What does $500 brl OIL mean??

I don't mean just in terms of cost but also efficiency in relation to that cost. Australia has massive suburban sprawl and that is not conducive to electric vehicles at all. I don't know why we have to be so obsessed with this kind of living. Do people in New York or Paris care about electric cars or petrol prices? I doubt it. Yet they have a much better quality of life than 99% of people in Australia (and we all try to visit these kinds of places when we go on holidays, interestingly). Compact well-designed cities are the answer, not some ugly suburban lifestyle with 1 car per person and needing to get into a car to buy some bread. It is not sustainable or even healthy in any way.

I agree with you regarding suburban sprawl being resource inefficient, but I don't know where you pulled 'New Yorkers and Parisians have a much better quality of life than 99% of Australians' from. Based on what criteria exactly?

Australia ranks very well in quality of life indexes and most of our cities trump both New York and Paris in general livability. Our cities might be boring, daggy and lacking in culture, but the overall quality of life is pretty OK.

A lot of people value a house with enough room to swing several cats, a backyard with a vegetable garden, a garage to tinker in and the luxury of not having to deal with body corporates. If these people were forced to live in studio apartments the size of a broom closets (al la New York style), I'd say their quality of life would be drastically reduced.

New York and Paris are great for some people, but let's not confuse resource efficiency with a better quality of life.
 
Boomtown, I was referring to New York City specifically, not the whole of the USA. Obviously most of the country is similar to Australia in the factors I mentioned.

Fifth, how about if we add obesity, mental illness (we have the 2nd highest consumption of anti-depressants in the OECD), social isolation, less time to spend with family and friends (due to long commutes and associated factors) and other similar "ills" into the equation? Sure having a roomy house and a garage is nice but I'm not sure if it fully compensates for the above.

Obviously, it is best to have many living options available to suit different types of people/families but at the moment, we are far too focused on big detached homes with the only other alternative being high-density apartments. I think the majority of us should be aiming for something in the middle. If you take my example above of Paris, it is pretty rare for people there to live in massive apartment towers. Despite the high population density of the city, most people live in what can be described as medium density buildings and this is what we should aim for IMO. Some people in high-density towers, most in medium density buildings/townhouses/terrace houses and the rest in typical suburbs. Just my 2 cents
 
Today parked at Mel Airport and at the very front were two carparks set aside for EV vehicles with charge bays. Free charging I assume? and the best spot to park! Win Win.

Of course the fact you are parked at the air port means you are flying in giant carbon burning planes but lets ignore that irony.

Regards Peter 14.7
 
Just finished an interesting book called 'griftopia'. One of it's chapters is devoted to the oil & commodity price spike of 08 (the original post referred to this 24 a barrel to 124 in 4 years 04-08).

The main point being made was that all the investment funds that had nowhere to go after the housing collapse in the US was redirected to commodities, thanks to a sneaky change in law that allowed for the entry of speculators in a way the original laws didn't intend (ie as a third party to pick up the slack).

This in turn pushed oil and food prices way way way up as the only way to invest in commodities is 'long'.

Never thought investment banking, politics and commodities could make such enjoyable reading.

Sorry if that is a bit off topic!!
 
less time to spend with family and friends (due to long commutes and associated factors) and other similar "ills" into the equation?

commuting across a city like London to see friends and family will take you way longer than jumping in the Tarago in an aussie city to go and pop in on the olds.
 
Fifth, how about if we add obesity, mental illness (we have the 2nd highest consumption of anti-depressants in the OECD), social isolation, less time to spend with family and friends (due to long commutes and associated factors) and other similar "ills" into the equation? Sure having a roomy house and a garage is nice but I'm not sure if it fully compensates for the above.

Again with the unsubstantiated claims.

NYC has a similar obesity rate to Australia and you'll find a greater correlation between poverty and obesity than low-density living and obesity. In Australia, our outer suburbs tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, hence the higher rates of obesity in the suburbs.

Between 2003 and 2007, the prevalence of obesity in New York City increased from 20% to 22%. Obesity was highest and increased the most among people living in low-income neighborhoods. Differences in obesity existed between neighborhoods with different levels of access to physical activity opportunities and food amenities.

http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/obesity/statistics_and_impact/

In the 2005 National Health Survey, 53.6% of Australians reported being overweight (above a 25 BMI), with 18% falling into the "obese" category (above a 30 BMI).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_Australia

So far as mental illness goes, I find it odd that you blame suburban sprawl and odder still that you use the prescription/consumption of antidepressants as a measure.

Countless studies have found a correlation between city living and mental illness. Most Australians live in cities. If you're concerned about mental illness, move to the country not to a higher density city where the issue is only compounded.

So far as anti-depressants go, we followed America's lead on that one. New Yorkers were the trail blazers. You'll find English-speaking countries are more likely to diagnose and treat mental illness because, frankly, we have that luxury. On a global scale, we're pampered. A little self-indulgent, some might say.

In many countries mental illness is simply not treated (rates of mental illness are very high in poorer countries but there's simply no means of treatment).

And as real as depression is, Australia and the USA are both guilty of prescribing medication a little too liberally. Once again, you'll find plenty of Prozac poppers in NYC. It's a cultural phenomenon throughout the English-speaking world.

Social isolation of suburban living? Some people have families, you know? Some people even have friends and relatives who live nearby. Who would've thunk it, eh? And you do realise there are clubs, community groups, social activities, etc.. in the 'burbs, right?

And less time to spend with family and friends because of increased travel time? Stop making stuff up. A lot of people living in the outer 'burbs don't work in the CBD. They often work nearby and it takes them no time at all to drive to work.

Even if they live in the outer 'burbs and work in the CBD, the longest train journey will be about an hour which is comparable to many high density cities. Some people use this time to read a book or listen to some tunes. It can be annoying, but it's a sacrifice they're mostly willingly making.

Inner city apartment versus a house in the suburbs. Your choice will largely be dictated by your personality and lifestyle, there is no right or wrong.

I've spent most of my life living the inner city and by gawd it depressed the heck out of me.

Some people like medium to high density living. For those who enjoy eateries, nightlife, etc., it's great. For some people, especially those with children or pets, medium to high density is undesirable.

To each their own.

I agree that more medium density housing should be built in capital cities as there is a lot of demand for it and it is, if done correctly, more resource efficient, but don't pretend that it's everyone's cup of tea.
 
Back on the $500 a barrel thing.

Tomorrow I will jump on our learjet and fly
Hawaii-Christmas island-Samoa-Vanuatu-Brisbane.

Each stop we add 6,000 pounds of fuel with prices ranging from $1.00 a litter to $2.50

Apart from the logistical nightmare of carrying that much USD for the remote stops.fuel prices are a straight up killer in aviation.

It's a massive concern moving forward. I can see a time in the not too distant future where fossil fuel will be reserved for essential services.
Anything outside of this will be either green or taxed to he'll to discourage use.

Cheers
 
In Australia, our outer suburbs tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, hence the higher rates of obesity in the suburbs.

Being a Landlord and having had relationships with many different folk for nigh on 20 years, I'd say it's the other way around.

Their ill-informed and essentially lazy choices dictate where they can afford to live.

There is always plenty of money for cigarettes, coke, bourbon, beer, HJs and Maccas. You only need to look in the backyard and their bins for hundreds of dollars wasted every weekend.

Money for rent and water bills and power bills.....now, that is where they struggle.

Of course, it should be the other way around, but alas, taking the easy way every time costs dearly.
 
The cost of a nutritious, tasty home cooked meal is exaggerated. We manage OK without resorting to buying whole rumps and freezing them. We don't eat large portions but if it's fish it's atlantic salmon and garlic prawns. Butterfly chicken is tasty and easy to cook/carve. Individually packaged marinated steak that you never need to find the steak knives for is a few dollars a plate [as I said, smaller serves but bigger than a Mac] I can cook a mean steak on the induction cook-top with it's easy temperature control. The washing up only takes a few minutes if the task is shared.

Laziness and willful negligence are the only excuses for bad eating habits and obesity.
 
Being a Landlord and having had relationships with many different folk for nigh on 20 years, I'd say it's the other way around.

Their ill-informed and essentially lazy choices dictate where they can afford to live.

There is always plenty of money for cigarettes, coke, bourbon, beer, HJs and Maccas. You only need to look in the backyard and their bins for hundreds of dollars wasted every weekend.

Money for rent and water bills and power bills.....now, that is where they struggle.

Of course, it should be the other way around, but alas, taking the easy way every time costs dearly.

The cost of a nutritious, tasty home cooked meal is exaggerated. We manage OK without resorting to buying whole rumps and freezing them. We don't eat large portions but if it's fish it's atlantic salmon and garlic prawns. Butterfly chicken is tasty and easy to cook/carve. Individually packaged marinated steak that you never need to find the steak knives for is a few dollars a plate [as I said, smaller serves but bigger than a Mac] I can cook a mean steak on the induction cook-top with it's easy temperature control. The washing up only takes a few minutes if the task is shared.

Laziness and willful negligence are the only excuses for bad eating habits and obesity.

I didn't explain myself well and I shouldn't have used the term 'socioeconomically disadvantaged' as it's a loaded term, it just seemed easier to type than 'further down the socioeconomic ladder'. I wasn't claiming that low-income households are too poor to eat healthily, as it isn't hard to eat reasonably well in Australia. There is an undeniable correlation between poverty/low-income and obesity in first world nations, particularly English-speaking countries. Obesity is largely a lifestyle choice, but it is more likely to be found in certain groups. Take any Australian city and compare the wealthiest suburb to the poorest suburb and guess which will be more obese?

My point was that obesity has more to do with socioeconomics than low/medium/high density living.
 
Back on the $500 a barrel thing.

Tomorrow I will jump on our learjet and fly
Hawaii-Christmas island-Samoa-Vanuatu-Brisbane.

Each stop we add 6,000 pounds of fuel with prices ranging from $1.00 a litter to $2.50

Apart from the logistical nightmare of carrying that much USD for the remote stops.fuel prices are a straight up killer in aviation.

It's a massive concern moving forward. I can see a time in the not too distant future where fossil fuel will be reserved for essential services.
Anything outside of this will be either green or taxed to he'll to discourage use.

Cheers

Don't they take Visa?
 
Back
Top