World is Green

Taking from where the Nytimes suggested the increase in public transport usage in America, Krugman says that:

But … as of 2005, only 4.7 percent of American workers took mass transit to work. So even a 10% surge in mass transit ridership would take only around half a percent of drivers off the road.

The point isn’t that nothing can be done — it’s just that serious reductions in driving would require a lot of long-term rearrangement of the way we live. It will come — but not quickly.

More on comparisons between, US, Canada and Europe,

A tale of three cities

What’s more, as far as I can make out from the data, a lot more Canadians than Americans (as a percentage of the population) have switched to public transit over the past year; because the system is there, they have more flexibility.

All in all, this comparison is a reason not to believe apocalyptic warnings about the long-run effects of energy scarcity: there’s a lot of substitution possible. America’s main problem is that we have a capital stock — cars, public infrastructure, and housing — designed for dirt-cheap oil. And the transition may be nasty.

The Nytimes writes that:

With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead.

Today I received this e-mail in my Inbox about a planned petrol price protest on the Feb 22nd in Australia. Real funny e-mail. Irrespective of the claims of the protest and its possibility lets look at the lack of economic thinking which has led to the creation of this mail.

The mail starts with this:

IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF PETROL FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES.

Well, in fact it will tougher if there is more demand than supply than the other way round. They got this one wrong.

AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES.

It’s beyond me how you can go from low demand to a net loss and that for one day. The pent up demand will come back the next day. In fact, the most hit may be the distribution companies. Anyways, Australia is too small a player to make any difference. In fact, South Australia gets its oil from a refinery in Singapore. That low in demand!

THEREFORE FRIDAYFEBRUARY 22nd HAS BEEN FORMALLY
DECLARED STICK IT UP THEIR ASS’ DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF PETROL THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.

Try your luck…

WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES? IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISEDLONG AGO?

THE PRICES JUST KEEP GOING UP AND WE NEED TO STOP IT

PETROL PRICES ARE CAUSING OTHER EFFECTS; AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, AS ARE TRUCKING COMPANIES . THIS INCREASES PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON’T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY,WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE FEBRUARY22nd THE DAY CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA SAY ‘ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’

Well, the connection of petrol prices to food and clothing is right. However, if we look at this from a carbon point of view in fact, we need to increase the price of petrol in order to curb its demand. Simple economics, price goes up and the demand should go down. This week’s BRW magazine (no online linking possible) has an article on how Australia has least expensive petrol after the US and China. That doesn’t help.

The interesting thing is that people do not understand simple economics and try to solve the big problems of the world.

The recent editorial on The Age in regards to public transport is telling.

The figures for rail patronage clearly show that given a service — reliable, comfortable and inexpensive — people will use it. Two other factors have a strong bearing on public transport: the rising cost of petrol and emissions from vehicles. Cars and trucks not only choke the roads, they choke the atmosphere.

It may seem a small byway in the argument, but the fiasco of the proposed bike ban on trains, illustrates a telling point in why clear-headed thinking is needed. Ms Kosky is to review her ban after she said yesterday that she had been “misinformed” by her department. (On the same day, the Government announced a $52 million upgrade of Clifton Hill station.)

Of all the options a government could take in the transport sector, moving against the most environmentally friendly set of wheels on the road was madness. What message could people derive from the ban but that the Government not only did not care about sustainability but actually worked against it? It is welcome news that the minister is reviewing the ban, but there should not have been a need for it in the first place.

What is true for Melbourne is true for most cities around the world. In my recent visit to India, it was clearly evident that public transport is the solution and that has the least amount of focus from policy.