team of transportation specialists monitors regional traffic patterns, maps out the residences of new hires and plots new routes — sometimes as many as 10 in a three-month period — to keep up with ever surging demand.
Many employers run programs for commuters, including van pools, shuttles to and from transit hubs and subsidies for public transit and alternative modes of transportation, but several transportation experts say Google appears to have built an unparalleled transit network.
ATSRTWT
(Nod to Tofe. And good job with those Butterburgers. The grass looks greener already)
March 10, 2007 NEW YORK TIMES
Google’s Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush
By MIGUEL HELFT
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — The perks of working at Google are the envy of Silicon Valley. Unlimited amounts of free chef-prepared food at all times of day. A climbing wall, a volleyball court and two lap pools. On-site car washes, oil changes and haircuts, not to mention free doctor checkups.
But the biggest perk may come with the morning commute.
In Silicon Valley, a region known for some of the worst traffic in the nation, Google, the Internet search engine giant and online advertising behemoth, has turned itself into Google, the mass transit operator. Its aim is to make commuting painless for its pampered workers — and keep attracting new recruits in a notoriously competitive market for top engineering talent.
And Google can get a couple of extra hours of work out of employees who would otherwise be behind the wheel of a car.
The company now ferries about 1,200 employees to and from Google daily — nearly one-fourth of its local work force — aboard 32 shuttle buses equipped with comfortable leather seats and wireless Internet access. Bicycles are allowed on exterior racks, and dogs on forward seats, or on their owners’ laps if the buses run full.
Riders can sign up to receive alerts on their computers and cellphones when buses run late. They also get to burnish their green credentials, not just for ditching their cars, but because all Google shuttles run on biodiesel. Oh, and the shuttles are free.
But if the specifics sound quintessentially Googley, as insiders call the company’s quirky corporate culture, it is the shuttle program’s sheer scale that befits Google’s oversize ambitions. This is, after all, a company whose stated goal is to organize the world’s information — and whose founders’ corporate jet is a Boeing 767.
“We are basically running a small municipal transit agency,” said Marty Lev, Google’s director of security and safety, who oversees the program.
Not that small, really. The shuttles, which carry up to 37 passengers each and display no sign suggesting they carry Googlers, have become a fixture of local freeways. They run 132 trips every day to some 40 pickup and drop-off locations in more than a dozen cities, crisscrossing six counties in the San Francisco Bay Area and logging some 4,400 miles.
They pick up workers as far away as Concord, 54 miles northeast of the Googleplex, as the company’s sprawling Mountain View headquarters are known, and Santa Cruz, 38 miles to the south. The system’s routes cover in excess of 230 miles of freeways, more than twice the extent of the region’s BART commuter train system, which has 104 miles of tracks.
Morning service starts on some routes at 5:05 a.m. — sometimes carrying those Google chefs — and the last pickup is at 10:40 a.m. Evening service runs from 3:40 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. During peak times, pickups can be as frequent as every 15 minutes.
At Google headquarters, a small team of transportation specialists monitors regional traffic patterns, maps out the residences of new hires and plots new routes — sometimes as many as 10 in a three-month period — to keep up with ever surging demand.
Many employers run programs for commuters, including van pools, shuttles to and from transit hubs and subsidies for public transit and alternative modes of transportation, but several transportation experts say Google appears to have built an unparalleled transit network.
ATSRTWT
(Nod to Tofe. And good job with those Butterburgers. The grass looks greener already)
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Just Get Prices Right...
People don't like scarcity. Resources they like should be available in infinite quantity at a zero, or an "affordable" price.
Me, I don't like gravity. Let's legislate that away. I'm 6'1". I should be able to dunk. Sure, I'm fat and out of shape. But the REAL problem is physics. As Sinead said: "Fight the real enemy!", in this case: gravity. I'm being denied an important civil dunking right here. There ought to be a law.
Okay, gravity is a physical law, not a statute. But we have no more chance of solving the problem of scarcity by outlawing it. Reminds of Winnie Churchill's line: You can't promote peace simply by praising its virtues. You can't promote cheap, infinite supplies of stuff simply by saying how nice it would be if we had cheap, infinite supplies of stuff. Even though it's true that it would be nice.
But if you allow markets to work properly, you can get lots more stuff, and lots cheaper stuff.
Take electricity....please. We cap price, give producers incentives to pad their rate base with nonproductive assets, and then whine when we run short. Sean at Catallarchy makes a nice comparison: what other business tries to tell its customers to use less of its product?
The solution is to let electricity producers price discriminate, by time. If they could charge the full marginal cost to customers, then peak load problems go away. Yes, lots of people might go without AC, but they wouldn't leave their AC running because the cross-subsidized rate is too low to make them care.
And, if prices could rise to their market-clearing level, all those other technologies that tree-hugging bed-wetters love so much (solar, geothermal, squirrels on little wheels hooked to generators (unless this happened), generators run by violent wave motion in my waterbed, etc) would actual become economically feasible. Charging the market price for electricity is the best thing that could happen for the environment.
Just get prices right. Everything else falls into place without direction, or orders from the nanny.
UPDATE: To RL in Canadiana...we subsidize GASOLINE even more, pumpkin. We would have electric cars in just a couple of years if we charged market prices for gas. But we don't. It wasn't the automakers who killed the electric car, they just pulled the trigger. Our tax policies and foreign policies, the ones that keep gas prices at least a dollar or more below the true price...that is what aimed the gun at the electric car and cocked it. Why would you blame corporations for trying to make profits? It's what they do. But when government enables corporations to misuse market power, because the UAW is such a strong voting bloc in a few states, and because oil companies make big contributions....just get prices right. If gas prices rise to their natural level, consumer demand for electric cars will overwhelm automaker opposition. I'm not sure why CNN got that so wrong. Wait...I am sure. They have no clue about how markets work, and they love the nanny.
Me, I don't like gravity. Let's legislate that away. I'm 6'1". I should be able to dunk. Sure, I'm fat and out of shape. But the REAL problem is physics. As Sinead said: "Fight the real enemy!", in this case: gravity. I'm being denied an important civil dunking right here. There ought to be a law.
Okay, gravity is a physical law, not a statute. But we have no more chance of solving the problem of scarcity by outlawing it. Reminds of Winnie Churchill's line: You can't promote peace simply by praising its virtues. You can't promote cheap, infinite supplies of stuff simply by saying how nice it would be if we had cheap, infinite supplies of stuff. Even though it's true that it would be nice.
But if you allow markets to work properly, you can get lots more stuff, and lots cheaper stuff.
Take electricity....please. We cap price, give producers incentives to pad their rate base with nonproductive assets, and then whine when we run short. Sean at Catallarchy makes a nice comparison: what other business tries to tell its customers to use less of its product?
The solution is to let electricity producers price discriminate, by time. If they could charge the full marginal cost to customers, then peak load problems go away. Yes, lots of people might go without AC, but they wouldn't leave their AC running because the cross-subsidized rate is too low to make them care.
And, if prices could rise to their market-clearing level, all those other technologies that tree-hugging bed-wetters love so much (solar, geothermal, squirrels on little wheels hooked to generators (unless this happened), generators run by violent wave motion in my waterbed, etc) would actual become economically feasible. Charging the market price for electricity is the best thing that could happen for the environment.
Just get prices right. Everything else falls into place without direction, or orders from the nanny.
UPDATE: To RL in Canadiana...we subsidize GASOLINE even more, pumpkin. We would have electric cars in just a couple of years if we charged market prices for gas. But we don't. It wasn't the automakers who killed the electric car, they just pulled the trigger. Our tax policies and foreign policies, the ones that keep gas prices at least a dollar or more below the true price...that is what aimed the gun at the electric car and cocked it. Why would you blame corporations for trying to make profits? It's what they do. But when government enables corporations to misuse market power, because the UAW is such a strong voting bloc in a few states, and because oil companies make big contributions....just get prices right. If gas prices rise to their natural level, consumer demand for electric cars will overwhelm automaker opposition. I'm not sure why CNN got that so wrong. Wait...I am sure. They have no clue about how markets work, and they love the nanny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)