Relationship between suburbia and oil ?

I think one of the central points of the movie for me was pointing out that the suburbs are quite unnatural places (I think they were described as "dormitories for people") that really were only made possible with oil. I don't think the film was trying to actively judge suburbia, but was looking for a context or topic that would affect most of its potential audience. As most of its potential audience probably live in or near the suburbs then that was why the film focused on suburbs in particular. I know it wouldnt have been as interesting for me (as a suburb dweller) if they had just shown the impact on commercial and industrial properties. Plus when you think about it, to clear, construct and furnish all these homes must have expended oil at a furious pace.

I agree with you though, housing millions of people would have been impossible without the suburbs, but perhaps the mass settlement of the suburbs in the 50's and 60's helped to multiply population growth too (people had more space to rear children comfortably)

Regardless this movie was quite alarmist, particularly as the title of one of the talking heads included his book "America's descent into fascism following the oil peak" !!!

The issue with the typical suburb is that you have to get in your car to go anywhere - work, food, etc. As they point out, the end of oil spells the end of globalization. The multinational corporations will splinter into many small, local operations. No more imported or exported goods. The rise of local, cottage industries everywhere to support local agriculture, local manufacturing of clothing and other essentials, etc.

Today, maybe you telecommute, and maybe your job is managing production, marketing, sales or movement of goods being made half a world away. That's not what you'll be doing post-peak. You'll probably be working with your hands in a trade that produces real goods for people in your immediate community. Maybe you'll be farming. It will be hard, physical work.

You'll have to walk to work, walk to the bakery, walk back home. Or maybe ride a bicycle if you can get one, at least until the roads degrade. This is where the new urbanism comes in, which is basically like pre-industrial town life - a community of people living in close proximity, working together to survive.

The big questions are:

1. When will the peak oil production plateau (84-85 million barrels/day) that was reached in May, 2005 come to an end, and the down-side begin? The global plateau could last for many years, as more expensive oil deposits are brought on line. At $75/barrel, there's yet more oil available that was not economically feasible to produce when oil was cheaper. Maybe the current rate of supply can be sustained for several decades (although the price will continue to rise as production costs rise).

2. When the production down side is reached, how steep will the slope be? If it is more gradual, it buys time to make the many necessary governmental, infrastructural, industrial and social adjustments. If the slope is steeper, it will be more disruptive and chaotic. If it is really steep, the people and our institutions would be blind-sided, and anarchy would be the result.

3. How much alternative energy production can be brought on line, how soon, and will that be in time? It will take a full complement of nuclear, wind, solar, hydro/wave, biofuels, and anything else out there to make any significant impact, and a major capital investment. Even if, alternative energy can probably only decrease the shortfall, not eliminate it.

-- But why single out the suburbs

Because:

- For all the thousands of years most of humanity has been living in one place (and not wandering the woods like an animal) we've lived, worked, played, and raised children all in the same place. Most people never in their entire lives moved many miles from where they were born.

- The suburbs changed that: now living, working and playing all require driving a car; and kids get driven more than anyone (the older generations remember being old to "go out and play" which means the way it sounds -- to leave without supervision as a youth into the neighborhood).

So suburbs depend on driving. And it's not just the residents who drive; it's the delivery of food, fuel oil, everything -- all of which is trucked long distances. Soon the cost of driving head of lettuce 1000 miles will become too expensive -- so more of agriculture must become local. If that sounds crazy, I don't blame you, but this pattern has ALREADY emerged -- in Cuba, when the Soviet Union fell and stopped providing oil.

Oil is used for many things (drugs, plastics, etc.) but the great majority (70%+) is for cars and trucks, and much of that WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY if (1) we went back to living in towns and cities, not suburbs, and (2) used railroads which are (something like) 8x more efficient for distance travel. Shipping by canal and river is even MORE efficient (one reason that humanity often has lived on rivers).

> and not other causes of energy consumption such as travelling or holidays or
> uncontrolled consumption for non-neccessities or business carbon emissions

Those things will go too. This is probably the last generation apart from the wealthy and military who will travel by air -- it's just too expensive. But as a percentage of all oil pumped, the great majority (70%+) is used in the USA for trucking and automobile driving.

The craziest thing about Peak Oil isn't that it's a problem; it's that we KNEW in the 1970s all about it, and when Reagan got into office and ripped the symbolic solar panels off the White House roof we all partied instead.

As world events (including the tripling price of oil, and revelations about melting glaciers) have made clear since I first posted here on this issue in 2005, the party is OVER.

CBK