Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

[Enough Already]

Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:

"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."

With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.

http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
over the place)


E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm

Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

[George Conklin]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

Post by Enough Already
This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,

Post by Enough Already
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

See above.

Post by Enough Already
Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

:~)

[George Conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

Post by Enough Already
This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,

Post by Enough Already
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

See above.

Post by Enough Already
Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

[Glenn]

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns
expanding, where do you want them to live, under a
bridge?

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually serves
as housing (about 5-6%).

Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is. (At
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

[George Conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually serves
as housing (about 5-6%).
Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is. (At
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and so
forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is never
lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these days.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually

serves

Post by Matt W. Barrow
as housing (about 5-6%).
Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.

(At

Post by Matt W. Barrow
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and so
forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is never
lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these days.

In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
your last sentence).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf

Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
that).

[George Conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns expanding, where do you
want them to live, under a bridge?

George (I think) is bemoaning abandoned towns; the OP is bitching about
population growth, but is ignorant as to how much land area actually

serves

Post by Matt W. Barrow
as housing (about 5-6%).
Take a trip across the US in a light plane, where you're at no more than
about 10,000 feet, and you'll see just how desolate even mid-America is.

(At

Post by Matt W. Barrow
35,000 feet, everything looks desolate).

The problem is that the intellectual bind planners get into is severe.
If an area declines, then they bemoan abandoned houses, bad services and so
forth. If an area is growing, then they complain about land being "used up"
and other assorted phrases like "lost to development." Lost? Land is never
lost. It is always put as a lose-lose situation. Only a static society
with no changes seems to meet all objections raised by planning these days.

In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
your last sentence).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf
Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
that).

It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
roads.

2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
to a crawl.

3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost" due
to too much traffic.

4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert to
a "walking city."

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
In addition, planners have a vested interest in screwing things up (i.e.,
your last sentence).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv6n1.pdf
Think, too, of a more developed area in which traffic controls are
DELIBERATELY set to snarl traffic. Yes, it's very common; one additional
reason is that it adds to revenue from traffic fines. (Been there, done
that).

It is called "traffic calming." 1. They say you need connected parallel
streets so traffic can be moved more efficiently, and not just on "main"
roads.
2. Then the call goes out for "traffic calming," which means slow it down
to a crawl.
3. The Texas Institute then claims that billions of seconds are "lost" due
to too much traffic.

The University of Texas (Houston, I think) did a study 20 years ago and
found we waste 20-25% of our annual gasoline usage to such traffic systems.

Think how much fixing THAT would contribute to "conservation" and "energy
independance".

Post by George Conklin
4. Lastly to slow it down even more, it is proclaimed we need to revert to
a "walking city."

Dig into Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his "noble savage" to see the basis of
the society they want to instill. Essentially, it's primitive tribalism.

[George Conklin]

Post by Glenn

Post by George Conklin
You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

The population is growing. Those against towns
expanding, where do you want them to live, under a
bridge?

No, only Smart Growth pushes that solution.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

[PeterBP]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
Well, with half our counties losing population, why not worry about
depopulation for a change?

What fun is that? You can't generate incredible hysterics from that!

You can bemoan abandoned towns!!!

Or you can make them "Ghost Town" tourist traps. :~)

Hey, it'll mean a resurgence of the western movie genre - lots of new
locations to shoot!

[r***@telus.net]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

-- Roy L

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by r***@telus.net
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:56:32 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

In total, the US housing accounts for about 6% of total land area.

IMO that is about an order of magnitude high.

More than likely, but it's everything from major metro areas, suburbia, to
small rural communities.

Probably "residential" would be a more apt term - homes and the supporting
area (commercial, streets, infrastructure, etc.).

IIRC, 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the
Canadian-US border.

[PeterD]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Another misinformed person: it is supposed to be: "Population growth:
the endless replacement of nature with people."

[George Conklin]

Post by PeterD
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

the endless replacement of nature with people."

One problem here: people are very much a part of nature, and throughout the
history of our planet, life has made life possible, not the other way
around.

[jloomis]

The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.
We moved farther and farther away from the cities, built more and more
highways, built huge "box stores" all on freeway, and driving distances from
home and work. Our dependancy on single occupancy vehicles, and trips to
the store for a "carton of milk" or such......will all come to an end.
Too bad with our resources a viable source of "transportation for the many"
was not ever conceived....
I am not the "Pot calling the kettle black either" I drive a diesel pick-up
and use it for my work. When I bought the truck in 1999 diesel was about
1.65 a gallon. It is now 4.17..................Higher than gasoline.
Truckers are having to fill up with 1000.00 dollar bills!
The cost of freight, airlines, mail delivery, milk, flour, all is going up.
Just the other day the price of rice worldwide went up 30% (fuel cost rise)

There needs some serious attitude change and especially in the
Government.........
We the People need some leadership, to help right this train that fell off
the tracks.......
All of us are in this together, and the sooner we realize the problem, the
sooner we can and should come up with solutions......
Transportation, and our lifestyle are the biggest factors.......
just some thoughts.........oh well.
jloomis

Post by George Conklin

Post by PeterD
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

the endless replacement of nature with people."

One problem here: people are very much a part of nature, and throughout the
history of our planet, life has made life possible, not the other way
around.

[George Conklin]

Post by jloomis
The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

Post by jloomis
We moved farther and farther away from the cities,

This is a flat-out lie. In 2006 for the first time half the human
population worldwide was urbanized. Cities are growing because there are
fewer and fewer (in percentage terms too) rural dwellers. Half of all USA
counties are LOSING population.

[jloomis]

I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......
All over Calif. there are massive subdivisions that most have to drive,
anywhere from 10 to 60 miles to go to work and then when shopping comes it
is an easy 30 mile or more round trip......
I am not lieing....
Just making facts......
anyway......
I still lift heavy objects?
What is this about horses?
I am not sure where you are coming from.......
jloomis

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

Post by jloomis
We moved farther and farther away from the cities,

This is a flat-out lie. In 2006 for the first time half the human
population worldwide was urbanized. Cities are growing because there are
fewer and fewer (in percentage terms too) rural dwellers. Half of all USA
counties are LOSING population.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by jloomis
I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......
All over Calif. there are massive subdivisions that most have to drive,
anywhere from 10 to 60 miles to go to work and then when shopping comes it
is an easy 30 mile or more round trip......

So what?

Post by jloomis
I am not lieing....
Just making facts......
anyway......
I still lift heavy objects?
What is this about horses?
I am not sure where you are coming from.......

He's trying to explain things to someone utterly clueless.

[George Conklin]

Post by jloomis
I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......

Most of the residents of such places work locally. Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.

[jloomis]

I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there and
then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many miles......No
buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups with one driver
and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......
We do have a problem with traffic, and highways, and commuting......Gas
prices are a sign, and like the tip of the ice-berg.......more to
come.........
Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
living in a dream.
whatever...."Fill er Up"
jloomis

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......

Most of the residents of such places work locally. Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by jloomis
I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there
and then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many
miles......No buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups
with one driver and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......

Yes, because, like a little kid, your world revolves around your own limited
horizon.

[jloomis]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by jloomis
I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there
and then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many
miles......No buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups
with one driver and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......

Yes, because, like a little kid, your world revolves around your own
limited horizon.

this quote, from you, ("Most of the residents of such places work locally.
Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.")
shows who's world is revolving around a limited horizon..........
look out your window.........
Just got back from Hawaii.......You want to see traffic problems!
this is about fuel, and waste, and trying to figure out better ways to move
people.....
I am not sure where you are coming from.............
jloomis

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by jloomis

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by jloomis
I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look
at the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there
and then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many
miles......No buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups
with one driver and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......

Yes, because, like a little kid, your world revolves around your own
limited horizon.

this quote, from you, ("Most of the residents of such places work locally.
Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.")
shows who's world is revolving around a limited horizon..........
look out your window.........
Just got back from Hawaii.......You want to see traffic problems!
this is about fuel, and waste, and trying to figure out better ways to
move people.....
I am not sure where you are coming from.............

We can tell where you're coming from - it's the same school of thought and
writing that the idiot from Brazil came from.

When you become moderately coherent, we can discuss this issue. Until then.

[George Conklin]

Post by jloomis

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
I am speaking about "rural" meaning subdivisions 10 to 35 miles from urban
areas......

Most of the residents of such places work locally. Your imagination that
everyone commutes to a downtown is just plain wrong.

I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Drive up 101......Suburb between Santa Rosa and San Francisco.....
Why do you think they call these (bedroom communities) They sleep there and
then commute......
Commuting is the main source of home to work.......many, many

miles......No

Post by jloomis
buses, no trains, just Big Cars, and gas guzzling Pickups with one driver
and no baggage.......
Anyway......I am wasting my breath......
We do have a problem with traffic, and highways, and commuting......Gas
prices are a sign, and like the tip of the ice-berg.......more to
come.........
Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
living in a dream.
whatever...."Fill er Up"
jloomis

The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most commutes are
suburb-to-suburb.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
living in a dream.
whatever...."Fill er Up"

Again, Loomis' narrow world-view rears it's ugly head.

Post by George Conklin
The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most commutes are
suburb-to-suburb.

With the economy moving away from manufacturing (centralized) to services
(de-centralized), the majority of people now live AND work in the suburbs,
and the numbers, both percentage wise and shear numbers) are rising.

[Loomis, your emotional diatribes don't work on people that have been around
the block a few times. I'm, sure your teachers taught you that you opinion
was important, but it's not so.]

[jloomis]

Just today the news stated that Atlanta Georgia is in a world of hurt with
the commuting situation.
They travel an average of 1 hour each way...........
this is wrong.....The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most
commutes are

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin
suburb-to-suburb.

Where do you get this from?..........You must be dreaming............
anyway, I am just wasting my breath.........
The United States is in a world of hurt when it comes to fuel consumption,
driving habits, and transportation.
Why do we have a war now going on in the middle east?
Could it be from oil?
Oh, I remember, we can use our reserves for 100 years.....we will be fine...
You said that too!
There is a glut of vehicles on the roadway, and no solutions yet to minimize
this problem.
Yes, we are trying with alternative vehicle development but it is a little
late in developing.....
The problem is here........

Anyway, I can see that nothing will help your ignorance......

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
I take it you do not live in Calif. Drive down Hi.way 80..........Look at
the suburbs........now business's there.....
Where do you get the idea that "most residents work locally" You must be
living in a dream.
whatever...."Fill er Up"

Again, Loomis' narrow world-view rears it's ugly head.

Post by George Conklin
The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most commutes are
suburb-to-suburb.

With the economy moving away from manufacturing (centralized) to services
(de-centralized), the majority of people now live AND work in the suburbs,
and the numbers, both percentage wise and shear numbers) are rising.
[Loomis, your emotional diatribes don't work on people that have been
around the block a few times. I'm, sure your teachers taught you that you
opinion was important, but it's not so.]

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by jloomis
Just today the news stated that Atlanta Georgia is in a world of hurt with
the commuting situation.
They travel an average of 1 hour each way...........
this is wrong.....The average commute is 10 miles and 21 minutes. Most
commutes are

Post by George Conklin
suburb-to-suburb.

Where do you get this from?..........You must be dreaming............
anyway, I am just wasting my breath.........
The United States is in a world of hurt when it comes to fuel consumption,
driving habits, and transportation.
Why do we have a war now going on in the middle east?
Could it be from oil?
Oh, I remember, we can use our reserves for 100 years.....we will be fine...
You said that too!
There is a glut of vehicles on the roadway, and no solutions yet to
minimize this problem.
Yes, we are trying with alternative vehicle development but it is a little
late in developing.....
The problem is here........
Anyway, I can see that nothing will help your ignorance......

(Some one must have left the door unlocked at the funny-farm - Can anyone
make sense of that incoherent mess?)

Coming from someone as apparently demented as you, I take that in a positive
fashion.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
to arises.

All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to last
100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive technology
to arises.

Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the
USA become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
oil in secret shelters?

The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises come
from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
wrong and misconceptional ways,
probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's implications.

Tadej

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin

Post by jloomis
The real problem is the "addiction to oil" and our being brought up in a
world where there was "no limit" on the supply of gasoline at the station.

Modern economies do not relay on the human back to do the heavy lifting.
We do not rely on horses to move produce. So?

And there is still virtually "no limit". The US has enough reserves to
last 100 years, a lot longer than it will take for a superior motive
technology to arises.

Enough reserves of what? Crude oil? So why has since the mid 70ies the USA
become a dramatic net-importer of crude oil?
Is that tactics to misleda everybody while you're piling up the homeland
oil in secret shelters?

[See comment at bottom]

The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
of known reserves?

Indeed, based on your arguments, it would be a complete waste of time and
effort.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
All needs be done is get Congress to quit sitting on their brains and to
tell the EnviroNazi's (yes, that's were a lot of environmental premises
come from) to stick it where the sun don't shine.

From time to time some fool pops up, using the word "Nazi" in utterly
wrong and misconceptional ways,
probably hardly knowing what he's talking about and the Nazi's
implications.

And you obviously don't know the long term history of the environmental
movement back to Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

Now, you're demonstrating complete ignorance, so, no, I won't waste my time.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of barrels
of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen? They have little to do with
'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is almost non existent. We
have peaked in natural gas production in North America so sand oil is
pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts demand to go well
over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

[Pat]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
ever. Period. End of sentence.

As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
end, the market will prevail. It always does.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
ever. Period. End of sentence.
As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
goes up, substitutes become feasible.

Well, we could, if alternative are not developed.

But not only are substitutes developed, drilling in more difficult and
inhospitable locations becomes feasible, both technologically and
economically.

As substitutes become more
plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventually, substitutes will
take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.

Econ 101 - something these two ratchetheads don't comprehend. They
apparently have been innured with the "Fixed Pie" school of thought.

So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
readily.

Just one hundred years ago, a 1000 foot well was a major accomplishment.
Today, 28,000 feet is no big deal.

As well, major strides are being made in nuclear generation
http://gt-mhr.ga.com, even the Tokomac Fusion generator holds some longer
term promise.

our lives are enhanced by the geniuses of the world (like those mentioned in
the above web articles), not the putzes banging away on daddy's computer
like Bloomquist and Loomis.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Pat

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen is
almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in North
America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA predicts
demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about kerogens),
but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Oh come on. Stop being simplistic. We will not run out of oil --
ever. Period. End of sentence.
As supplies become more and more limited, price goes up. As price
goes up, substitutes become feasible. As substitutes become more
plentiful, there is less demand for oil. Eventuall, substitutes will
take over completely because it's too expensive to pump the remaining
oil, so it will sit in the ground forever. It's economics 101.
So where will it all come from -- substitution. But right now, it's
to early to know what the ultimate substitute will be. But in the
end, the market will prevail. It always does.

Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.

Do see the Hirsch report.

http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist
Address our condition explicitly. Our condition is measured in quads/year.
Do see the Hirsch report.
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Yeah, saw that years ago.

It was poop then, it's poop now.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen
is almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in
North America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA
predicts demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come
from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about
kerogens), but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Not from kerogens.

Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

I do.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Tadej Brezina
The earth has hardly the reserves to incur the last 100 years'
exploitation and it's progression for another 100 years.

Can you back that up? Should I waste my time showing the billions of
barrels of known reserves?

Are your 'reserves' sand oil and kerogen?

Well, no, so the rest of this tripe is of little worth.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
They have little to do with 'capacity to produce'. The ERoEI of kerogen
is almost non existent. We have peaked in natural gas production in
North America so sand oil is pretty much a losing proposition. The EIA
predicts demand to go well over 100 mb/d by 2025. Where will it come
from?

You should not make assumptions (such as that I was talking about
kerogens), but then you'd have to really THINK, not just emote.

You didn't answer the question. Where will it come from?

Not from kerogens.
Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
I do.

Then, answer the question.

My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
answer the question.

(hand waving goes here...)

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
irrelevant.

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow
I do.

Then, answer the question.

You first.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
My guess now, methane hydrates. Show me a realistic study. If not, just
answer the question.

No.

Your ignorance is incredible. Your reading skills substantially less.

Okay, here's a clue: the original point, that you completely ignored, was
NOT substitutes.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
(hand waving goes here...)

That's not hand waving, that's jerking off.

Now, I suspect you're still in school, and you've just finished a class in
which you're ego has just gotten a substantially inflated.

I may be wrong, but if I am, I wonder why you come off like a newbie with
inflated expectations of your knowledge.

Here's another clue: I am working right now, with several people in the Oil
& Gas industries in Wyoming, Colorado, and, to a lesser degree, Texas and
Oklahoma (I am in construction, not specifically O&G). They are a very good
source of real, objective and empirical data regarding O&G production
potentials.

You, on the other hand, are evidently a clueless dweeb whose ego is about to
get smashed because you believed your teachers when they told you that your
opinion was important, but didn't understand, because they didn't comprehend
it either, that your opinion was NOT VALID.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
irrelevant.

I did. Talk about reading skills.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Now, I suspect you're still in school...

Sounds like pot/kettle to me.

<snip worthless content>

(More hand waving goes here)

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Do you know any other reserves that we have discovered?

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer the first one, which was that your Kerotans was
irrelevant.

I did. Talk about reading skills.

No, you made a GUESS.

Actually, you made two GUESSES. Indeed, your reading comprehension skills
ARE pathetic.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Now, I suspect you're still in school...

Sounds like pot/kettle to me.

Another SFB guess! I'm in my 50's, with an BSEE and MSCE and run my own $6M
company.

Post by Dan Bloomquist
<snip worthless content>
(More hand waving goes here)

You couldn't even discern something from the hints I gave you.

So, go back and keep jerking off. Your teacher will love you for it, aside
from the FACT that many get out of school at 18 and never mature, other than
physically, beyond that point.

Can you GUESS what that means? Here's another hint: I've already surmised
YOUR position - it's typical from your "arguments".

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did, I just wasn't about the be drawn
into your guessing game.

You're the one that made the claim, snotball. You said we were running out
of fuel and used two totally irrelevant substitutes to make your point. That
is utter ignorance that I'm not willing to sift out from you.

Then you GUESSED at what we (a couple others) meant.

(I'm having such fun playing with this pompous and pretentious know-nothing)

Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it - I'm not going
to respond to your SFB tantrums.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did...

No, you did not. I only see the claim:
"Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available
fairly readily."

So, you didn't answer the question.

, I just wasn't about the be drawn

into your guessing game.

I'm asking you to answer the question, 'Where will the oil come from?'

You won't answer the question so I've been left to do the guessing.

Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it...

Where will the oil for the future come from? Where are these 50 years of
oil in the U.S.? Why are we producing at some 5 mb/d and consuming at 21
mb/d if it is 'somewhere'?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did...

"Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
readily."
So, you didn't answer the question.
, I just wasn't about the be drawn

into your guessing game.

I'm asking you to answer the question, 'Where will the oil come from?'

From the known reserves.

You won't answer the question so I've been left to do the guessing.

Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it...

Where will the oil for the future come from? Where are these 50 years of
oil in the U.S.? Why are we producing at some 5 mb/d and consuming at 21
mb/d if it is 'somewhere'?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

Do you know what a "static" study is?

Do you know how much we CAN produce?

As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
might have something to do with that?

Don't tie lead weights around a sprinters ankles then bitch that he keep
losing races.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did...

"Right now, the US has AT LEAST 50 years of oil deposits available fairly
readily."
So, you didn't answer the question.
, I just wasn't about the be drawn

into your guessing game.

I'm asking you to answer the question, 'Where will the oil come from?'

From the known reserves.

We have used more than half the known reserves in the world. That is why
conventional production is peaking. New discoveries are now running
about a sixth of demand.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

You won't answer the question so I've been left to do the guessing.

Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it...

Where will the oil for the future come from? Where are these 50 years of
oil in the U.S.? Why are we producing at some 5 mb/d and consuming at 21
mb/d if it is 'somewhere'?
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

Do you know what a "static" study is?
Do you know how much we CAN produce?

It seems we 'can' produce 5 mb/d and it is declining.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
might have something to do with that?

That is an old lame argument. Off shore plus ANWR might get 2 mb/d in
six or seven years. It is hardly the issue.

You really don't know much about oil, do you?....

[jloomis]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

Do you know what a "static" study is?
Do you know how much we CAN produce?

Post by Dan Bloomquist
As you can see, oil production in the U.S. is in pretty severe decline.

Gee...I wonder why that is? Think the environuts (you and your buddies)
might have something to do with that?
Don't tie lead weights around a sprinters ankles then bitch that he keep
losing races.

Don't blow any smoke in his face either...........his oxygen intake may
suffer.
jloomis

[jloomis]

I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
burning of fossil fuels.......
That should be interesting...............
Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
jloomis
What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
site........
Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
raving........

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by Dan Bloomquist
You didn't answer the question.

So, you make a claim and refuse to back it up.

You didn't answer the question.

You guess so? As a matter of fact, I did, I just wasn't about the be drawn
into your guessing game.
You're the one that made the claim, snotball. You said we were running out
of fuel and used two totally irrelevant substitutes to make your point.
That is utter ignorance that I'm not willing to sift out from you.
Then you GUESSED at what we (a couple others) meant.
(I'm having such fun playing with this pompous and pretentious
know-nothing)
Ask an INTELLIGENT and RELEVANT question and I'll answer it - I'm not
going to respond to your SFB tantrums.

[Dan Bloomquist]

Post by jloomis
I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
burning of fossil fuels.......
That should be interesting...............
Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
jloomis
What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
site........
Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
raving........

Is this guy Matt one of yours? I'm posting from sci.econ. I'm discussing
this with another guy in a thread called, "Re: Financial Sector
self-destructing". There is better information there.

Here is my blog:
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/

Best, Dan.

[jloomis]

not one of mine, but the way he acts, and does not communicate very well.
I like the bumper sticker that I have seen.....
"Don't believe everything you think"
It may fit him well.
jloomis

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by jloomis
I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
burning of fossil fuels.......
That should be interesting...............
Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
jloomis
What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
site........
Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
raving........

Is this guy Matt one of yours? I'm posting from sci.econ. I'm discussing
this with another guy in a thread called, "Re: Financial Sector
self-destructing". There is better information there.
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
Best, Dan.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by jloomis
not one of mine, but the way he acts, and does not communicate very well.
I like the bumper sticker that I have seen.....
"Don't believe everything you think"
It may fit him well.
jloomis

You know something, Loomis? Given your eight year-old writing skill level,
you've got nothing to say about ability to communicate.

Punk!

Post by jloomis

Post by Dan Bloomquist

Post by jloomis
I would like to hear what you have to say about global warming and the
burning of fossil fuels.......
That should be interesting...............
Or do we just go on and keep burning all the oil and give a %^$#^
jloomis
What happened to construction, I thought this was a construction
site........
Constructive talk..........meaningful discussion, not ranting and
raving........

Looking at the writing above, seems the only ranting in here is your
(continuous) incoherrence.

[plonk as well]

Post by jloomis

Post by Dan Bloomquist
Is this guy Matt one of yours? I'm posting from sci.econ. I'm discussing
this with another guy in a thread called, "Re: Financial Sector
self-destructing". There is better information there.
http://lakeweb.blogspot.com/
Best, Dan.

Yeah, your the same retard that was posting all that "Peak Oil" non-sense in
here a year or so ago.

Same ignorant Malthusian tripe.

[plonk]

Just as full of shit as ever.

[Les Cargill]

Post by PeterD
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Enough Already

Post by Enough Already
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

the endless replacement of nature with people."

Yes, because everybody knows people are completely unnatural...

--
Les Cargill

[PeterBP]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.

What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
area covered by roads.

I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
Anybody know is this is correct?

Post by Enough Already
The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."
With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

As things are today, much of this polulation gorwn is latin american
immigration, much of which is illegal. I don't see how they can legaly
put in an order for real estate.

Post by Enough Already
With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
over the place)
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

Thats incorrect - a good deal of economic growth has happened because of
better production methods that allows one human to do the work of many,
who do not have the same machines to perform their labor.

The industrial revolution is the prime example of this. So was/is the
computer revolution.

[George Conklin]

Post by PeterBP

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

Yep. I never followed it up with any deep research though.
What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
area covered by roads.

A trivial amount.

Post by PeterBP
I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
Anybody know is this is correct?

A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are devoted
to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by PeterBP
What struck me most, though (and you mention this below), is the land
area covered by roads.

A trivial amount.

Post by PeterBP
I think I read somewhere that 6% of Manhattan's surface area are roads.
Anybody know is this is correct?

Yes, it is. So what? How much land space of the lower 48 does Manhattan
cover?

Post by George Conklin
A study in ACCESS showed that a well-designed city has MORE are devoted
to roads than the infamous car-dependent suburb.

Because car-dependant suburbs don't fit the profile that the statists
desire.

[Dioclese]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.

The standard housing development begins with raw land and plows roads
through them. Then, the housing starts are processing and building begins.
Not the other way around.

What happens afterward is widening of access roads to this aforementioned
development, adding shops and stores along the said access road along the
way. Its a support structure for the people who frequent such roads.

Post by Enough Already
The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus

Common sense, its (start) simple permission of the governing locale allowing
commencing of building a home.

Post by Enough Already
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period.

Its also comparison of undefined housing starts. That is, one could be a
vast majority of modest homes with another sample of starts of more
expensive homes involved. That is, simple comparison of number of housing
starts in one year to another year is comparing apples and oranges unless we
know what the starts are starting in terms of monies.
.

Housing starts are an

Post by Enough Already
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely

See above, could be BS as well.

Post by Enough Already
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."

Uhhhh, the VAST majority of people borrow to purchase a home as that is
their only alternative. Will has nothing to do with it.

Post by Enough Already
With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?

The chicken and egg thing is the basis of the economy, not just housing.
Another instance is Social Security, its very basis is a constantly
increasing population paying in vice paying out.

Post by Enough Already
With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and

Don't worry, nature always rebounds. We, and our grandchildren, just won't
be around when it does...

Post by Enough Already
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.

The planet has be human over-populated for over a century now. Its just a
matter of time.

Post by Enough Already
http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint (housing starts are stomping all
over the place)
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

People will succumb to lack of resources and lack of usable land for their
sustenance like any other creature of nature.

[Dan in Philly]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total

Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.

Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%

If this doubles over next century, then 1% of land will be covered. (Note:
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)

Dan in Philly

[George Conklin]

Post by Dan in Philly

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tota
l

Post by Dan in Philly
Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.
Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
Dan in Philly

I live on an abandoned tobacco farm. The barn was burned in our
fireplace. There are 150 houses where there used to be one tobacco farm.
Do we need more tobacco or more houses? There are all kinds of trees on the
land now, but at one time there were none. I so happen to have a buy-out
for a tobacco allotment (on another piece of land). But do we need more
smokers?

[RogerDodger]

Post by Dan in Philly

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-total
Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.
Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
Dan in Philly

Overall context:

The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.

Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.

Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.

That's about 15% of the land area of the US.

Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.

Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
lots.

The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
basketball.

As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.

[George Conklin]

Post by Dan in Philly

Post by Dan in Philly

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

Total acreage of the U.S. = 1876 million acres

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/geo_lan_acr_tot-geography-land-acreage-tot

al

Post by Dan in Philly

Post by Dan in Philly
Assuming 100 million households, and assuming the average "house" covers 0.1
acres (should be much less than that due to apartment buildings, condos)
then houses cover 10 million acres.
Percent of land covered by houses: 10/1876 = 0.5%
much of this will be due to Mexican immigration, so lots of crummy 'houses'
in Mexico will become abandoned and will revert to nature)
Dan in Philly

The entire population of the world, 6.6 billion, could be given
single-family homes (figuring 5 persons per family, low for the world)
on quarter-acre lots, with yards to play catch with the kids and all,
and easily fit into four or five decent-sized U.S. states.
Say ... Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas.
Though they might prefer California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Arizona. Nicer weather, with more choice about it.
That's about 15% of the land area of the US.
Then say you create multi-family housing, so one-third of housing area
is single-family homes, one third is two-family homes, and one-third
averages nine families up in apartment buildings, per quarter acre.
Now you've emptied 75% of even that space, and 6.6 billion people live
in about 3.5% of the land area of the US, with the other 11.5%
becoming room for ball parks, offices and shopping center parking
lots.
The great bulk of the world's land area is empty. The great weight of
humanity physically bears down upon the globe like dust upon a
basketball.
As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.

Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by George Conklin

Post by RogerDodger
As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.

Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.

..and to the Sierra Club.

Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!

[George Conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by George Conklin

Post by RogerDodger
As far as just the US is concerned, if it had the same population
density as that infamous hell-hole Bermuda, all its people would fit
into an area somewaht smaller than California and Wyoming combined.

Given quadraplexes, the Sierra Club ideal, everyone in the world would
fit into Texas, leaving the rest of the world to snakes and flies.

..and to the Sierra Club.
Now THAT's an unbeatable real estate deal!!

Nah...for snakes.

[zzbunker]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year?

Yes, of course, many people do often.
Since as fate would have it, that's the limit of what the moron
politiciians in the US even know about economics, buisness,
science, engineering, or any subject really.
So, that's obviously where the robots, digital, computers,
fiber optics, laser disks, satellittes, artifical intelligence,
tasers,
D.U., D,N.A., and cruise missiles came from for the "stsrt-me-up"
imbeciles.



This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,

Post by Enough Already
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.
The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."
With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
over the place)
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

[europeanvic]

Post by Enough Already
Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
starts each year? This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
designated wilderness.
The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
"Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
important economic indicator because they show how much money the
general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
from banks."
With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing starts are stomping all
over the place)
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.

So what do you suggest?!
Criticize is easy, what would you do is important. Stop building?!

http://www.planorealestateadvisor.com
http://www.planorealty.blogspot.com