THE INELASTIC PERSPECTIVE OF THE TIGER RIDERS

Adam Smith is smiling.

He never did like Tiger Riders, always believed in that invisible hand.

Since 1973 – when I started paying careful attention (and when our Household made decisions to cut non-renewable energy consumption at the Household scale) – every time there has been a jump in fuel prices or lines at the gas stations citizens have changed their habits.

This time is no exception. Yesterday’s headline at the top of WaPo Page 1 reads: “At $4 a Gallon, Rethinking Cars’ Reign.” In a CNN poll, most expect fuel shortages. “$5 a gallon by Fall” is the word on the street and Congress just gave speculators a green light.

Over the same 35 years, every time some one suggests that:

• Industrialized nation-states have to rethink dependence on Large, Private Vehicles for Mobility and Access there has been a chant about Americans loving Autonomobiles, or

• A fair allocation of the cost of location-variable goods and services, the Tiger Riders talk about the inelasticity of gasoline prices, the prospect of cheap alternative fuels and unending supplies inexpensive energy.

These smokescreens are just part much larger and more important deceptions related to the trajectory of civilization.

In December of 2006 we suggested there was a need for “A New Metric for Citizen Well Being” (db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com) to replace consumption and growth.

In March of this year we suggested, for the reasons spelled out in THE ESTATES MATRIX, that MainStream Media was obscuring the need to abandon Mass OverConsumption and Business As Usual in order to preserve – for the time being – its revenue stream. “Good New, Bad Reporting” 24 March 2008.

Today’s WaPo headline is “McCain, Obama Clash over Economy.” One has an 80s solution, the other a 90s solution.

Here are some tentative targets for crafting a realistic economic survival plan. There is no guarantee that this level of conservative action will change the trajectory enough but they will help and they are within limits that most citizens would embrace if they understood the enormity of the consequences of Business As Usual:

One percent annual decline in Gross Domestic Product

Three percent annual decline in Consumer Consumption

Five percent annual decline in Total Energy Consumption

Ten percent annual decline in Energy Imports

After a decade on this new consumption trajectory it should be possible to anticipate a one percent annual drop in total population. Both per capita consumption and total population declines are necessary.

The role of functional human settlement patterns will be critical in achieving these goals. Functional human settlement patterns are the only strategy that can achieve this level of conservation without destroying the Quality of Life for the majority of citizens.

In fact Lewenz argues that changes in human settlement patterns that would achieve these goals at the Village scale would improve Quality of Life. We agree.

In this discussion, we are talking about Quality of Life from the perspective of 75 percent of the economic and social Ziggurat. See THE ESTATES MATRIX.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Krishna Avatar

    dude, you are a wack-job.

    I love how you start out with saving something on gas and end up with voluntary population restraints, abortion, and probably infanticide.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A 3% annual decline in consumption.

    Thirty years from now, that’s going to be an austere diet.

    RH

  3. commoncents Avatar
    commoncents

    Great site you have!

    Would you like a Link Exchange with THE INTERNET RADIO NETWORK? At the IRN you can listen to over 70 of America’s top Radio Shows via Free Streaming Audio…

    http://netradionetwork.com

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR is one of those for whom
    facts and observations of the world are of first order irrelevance. There is no experience that would somehow invalidate their conclusions because there is no experience that could show that 1) their definition is wrong (how can a definition be wrong?!); and 2) their moral judgments are wrong.

    So here we are. In polls 65% of people say they are changing their driving habits, yet fuel consumption has barely dropped.

    Mark Twain said there are two reasons people buy things: The reason they tell you , and the reason they buy them.

    You have to hand it to EMR though. At least he is up front about saying that the reason we should use less and have fewer people is so that the ones who are left can live better.

    Let’s see.

    -Needless to-ing and fro-ing.

    -Fair allocation of location variable costs.

    -Wasteful use of fuel in backhoes

    -Necessary decline in population.

    The questions are always the same:

    Who decides?
    Who gets reduced first?

    RH

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 3:48 suggested the site:

    http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2008/04/28/saving-money-is-in-the-recession-diet-and-the-shift-to-frugal-living/

    Actually this site reinforces the point we make in the post:

    Evolution to functional and sustainable human settlement patterns is the ONLY strategy that improves sustainability and improves Quality of Life for the vast majority. (12 1/2 Pecenters will feel some discomfort)

    The list of things to give up is not a happy list.

    Many of the points make about the end on Mass OverConsumption are on target.

    The gravy train will end, the question is what alternative will citizens choose?

    The one that benefits 5% or the one that benefits 95%?

    EMR

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well … we still tend to think in binary in my view.

    change is evolutionary not revolutionary – usually.

    We won’t go from Mass Over Consumption overnight to a smoldering rubble pile….with anarchy in the streets the next day.

    airplanes will still fly

    tomatoes will still be grown and transported from fields to cities

    Ambulances will still take the injured to hospitals

    The gravy train won’t end.. but it may well slow down

    and the choice won’t be 5% or 95%…it will be somewhere in the middle.. trending…

    and it’s highly likely that innovation will lead to breakthroughs in all aspects of energy and energy use.

    If oil goes to $200 bbl and coal quadruples in price – we’ll do nukes and who knows…wind/solar

    cars will become plug-ins…

    and high-speed rail inter-city and regional rail may become a reality even replacing regional air travel.

    The rest of the world gets by ALREADY on 1/2 to 1/3 what we use.

    All, we’d be doing is become more like the rest of the world more than likely.

    look here:

    Belgium (Brussels) 8.44
    Denmark (Copenhagen) 9.31
    France 8.06
    Germany 9.20
    Hong Kong 8.33

    Now if these countries can pay TWICE what we are paying for gasoline and have a higher standard of living and a longer lifespan than us… then it would seem we might be premature with the gloom and doom scenarios..

    we need to suck it up and get on with it and stop being drama queens.

    (not you EMR – all of us)

  7. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    EMR you are WAY too predictable. By the second sentence I knew who had written this posting. And as usual, I couldn’t disagree with your opinion more.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “what alternative will citizens choose?

    The one that benefits 5% or the one that benefits 95%?”

    “it should be possible to anticipate a one percent annual drop in total population. “

    Let’s see, six year into your plan, you no longer have 95% left to benefit.

    How do you square those two thoughts?

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dude you are one of the biggest NIMBYs on the planet

    Population controls are you out of your freaking mind. This is American. Its time for you to go to socialist Europe they would love you over there. This country was founded on FREEDOM.

    I can’t believe Jim Bacon actually lets you post here

    I want to here him respond to this crap when he gets back

    NMM

  10. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    “Population controls are you out of your freaking mind.”

    I might be if I suggested “controls” but I do not and will not.

    Intelligent choices by individuals and Households will — as they were before the 90s . 00s importation of high cost skills and cheap labor changed the demographics — result in a shrinking population.

    More on this in THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND

    “This is American. Its time for you to go to socialist Europe they would love you over there. This country was founded on FREEDOM.”

    In the last 35 years that “freedom” has turned out to be the freedom to run faster and faster leming-like toward the cliff of unsustainablity.

    Check out the numbers Larry Gross posted above.

    He is right on another point, it is not either / or and I never suggested it was.

    However, unless citizens understand the cumulative consequences of their actions and make more intelligent choices the Tiger Riders will take everyone over the cliff.

    EMR

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    First sorry that I went off the handle a bit. Violated the rule of never post when you are angry.

    However, thinking that people are going to magically start giving up their freedoms naturally is crazy.

    Thinking that the government will actually pass laws that curtail freedoms is also crazy.

    What is happening is a natural occurance in the market. Gas prices are going up and people are changing their behavior and settlement patterns without ANY GOVERNMENT REGULATION required.

    IMHO The ironic thing about what you are proposing is that it actually doesn’t solve anything it actually makes thing worse. You think the wealth gap is bad know just wait.

    We have gone through this before.

    The haves will continue their behavior because price is less of an option for them

    Meanwhile the havenots will suffer under increasing regulation, be priced out of most areas and increasingly live in ghetto environments.

    For a realworld example see Tysons Corner. TMT is fully on top of this.

    NMM

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    More silliness from the Tysons Corner density crowd. A sale at $313 per square foot.

    “KBS Closes on $152.8M Deal for Tysons Dulles Plaza
    Vornado, Charles E Smith Commercial Realty Sell 490,000-SF Office Complex

    “KBS Real Estate Investment Trust Inc. has closed on its purchase of the Tysons Dulles Plaza office complex from a joint venture of Vornado Realty Trust and Charles E Smith Commercial Realty for $152.8 million, or about $313 per square foot.

    “The three, six-story buildings are at 1410, 1420 and 1430 Spring Hill Road in McLean, VA. The complex totals 489,239 square feet.

    “William Collins, Paul Collins and Drew Flood of Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers represented the seller. Vornado said last week it stands to gain approximately $56 million from the sale.”
    http://www.costar.com/News/Article.aspx?id=6056FDCDC3E986A82867D547C1A1CF2E

    How high must one build to recover one’s costs, including sky-rocketing construction costs, at $313 per square foot? Tysons will not be the home of anyone beyond the mega-buck wealthy who like living in concrete and steel.

    Sprawl has to be cheaper than this.

    TMT

  13. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    NMM said:

    “First sorry that I went off the handle a bit. Violated the rule of never post when you are angry.”

    Not a problem. A lot of folks feel the way you do and believe what you believe.

    By “a lot” I suspect 20% + / -. There are some, perhaps 5% now, who feel just as strongly the opposite way.

    75% today (it used to be less) are too busy trying to keep up to give the issues any thought.

    That is why The Third Way / PROPERTY DYNAMICS is so important. The cliff is getting closser.

    “However, thinking that people are going to magically start giving up their freedoms naturally is crazy.”

    You will never hear me say they will. Fair allocation of cost and understanding the cumulative consequences will cause citizens to make more intelligent decisons about their own self-interest and the cumulative trajectory will change.

    The question is will it be soon enough to make a differece.

    “Thinking that the government will actually pass laws that curtail freedoms is also crazy.”

    Again you are not reading what we say. With the current governance structure such a view would be crazy.

    Note that in a recent post we expressed our view of what will happen when demigods come to power.

    “What is happening is a natural occurance in the market. Gas prices are going up and people are changing their behavior and settlement patterns without ANY GOVERNMENT REGULATION required.”

    That is true but for 35 years Households and Agencies have barrowed from our Global tarading parterns to pay for cheap energy and Agencies may do more of this and make matters worse.

    “IMHO The ironic thing about what you are proposing is that it actually doesn’t solve anything it actually makes thing worse. You think the wealth gap is bad know just wait.

    “We have gone through this before.

    “The haves will continue their behavior because price is less of an option for them

    “Meanwhile the havenots will suffer under increasing regulation, be priced out of most areas and increasingly live in ghetto environments.”

    Now go back and read what we say about this. We live in a democaracy and when things get too bad the demigods come to power…

    Nothing like this has happened since the Depression. We used a World War and cheap energy to bail ourselves out then.

    Those are not options now.

    “For a realworld example see Tysons Corner. TMT is fully on top of this.”

    As you may have read, we agree with TMT — UNLESS there are Funcamentally Differnt settlement patterns in the station-areas.

    Stay Cool.

    EMR

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “”Thinking that the government will actually pass laws that curtail freedoms is also crazy.”

    Again you are not reading what we say. With the current governance structure such a view would be crazy.”

    So, you think we should have a governance structure under which it would not be crazy to think they would curtail freedoms.

    ????

    RH

  15. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    RH –

    Let me take a shot at the governance structure debate. I will try to take EMR’s side (which, if I am right, is reasonable).

    Citizens will give up SOME of their liberties under three scenarios:

    1. A crisis that everybody can see. The Patriot Act, rationing during WWII for example.

    2. An authoritarian government takes away their liberties and they can’t do anything about it.

    3. Citizens feel connected to their communities and are willing to give up some personal liberties for the betterment of the community. On a micro scale, a person might pick up their neighbor’s mail when the neighbor is on vacation. This involves forfeiting the liberty of using that time differently in order to help out a neighbor. On a more macro scale, education bonds regularly pass in Fairfax County. People believe that the schools are good and that they should support funding measures to keep them that way.

    Unfortunately, people largely feel disconnected from their communities and government. This disconnection causes mistrust and has people demanding “their rights” in all cases (even when a relatively small reduction in “rights” would help everybody). People are especially mistrustful of government when it wants to limit their rights to benefit people they have never met living in places they have never been. Note: your rights are limited every time you pay a tax or stop for a red light.

    EMR envisions a “governance structure” or political system where you are involved in a hierarchy of governments. Power is divided up and down the hierarchy. At the more granular level, there is participative democracy. Larger levels have representative democracy. I imagine that pushing political power down creates a situation where people will be more comfortable giving up some of their rights for the greater good. For example, if my neighborhood wants to raise taxes for to buy land for a park, I probably say “yes”. If the General Assembly wants to raise taxes to buy land for parks throughout the state, I definitely vote “no”. I know the people in my neighborhood, I can see the land in question and I will directly benefit from the park. I don’t know the people in the General Assembly. I do not believe that they represent my interests. I cannot see the land they want to buy and I doubt that I’ll ever get any benefit from the money they spend. So, if you want people to give up some of their rights (the right to own private property called money) for parks – you’d be better advised to devolve the authority to raise taxes and buy land for parks to a local level.

    At least, that’s what I think he means.

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    I am speechless!!

    Well almost.

    You hit the nail right on the head.

    Very good job.

    That is why I say there will never be effective “regional” governance until there is effective governance at levels closer to where people live.

    It is also why you and I agree that Fairfax is so dysfunctional.

    If it were not that so many are living high on the hog there would be revolt.

    EMR

  17. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    One other thing:

    I had the privilage to create a three tiered governance structure with formal governance at the Cluster, Neighborhood and Village scales and it works.

    The only downside was that the 20,000 people who live in the Village are still running on what they thought they recalled from high school civics.

    They appreciate that they have more than their percapita clout in the municipal jurisdiction but Politics as Usual folks have taken over the Village governace.

    It is still, based on market value and citizen loyalty far better than places with a governance vacuum below the municipal scale.

    EMR

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I think that is a fair assessment.

    I don’t think it will work because we have too much government already, and people don’t have time to participate voluntarily.

    They think the process is rigged, at all levels, not just the higher ones. They make their input known, and the results are ignored. There is no accountability and no measurement of what people really want. The process is skewed by who shows up at public hearings. The public hearings are designed to inhibit participation, and there is no outreach from the government to reach other constituencies.

    That is why I advocate meaningful polls, like the one on the back of the tax form. These are required transparent and accountable. We have similar forms that are required for all kinds of business purposes, why not civic ones?

    Because it takes power away from the political parties and it dissminates truth.

    We wind up with government that is a hodgepodge of extremes: apathy on one side and activism on the other.

    It is bad enough the way it is.

    Dividing power up and down the hierarchy simpy insures that nothing will ever get done: perfect if you are a conservationist. Until you try to get a conservation law passed.

    ———————————–

    If you have to give up rights to ensure the “greater good” then there is something wrong with the way your rights are written. If there is truly a greater good involved, then the greater should be able to buy the rights from the lesser.

    Your rights are not reduced every time you have to stop at a light: you trade your right to proceed for the right not to get slammed when you do.

    It is a question of how the rights are written, and who owns them. You have to figure that out first, then you can negotiate for the greater good. Otherwise, it is an unknown. In this example, we pretty much figure it is an even trade, on an individual level. And yet at the community level we are all better off by not having to respond to as many crashes. It is a greater good where no one loses.

    EMR is still promoting some form of governance where it would not be crazy to think it would curtail freedoms. We don’t know what we would get in return.

    Just because you vote to have authoritarian rule doesn’t make it democratic.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    There are two distinct issues here.

    the first is what is the optimal level of representation – i.e. how many folks should each elected serve?

    In Spotsylvania, The BOS is split at about 10,000 per BOS member.

    I know up in New England and other places, it can be divided up even at smaller levels.

    I would find some enlightenment on this from EMR – helpful.

    the Second is what power each hierarchical level has and does not have.

    For instance, the US is .. get this Groveton – a Dillon Rule country.

    The Constitution gives the central Government all powers not specifically given to the states.

    In Va, it works in a similar way – the State reserves all power not delegated to localities.

    But I have a problem with this idea if EMR thinks lower and lower levels of Governance are needed for fundamental change.

    How do we coordinate at the higher levels – on a regional basis?

    How do we allocate pollution loads for rivers if the rivers ignore boundaries – which they do.

    Ditto water supply.

    Regional water/sewer.

    Regional jails and libraries.

    You just cannot chop up a bunch of land without rhyme or reason into self-governed enclaves…that operate without regard to their neighbors or the region.

    and this is what I am NOT hearing.. and instead .. why I perceive to be rather vague hints and precious little in the way of specifics.

    I’d also like to know .. of the current governance structures and models – which .. best suit – balanced communities?

    The world and this country have quite an array of different governance structures…

    surely some of them should be deemed better for evolving to more optimal settlement patterns while others are worse.

    From what I can see – you must have some level of State authority – at least for some things – just to ensure that infrastructure and facilities of a state significance are provided.

  20. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “For instance, the US is .. get this Groveton – a Dillon Rule country.

    The Constitution gives the central Government all powers not specifically given to the states.”.

    Ummmm … I think you have it backwards. Doesn’t the Constitution speficially give the states all rights that are not specifically given to the federal government.

    I think it goes something like this (10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights):

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So, the founding fathers were kind of anti-Dillon rule guys. They decided that, in the case of doubt, the more local governments would get the rights.

    See, Virginia at the time of the revolution was divided into two camps – the “descendants of Pocohontas” who lived in Richmond, Williamsburg and Norfolk and the frontiersmen who lived in oulying places like Orange County, Fairfax County and Albemerle County. My theory is that the “descendants of Pocohontas” always wanted to keep an aristocracy of sorts. They lost out to the frontiersmen at the national level but pretty much kept an aristiocracy at the state level.

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well sort of.. and I do agree with your reading…

    but how do you explain your gas tax get taken from you and given to METRO?

    or that the Feds are behind the HOT Lanes?

    or that most every Interstate is designed right down to the size and color of the signage to Fed Specs?

    That Virginia has no choice but to take New York and New Jersey’s garbage?

    This all sounds very Dillon-like to me…

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Price elasticity of gas demand
    An article in the May 1 WSJ (As gasoline prices soar …, $) provides a great lesson on the determinants of price elasticity of demand:

    With gasoline prices in the U.S. approaching an average $3 a gallon, Americans are moaning about the rising cost, but so far they are resisting big changes in their gas-guzzling ways.

    The early results: High prices do have some effect, but prices would have to be higher than they are today — and would have to stay high for a long time — to meaningfully curb gasoline consumption by the nation’s massive fleet of cars and trucks, which accounts for about 10% of global oil use.

    At the margins, there are some signs that high gasoline prices may be starting to alter consumer behavior. Traditionally, gasoline use in the U.S. rises about 1.5% each year. But in three of the six months from September — immediately following the Gulf Coast hurricanes — through February, gasoline consumption fell compared with a year earlier, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the three months in which it grew, it never rose by more than 0.4%. Yet in March, as gasoline prices soared, demand appeared to return to more-robust levels, growing by 1%, according to preliminary data.

    I wonder how these numbers look in per capita terms. There hasn’t been much time for the 1% or so of population growth to have much effect, but still, this is the correct way to look at aggregate consumption over time.

    Though the recent run-up in gasoline prices has been steep, it hasn’t been debilitating for most Americans. The price of a gallon of regular gas averaged $2.74 in April, according to the Energy Information Administration. Adjusted for inflation, that was still 14% below the peak in March 1981, when, in today’s dollars, gasoline averaged $3.18.

    Moreover, Americans are better-positioned to handle a run-up in fuel prices than they were a quarter-century ago. Gasoline now accounts for only 3% of total personal-consumption spending, down from 5% in 1981, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That gives many consumers less reason to contemplate cutbacks when prices rise.

    As promised, item #2 in the list of determinants of price elasticity: budget share. As the share of the budget that expenditures on the item account for, price elasticity declines

    From the environmental economics blog.

    RH

Leave a Reply