Recently Peak Oil (see also this website) and Global Climate Change have been in the news more often. Although Peak Oil is an economic problem, whereas Global Warming is an environmental one, both are really two sides of the same coin. They are both consequences or symptoms of the underlying problem - we are over utilizing the resources of our planet. Put another way, we are not living sustainably - within the carrying capacity of our planet.

Oil and other fossil fuels have come to be such an integral part of our economy that it is difficult, if not impossible to find an aspect of life (in this county) that is not dependent of the stuff to function. Nearly our entire transportation system is dependent on it. Our food supply is also dependent on it: modern industrial farming is dependent on large quantities of fossil fuel based pesticides and fertilizers, as well as fossil fuels to power farming equipment and transport food from one side of the country to the other. Plastics are produced from petroleum. And the list goes on and on. We are now at the point where oil production is pretty close to capacity, and worldwide demand is growing very quickly, so any hiccup in production (such as might be caused by another Katrina-sized storm or a terrorist attack) is likely to cause shortages. Since oil plays such a large role in the production and distribution of goods, an interruptionI in the supply could cause a substantial problem. If this happens in the Fall, just before a particularly severe (or maybe even normal) Winter, it could easily cause extreme hardship for many people in this country. It becomes relatively easy to imagine a doomsday scenario - anything from a mega oil crash resulting in a complete collapse of the economy and a corresponding depression (I read somwhere that if this potential scenario came to pass, it could make the Great Depression look like the Good 'Ole Days) to a resource war that spirals out of control.

On the other hand, oil shocks could also serve to get things moving in the right direction. I believe that what caused people to shift to smaller cars and use less fuel during the Oil Shocks of the 70's wasn't high prices by themselves, but also the fuel shortage - having to wait in line for a limited amount of fuel seemed to make an impression on people and for awhile at least, things changed. Another example of major and rapid societal change resulting from a national trauma can be found in WW II. In that case, it was the dramatic Pearl Habor attack which was the event that galvanized the US into action, and in a very short time society was transformed to deal with the challenge at hand. More recently, our society has changed pretty dramatically in a relatively short period of time after Sept 11. So given the proper motivators, we can change - and an oil shock is something that will directly touch many more people more directly than the Sept 11 attacks.

Sometimes it can be difficult to remain hopeful that we will get our act together in time. But there are other modern societies in the world that do things differently than here - The Netherlands, for one example (bikes are everywhere and used for almost everything!), Sweden and Denmark for others. So different attitudes toward the world are possible. And these European countries haven't gone as far as we could, given the proper motivation. If enough of us can recognize the problem, and elect the proper leadership, who also recognizes the problem, and is capable of galvanizing the rest of the country into doing what needs to be done, we could be living in an exhilarating time, rather than on the brink of something awful.

The solution as I see it must be a way of life that is less consumptive to begin with, and which utilizes a variety of old techniques and new technologies. Transportation needs in the past were much more limited than they are at present, because by necessity, people usually lived where they worked. The automobile and inexpensive fuel facilitated our ability to move beyond the outskirts of town and still get to work on time, do our shopping and so forth, and Suburban sprawl is the direct result. Part of a sustainable way of life will require restructuring things over time so that people aren't required to move themselves an hour and a half down the road to get to work - living where we work, shop etc. is critical to achieving this. A sustainable transportation system will likely consist of a variety of modes of transportation - much improved public transportation, and much greater reliance on moving from place to place on foot, and by bicycle (and tricycle, quadracycle, velomobile, etc.).

Just as a side note: I believe that inexpensive oil is a significant part of the reason that velomobiles and their close cousins recumbent bicycles aren't widely known or used. Some people claim that a ban from competition by the governing body of cycle racing, the UCI, (click here for more information on this) is what is responsible for the scarcity of these cycles on the road, and it probably did play a part, however, I believe that there is more to it than that. In the early days after the invention of the bicycle In the late 1800's and early 1900's, the substantial advantages of the the bicycle over the horse played a large part in its explosive growth and popularity; In contrast with the alternative, bicycles didn't require food, didn't leave a mess behind, and didn't die!

During this "Golden Age of Bicycles" there was much experimentation, and a huge proliferation of different types of cycles. It didn't take long before people begam fitting motors to cycles to make them go faster and farther, however, and the cheap, abundant supply of energy to power them offered by petroleum only fostered this trend. It also effectively removed the incentive to develop further improvements to practical cycling technology. After having used several different velomobiles over the past few years, I feel comfortable writing that there are substantial advantages offered by these vehicles over conventional cycles. If cheap and abundant oil hadn't been available, it is more likely that these advantages would have been recognized by the public, market forces would have taken over, and recumbents and velombiles would have developed in spite of the UCI ban. Perhaps the ban would never have been instituted to begin with.

At any rate, fossily fuels have been cheap and abundant, and we have spent the last hundred years or so making extensive use of them, to the point where our entire economy is dangerously dependent on them. It is now critical that we come up with sustainable alternative solutions to the way we currently doing things. Arriving at alternative solutions to our current complete dependence on fossil fuels could and should be a driver for our economy. In fact, the desire to be part of the movement to find and offer sustainable alternatives is a major reason why I have started Wildfire HPV.

Original intro - My Soapbox

My interest in velomobiles is a direct extension of recognizing the inter-relationship and inter-dependency of all things and the realization that the resources of the earth are limited. The earth is for most intents and purposes a closed system. Put another way ... "the Earth is finite both as a source and as a sink." I'm not the first to point out how apparent this truth is when one looks at the famous NASA image of the Earth viewed from space.

At this time, most scientists are in agreement that global climate change is occurring. Many point to the emission of a variety of gases due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans as a major culprit in causing this climate change. The tremendous advances in human technology and the ability of humans to manipulate their surroundings have been brought about through the discovery that it is possible to use energy from a past age in the form of petroleum. Previously humans were limited by their ability to consume only energy stored from their own age. Just about anyone would agree that the supply of fossil fuels is limited. I've heard it said that we will never run out of fossil fuels - if the oil dries up, technology will figure out a way to refine more from coal. It seems, though, at this rate the devastation caused to our surroundings by burning these fossil fuels could seriously damage our finite planet.

As I see it, the root of the problem is unarguably that there are just too many people. Although decreasing the world population of humans is a difficult proposition, the impact of the humans currently existing can be lessened - in our part of the world quite dramatically! Currently, conspicuous consumption is the norm. According to conventional wisdom, a healthy economy is one which is continually growing. Unrestrained growth is a hallmark of cancer, as well. Cancer kills the afflicted individual by crowding, overutilizing resources, and strangling normal cells, to the point where the whole organism dies.

Conspicuous consumption has many detrimental social effects, as well. Who can say how many people have expressed a longing to "escape the rat race." In almost all cases, this has been just an amorphous desire, without any way in which to put it into practice. A few have succeeded, though. There is an alternative to living as part of the rat race. As I see it the problem can be traced back to our expectations of what makes a good life. I think the answer lies in changing our expectations, and decrying the attitude typically associated with Americans of "more, bigger, flashier and easier is better". Hints for achieving this attitude shift may be found within the simplicity movement.

Most people - even those who claim to be environmentally minded - find it difficult if not impossible to think against the grain with respect to what they can do to lessen the negative impact their activities have on the Earth. Perhaps some examples are needed of people who have succeeded in simplifying.

There have been some great simplifyers: Scott and Helen Nearing (Living the Good Life, and, Continuing the Good life) were an extreme example who have influenced my thinking (although they did use a pickup truck). And there are a number of others out there - some of whom are involved in the Human Powered Vehicle movement. Some of the theories and practices espoused by the Nearings seem extreme to me, but I can certainly see living a version of their good life which would be consistant with the general spirit of their lives and which would include a car free, or at the very least a car-lite existance.

I would acknowledge that there are situations in which it seems appropriate to use an automobile - for longer trips, and for carrying heavy loads, for emergencies, and for situations where several people prefer to travel together. But there are a great number of situations where non-internal combustion engine driven transport would be more appropriate.

It may have been in one of the Nearings books that I first read that one key to feeling satisfied/actualized in your life is to unify theory and practice. For me, using a Velomobile for personal transportation is a key element in this unification. It occurred to me that perhaps I could act as a catalyst for environmentally responsible transportation through helping to get more velomobiles on the road by creating this website. This website is intended to help those of us who understand and sympathize with what I have written in unifying theory with practice.

Yosh!