What about Portland?
Have you ever thought about the best place to ride out the storm? That is, different cities & geography are going to fare better than others - which one will be best?
I'd like to offer Portland as an idea:
- The city has an office for sustainable development, including an official Peak Oil Task Force (http://www.portlandonline.com/osd/index.cfm?a=122243&c=41625)
- They'll likely never have an issue with lack of water (of course with global warming it's hard to say)
- The climate is mild enough not to require extra energy for heating/cooling (again, global warming caveat)
- The train system is as good or better than anywhere else in the US
- Food shouldn't be a problem, and if it is it, won't be nearly as bad as most places in the US
The only place that might be better is "any location in most other countries, esp. Europe."
posted by Todd @ 10:40 PM
1 Comments:
Well location is interesting. Obviously area that are on the ocean or navigable waterways would be good, railroads are also going to be important. If you are dealing with both peak oil and global warming/flooding climate change, traditional coastal cities are likely to be underwater. Peak oil will probably be an issue before global warming is an issue. The amish are able to survive, but they also rape their sisters. I think the biggest threat is going to be other humans, they are annoyingly petty and violent. I would suggest Montana for its large coal fields and emptyness. Raise a herd of cattle and heat the house with coal. Cooling is probably not needed. Any area away from large concentrations of population would probably work well as long as food can be obrtained. Good soil is probably important along with fresh water. Isn't alaska on top of a lake of oil? The soil is rocky. I think it is tough to predict the best location to setup, there are alot of possible ways to take advantage of any situation, it will probably come down to personal preferance.
Post a Comment
<< Home