The Walll Street Journal's ridiculous pro-automobile rant

[spandexwarrior]

I had to share this, just because the views of this journalist are unbelievable. Yet, I warn you, we need this as a reality check, because there are definately very many people who have a very unhealthy relationship with the automobile.
From the Wall Street Jounal op-ed page:

Dick Lawrence

The War Against the Car
POSTED 2005-11-12T11:01:19

November 11, 2005

A few years ago, I made a presentation to my second-grader's social
studies class, asking the kids what was the worst invention in
history. I was shocked when a number of them answered "the car."
When I asked why, they replied that cars destroy the environment.
Distressed by the Green indoctrination already visited upon seven-
year-olds, I was at least reassured in knowing that once these
youngsters got their drivers' licenses, their attitudes would change.

It's one thing for second-graders to hold such childish notions, but
quite another for presumably educated adults to argue that
automobiles are economically and environmentally
unsustainable "axles of evil." But with higher gas prices, as well
as Malthusian-sounding warnings about catastrophic global warming
and the planet running out of oil, the tirade has taken on a new
plausibility. Maybe Al Gore had it right all along when he warned
that the car and the combustible engine are "a mortal threat . . .
more deadly than any military enemy."

Welcome to the modern-day Luddite movement, which once raged against
the machine, but now targets the automobile. Just last month,
environmentalists organized a "world car-free day," celebrated in
more than 40 cities in the U.S. and Europe. In the left's vision of
utopia, cars have been banished -- replaced by bicycles and mass
transit systems. There is no smog or road congestion. And America
has been liberated from those sociopathic, gas-guzzling, greenhouse-
gas-emitting SUVs and Hummers that Jesus would never drive.

It all sounds idyllic, but in real life this fairy tale has a tragic
ending. As Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, reminds us, if the "no car garage" had been a reality in
New Orleans in August, we wouldn't have suffered 1,000 Katrina
fatalities, but 10,000 or more. The automobile, especially those
dreaded all-terrain four-wheel drive SUVs (ideal for driving through
floodwaters) saved more lives during the Katrina disaster than all
the combined relief efforts of FEMA, local police and fire squads,
churches, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. If every poor family
had had a car and not a transit token, few would have had to be
warehoused in the hellhole of the Superdome.

This month we paid honor to the heroism of Rosa Parks for fighting
racism through the bus boycott in Montgomery. What helped sustain
that historic freedom cause was that hundreds of blacks owned cars
and trucks that they used to carpool others around the city.

A strong argument could be made that the automobile is one of the
two most liberating inventions of the past century, ranking only
behind the microchip. The car allowed even the common working man
total freedom of mobility -- the means to go anywhere, anytime, for
any reason. In many ways, the automobile is the most egalitarian
invention in history, dramatically bridging the quality-of-life gap
between rich and poor. The car stands for individualism; mass
transit for collectivism. Philosopher Waldemar Hanasz, who grew up
in communist Poland, noted in his 1999 essay "Engines of Liberty"
that Soviet leaders in the 1940s showed the movie "The Grapes of
Wrath" all over the country as propaganda against the evils of U.S.
capitalism and the oppression of farmers. The scheme backfired
because "far from being appalled, the Soviet viewers were envious;
in America, it seemed, even the poorest had cars and trucks."

It's not hard to imagine life in America without cars. If you travel
to any Third World Country today, cars are scarce and the city
streets are crammed with hundreds of thousands of bicycles, buses
and scooters -- and peasant workers all sharing the aspiration of
someday owning a car. But in America and other developed nations,
the environmental elitists are intent on flipping economic
development on its head: Progress is being measured by how many cars
can be traded in for mass transit systems and bikes, not vice versa.
The recently passed highway bill establishes a first-ever office of
bicycle advocacy inside the Transportation Department. The bicycle
enthusiasts seem to believe that no one ever has far to go, that it
never rains, that families don't have three or more kids to
transport, and that mom never needs to bring home three bags of
groceries.

Similarly, there is now a nearly maniacal obsession among policy
makers and the Greens to conserve energy rather than to produce it.
Even many of the oil companies are running ad campaigns on the
virtues of using less energy (do the shareholders know about this?) -
- which would be like McDonald's advising Americans to eat fewer
hamburgers because a cow is a terrible thing to lose. A perverse
logic has taken hold among the intelligentsia that progress can be
measured by how much of the earth's fuels we save, when in fact the
history of human economic advancement, dating back to the invention
of the wheel, has been defined by our ability to substitute
technology and energy use for the planet's one truly finite
resource: human energy.

It is because we have continually found inventive ways to harness
the planet's energy sources at ever-declining costs -- through such
sinister inventions as the car -- that the average American today
produces what 200 men could before the industrial revolution began.
Studies confirm that the more, not less, energy a nation uses and
the more, not fewer, cars that it has, the more productive the
workers, the richer the society, and the healthier the citizens as
measured by life expectancy. When Albania abolished cars, it quickly
became one of the very poorest nations in Europe.

The simplistic notion taught to our second-graders, that the car is
an environmental doomsday machine, reveals an ignorance of history.
When Henry Ford first started rolling his Black Model Ts off the
assembly line at the start of the 20th century, the auto was hailed
as one of the greatest environmental inventions of all time. That's
because the horse, which it replaced, was a prodigious polluter,
dropping 40 pounds of waste a day. Imagine what a city like St.
Louis smelled like on a steamy summer afternoon when the streets
were congested with horses and piled with manure.

The good news is that environmental groups and politicians aren't
likely to break Americans from their love affair with cars -- big,
convenient, safe cars -- no matter how guilty they try to make us
feel for driving them. Instead they are using more subtle forms of
coercion. The left is now pining for a $1-a-gallon gas tax to make
driving unaffordable. Washington has also wasted over $60 billion of
federal gas tax money on mass transit systems, yet fewer Americans
ride them now than before the deluge of subsidies began. When the
voters in car-crazed Los Angeles opted to fund an ill-fated subway
system, most drivers who voted "yes" said they did so because they
hoped it would compel other people off the crowded highways.

To be sure, if the entire membership of the Sierra Club and
Greenpeace surrendered their cars, the world and the highways might
very well be a better place. But for the rest of us the car is
indispensable -- it is our exoskeleton. There's a perfectly good
reason that the roads are crammed with tens of millions of cars and
that Americans drive eight billion miles a year while spurning
buses, trains, bicycles and subways. Americans are rugged
individualists who don't want to cram aboard buses and subways. We
want more open roads and highways, and we want energy policies that
will make gas cheaper, not more expensive. We want to travel down
the road from serfdom and the car is what will take us there.

[randya]

Already posted in living car free.

[henree]

This guy is so out of it...Where do I begin. He just gives some low ball anadotal reasons for why we should all have cars. I am not even opposed to cars, just think we overuse them. But the New Orleans thing....Like the idea of no cars means no public transport. There were buses that were not used.

The freeways got so packed with cars that a lot of people decided not to leave because it is too difficult to get out. People were running out of gas just 20 miles out of the city because they were going so solw and burning up their fuel, some had to return back to try and get to safty. You know despite how anyone feels about Cuba, they have an oil embargo, so they don't have many cars, and yet they still can manage to evacuate their cities with trucks and buses and no one dies. What happened in New Orleans was a complete mess, but it had little to do with the "value" of cars, it had to do with our country making tax paying citizens (who pay for public transportation and roadways) fend for themselves,

I have a car, I am glad that sometime it's there for me (I have a wife who is ill and sometimes we have to use the car) but this guy just makes really idiotic justifications that anger me

[KrisPistofferson]

Dude, it's the WALL STREET Journal, lol. Discouraging people from spending on autos is not something I see them advocating, EVER.

[ItsJustMe]

If they'd all jumped on bikes instead of into cars, they would have gotten out of the city a lot faster. The problem was not that they didn't have cars, the problem was that they've been "indoctrinated" (to use his word) to believe that if you don't have a car, you can't go anywhere beyond where the busses or mass transit go.

[bluebottle1]

This really pisses me off. It's no more than the usual kind of knee-jerk, reactionary bull**** I've come to expect from the WSJ editorial page, granted. I think it's possible to argue in a reasonable manner that the automobile has been a useful invention, but this guy doesn't seem to acknowledge that it has come at a cost. It's likely that many of our cities--particularly in the south and west--would look very different if not for the advent of the single-passenger automobile.

The article--in its condemnation of public transportation--also ignores the notion that if so many folks were not so indoctrinated into the use of cars (and the auto industry didn't have such a good lobby), public transportation might be a much better option for many. Where I live, the public transporation system is very poor. Why? Because of years and years and years of molding our transportation plan around nothing but private motor vehicles.

Another point I just don't get is the insistence that $60 billion spent on mass transit systems is "wasted" because the systems are under utilized or don't pay for themselves. Build them big enough to get folks from point A to point B and they'll be used. The problem is that so many of these systems are in their infancy and haven't been built up enough to complete anyone's commute. And I'm sure that the old "it won't pay for itself" argument isn't far behind. Someone please tell me...when is the last time you saw a freeway pay for itself?

*whew* Okay, rant completed.

[cooker]

Had all the poor of New Orleans tried to drive out along with the middle class and wealthy, none of them would have made it. The poor were stranded because they were betrayed by the railways. A few trains could have taken them all.

[LittleBigMan]

It all sounds idyllic, but in real life this fairy tale has a tragic
ending. As Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, reminds us, if the "no car garage" had been a reality in
New Orleans in August, we wouldn't have suffered 1,000 Katrina
fatalities, but 10,000 or more.

Nonsense.

This man has obviously never experienced the traffic jams that occur every time a hurricane evac takes place. People actually run out of gas as they sit for hours, not even moving.

[timmhaan]

i can't see any way that a reasonable person can look at a modern city during rush hour and not say that there is a huge problem. large cities frequently come to complete gridlock. ever see what happens after a concert or a popular sporting event?

[EricDJ]

Just owning a scooter, which the writer mentions is "found in 3rd world countries along wth bicycles" could have saved many more people. Even a scooter surely doesn't belong in this country, just a 3rd world one.

A scooter will be my next gas powered mode of transport. Perfect for the short trips that is inconvenient for a bike, better on gas thatn a car. and cheaper to own.

This writer is an idiot

[Wil Davis]

I think you're all taking this much too seriously. Read it again, slowly - I think the writer did this with his tongue firmly in his cheek…

- Wil

[Alekhine]

It doesn't matter that [x percentage] of what he says is complete BS or that he ignores things like the fact that every 2 years an entire NFL stadium's worth of people are killed by autos in the US alone.

It doesn't matter at all. He could have lied in every single sentence (actually, I don't believe that little story about the second graders for a second). What matters is that he gets circulation to many millions of readers all the time, and none of his opponents do. He wins, unfortunately, and that's the new game with his ilk.

[brokenrobot]

I think you're all taking this much too seriously. Read it again, slowly - I think the writer did this with his tongue firmly in his cheek…

- Wil

I think you're giving him WAY too much credit. Yes, it sounds like he's joking - but that's only because his argument is patently absurd. If you read the WSJ opinion pages regularly, though, you'll notice that MANY of their platforms are absurd on their face; that doesn't stop them - and a large portion of the citizenry - from taking them seriously.

[dobber]

I think you're giving him WAY too much credit. Yes, it sounds like he's joking - but that's only because his argument is patently absurd. If you read the WSJ opinion pages regularly, though, you'll notice that MANY of their platforms are absurd on their face; that doesn't stop them - and a large portion of the citizenry - from taking them seriously.

So an opinion is ok as long as it agrees with your position?

[PaulH]

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing intrinsically evil about cars. We get into trouble when we overuse or otherwise misuse them. Short trips are most convenient by bike; longer ones by car. Henry Ford developed the mass-market automobile for people in the country. He certainly did not have highly-congested cities in mind. If I had the garage space, I might well own 5 or 6 classic sportscars. I'd still ride my bike to work, of course.

By the way, the author certainly seems pro-automobile, but I agree that he also has the irony light turned on.

Paul

[cooker]

I think you're all taking this much too seriously. Read it again, slowly - I think the writer did this with his tongue firmly in his cheek…

- Wil

Not a chance of that. The piece may be a joke to many of us, but the irony went right over the writer's own head!

[cooker]

So an opinion is ok as long as it agrees with your position?Not sure what you're finding fault with here, Dobber. If your opinion differs from my opinion, then by definition, I think your opinion is wrong. How can it be otherwise?

[baiskeli]

Now thats what I call a steaming pile of doodoo!!!!

I come from a Third World Country and can tell you the problem is way too much spending on roads and not enough on alternative transportation (i.e buses, trains etc). However, since it is the rich who drive, they are the ones who dictate public transportation policies. The money spent on cars and highways and all the supporting infrastructure is money not spent on public transportation that is much more efficient at moving people, not even to talk about how much cars pollute.

Where I come from, a country with a GDP Per Capita of about $300 (compares to the U.S of $38,000), gas costs four times what it costs in the U.S!!!! Yet people still drive because the govt (read, the rich with their Benzes, BMWs and Range Rovers and well paved roads to the neighorhoods they live in) will not spend a freaking dime on public transportation infrastructure. We have not built a single new mile of railway in the last 40 years but we keep on building roads. In my mind, there is a direct correlation between the social inequities in a society and how willing it is to spend money on public transportation (which serves everyone) and on highways (which serve a select few).

I now live in Boston (have lived in other places) which has a great public transportation system compared to other U.S cities (and nothing compared to a lot of European cities) and I either ride or commute to work. I do have a car that my girlfriend uses (her work is further) but I did spend a whole 2 years car free and I never felt freer (no car payment, no insurance, no worries etc). I'm not anti-car, I even did ZipCar once in a while to get to places that I could not otherwise. But at core, a car is a vastly inefficient and stupid (yes stupid!) creation. A 3000-6000 hunk of metal to transport a 180-400 pound payload that is bad for the environment to boot.

[genec]

Cars are for hiways; bikes can make all the rest of the trips and even walking should be re-instated in many of our urban centers... especially out here in the west, where "no one walks in LA."

I firmly believe that we simply use the auto far too much.

[DCCommuter]

This article is poorly reasoned. He falls into the trap he accuses the other side of -- just as it is silly to argue that cars are inherently evil, it is no more sensible to say they are inherently good, which is what he tries to do. He then makes some silly stretches trying to justify his position. Cars are tools, and tools can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes. Are cars used for good purposes? Absolutely. Are there some problems about the way they are used? Absolutely there too.

[slagjumper]

I did a search and found this--
http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/2005/11/the_war_against.html
This commentary was written by Stephen Moore of the cato instituite--
http://www.cato.org/people/moore.html

He a smart guy, so this just underscores the rhetorical nature of the letter. Check this other pro 75 mph speed limit bit that he wrote a few years back.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/moore-031202.html

[trackhub]

I've seen articles such as this steaming pile before. This doesn't surprise me. And coming from the Wall Street Journal (home delivered to almost every residence in Concord, Massachusetts) makes it even less surprising.

What I smell in this guy's writing though, is fear. Fear that maybe, just maybe, a few of those kids he talked to had been turned off the automobile for good. Fear that maybe, just maybe, there are a few cracks showing in the armor.

The simplistic notion taught to our second-graders, that the car is
an environmental doomsday machine, reveals an ignorance of history.

Hmm, sort of like the facts that the bicycle was the main means of transportation in this country for years before the first Model T smoked its way off the assembly line, or that track bicycle racing was once the most popular sport, have been ignored?
I'd bet Mr. Lawrence knew these facts, he simply chose to leave them out. Ignorance of history,,,

Finally,, It's always interesting to hear one of these characters start saying that if the bicycle were to become the main means of transportation in America's cities, it would mean the loss of thousands of jobs, and drive us into becoming a dirt poor third-world economy.

Like Holland and Denmark? They may not have perfect economic systems, but they're hardly dirt poor third-world countries. And how did this country manage to survive the bicycle boom years of the 1890's to 1920?

As for the gloom and doom about how much worse the situation in New Orleans would have been in without lots of cars, well, that is pure and utter crap. There is simply of knowing any of that, unless you have the power of "Q" from Star Trek, or your name is Yoda. ("Push people's buttons, we must..")

As I said, I smell fear in diatribes such as this one.

[Ngchen]

Well, obviously I disagree with this guy's ranting. As an article in the WSJ, I can understand if there is a pro-business bias, since after all the WSJ is a business paper. What's amazing is that the guy completely ignores and forgets what economists term externalities. Externalities, from basic econ, are costs/benefits that are dumped onto mainly others. They distort conventional marketplace arguments. Pollution and congestion are typical externalities, and they tend to cause the phenomenon also known as the tragedy of the commons. Typically, the way to minimize such effects is through some sort of regulation or government incentive.

The guy is from the CATO institute. FWIW, often they produce good articles. It's just that their radical libertarian streak tends to ignore the problems of radical libertarianism, which makes articles like this one looney.

[cooker]

I'd bet Mr. Lawrence knew these facts, he simply chose to leave them out. Ignorance of history,,,.
The article appears to have been written by Stephen Moore. Perhaps Dick Lawrence is the OP of this thread, spandexwarrior?
RGC

[Dchiefransom]

After reading several articles by people that were visiting New Orleans, I've come to believe that the main reason for people not getting out of New Orleans was not because of the lack of transportation, or backup of cars on the freeway, it was because they didn't think anything would happen, so put off leaving until the last minute.
I think disconnecting the automobile from all the other technological advances in the last 100 years involves too much "spin". It's all connected, and will stay connected as we find other ways of doing things to adapt to necessary changes in transportation, whether it be required by lack of fuel, or over-population.

[slagjumper]

OK this got to me and so I created this rant and response. You never can tell who stumbles into the bike forums.

This is a “great” piece of rhetorical writing from Steven Moore of the Cato institute. He did a great job of protecting oil companies and auto manufacturer’s interests, while vilifying those interested in making an economically and environmentally better world. Why does he sing praises for the automobile, rather than supporting what Americans do best-- and that is coming up with resourceful solutions to important problems? The Henry Ford of today is coming up with ways to make big money by liberating the workers from time spent in their cars, and decreasing the dependency on foreign oil.

His arguments lack depth and seem meant to rile up the average folk and reinforce the idea that cars are fun, yet necessary. Moore is hell bent on growing our economy, but misses some key points and put forth a lame, and transparent effort to get people to cling to their cars for dear life. There are more than 110 billion dollars spent on fuel each year by Americans who are commuting by car. The average American commuter spends a full 2 weeks a year in their car, traveling to and from their place of work. Some Californians spend 2 to 3 times that amount of time in their cars—just getting to and from work. How again is this liberating?

Since only 2 percent of oil comes from the united states, most of the money that American’s spend on gas, goes to buy crude oil produced Saudi Arabia and Iran. Surely any American who thinks that cars are great for the country, must take another look at their position. Those of us who would like to see less use of cars, and more safety for pedestrians and cyclists, don’t want to take away the working mom’s minvan or fancy sports cars, rather we want to see other good ideas flourish so that the quality of life continues to increase for all Americans.

I am going to give my responses to Moore’s points one by one. While his “informal” opinion letter may not at first glance merit a step by step critique, upon closer examination we can uncover the errors of his statements and can develop a better position on the transportation debate.

Point 1. If there had been more cars, less people would have been left in the New Orleans superdome. He says:

As Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, reminds us, if the "no car garage" had been a reality in
New Orleans in August, we wouldn't have suffered 1,000 Katrina
fatalities, but 10,000 or more. ... If every poor family
had had a car and not a transit token, few would have had to be
warehoused in the hellhole of the Superdome.

I am not sure of the point. Cars are expensive and often poor people cannot afford them. Does he expect us to give the cars to the poor? I would think that many of the people stranded in the city choose not to leave, even though they had cars. Remember the mega traffic jam where it took 4 hours to go 60 miles? If the 100000 people left behind jumped in their cars, the line would have been hours longer and more folks would have run out of gas.

After the hurricane all car owners where at the mercy of the oil companies. Really this is an example of why we should move away from our dependence on cars, oil and gasoline.

Point 2-
Cars helped Rosa parks win against her oppressors.

What he said:
What helped sustain that historic freedom cause was that hundreds of blacks owned cars
and trucks that they used to carpool others around the city.

Common, don’t you think that Black people are smart enough to see when you are trying to co-opt them to your side? What if the “cool” hummers fell out of popularity with the pop superstars? Hummer would loose the free placement adds in music videos. What really helped win the freedom to sit where you wanted in public transportation, was about self determination and persistence, not about Buicks.

Point 3- Car as liberator.

What he said.

A strong argument could be made that the automobile is one of the
two most liberating inventions of the past century, ranking only
behind the microchip. The car allowed even the common working man
total freedom of mobility -- the means to go anywhere, anytime, for
any reason. In many ways, the automobile is the most egalitarian
invention in history, dramatically bridging the quality-of-life gap
between rich and poor. The car stands for individualism; mass
transit for collectivism. Philosopher Waldemar Hanasz, who grew up
in communist Poland, noted in his 1999 essay "Engines of Liberty"
that Soviet leaders in the 1940s showed the movie "The Grapes of
Wrath" all over the country as propaganda against the evils of U.S.
capitalism and the oppression of farmers. The scheme backfired
because "far from being appalled, the Soviet viewers were envious;
in America, it seemed, even the poorest had cars and trucks."

It is true that the car has been and to an extent still is, a great freedom machine. But so are bicycles, motorcycles, cell phones and the internet. Cars where once a far better solution, than they are now. Today there are other technologies that can boost productivity more than cars. Back in the 50s gas was cheep and there where 24 million fewer cars. But now with the high price of gas, forced dependency on other countries and melting ice caps, why can’t we start speeding up the pace developing better solutions? It is understandable that the oil companies want to protect their interests and so some tax or other government inducements might be needed. Better solutions are not limited to just bicycles and buses, but also telecommuting, trains, and better choices about where folks live and how they work. All of these would require less use of cars and therefore make us less dependent on foreign oil. More importantly, to many it would give us the true freedom of more time doing what we want, not producing for some loveless mega corp.

The car is less of a liberator than simply a stylish, comfortable, costly prison, where the American worker spends 2 weeks to a month a year, waiting, burning gas, heating the earth, growing fat and generating pollution.

Moore’s comment that, “The car stands for individualism; mass transit for collectivism.”, is reprehensible. It is as if he can’t really think of many good reasons to support cars, so he resorts to pathetic cold war rhetoric to win the hearts of aging baby boomers, while at the same time beating them for wanting public transportation. Who do you think is going to be the biggest supporter of mass transit? The aging baby boomers will. While I am personally no fan of buses, I think I would definitely support our older Americans when they want more public transit, since it will mean fewer of them would be out driving through open markets, forgetting which was the gas and which was the brakes.

Point 4-
It’s not good to save energy, we should use, use use.

He says
… there is now a nearly maniacal obsession among policy
makers and the Greens to conserve energy rather than to produce it.
Even many of the oil companies are running ad campaigns on the
virtues of using less energy (do the shareholders know about this?) -
- which would be like McDonald's advising Americans to eat fewer
hamburgers because a cow is a terrible thing to lose. A perverse
logic has taken hold among the intelligentsia that progress can be
measured by how much of the earth's fuels we save, when in fact the
history of human economic advancement, dating back to the invention
of the wheel, has been defined by our ability to substitute
technology and energy use for the planet's one truly finite
resource: human energy.

I do not think this is about saving or conserving resources. But just allowing better ideas, to be born, grow and live. It is about coming up with solutions that will benefit the world, as well as the innovative new (or old) companies that can successfully address this transportation problem. Sometimes wasting can be fun, like when you crack and squirt a bottle of champagne after a victory. But sometimes waste is simply waste. Truly if the “greens” wanted to hasten the downfall of the oil companies, they would support the idea of increasing use to the point that the oil companies must build new refineries, then laying off use, so that their investment is wasted, but they still have to charge more because of the increase costs to build the refineries.


Point 5-
A very interesting comment about how cars equal productivity and success.

He says-
Studies confirm that the more, not less, energy a nation uses and
the more, not fewer, cars that it has, the more productive the
workers, the richer the society, and the healthier the citizens as
measured by life expectancy. When Albania abolished cars, it quickly
became one of the very poorest nations in Europe.

I think that Moore is begging the question and putting the cart before the horse. Once, a country gets to a point where it makes sense to spend the money on labor saving and production increasing technologies, they do and not before. Cars would be a failure without roads. In China they would not use a 150 thousand dollar tractor to harvest rice if a hundred laborers could do the job in a week fro 100 dollars. When a better solution comes along it will win out over the old solution. Phones won over letters when enough people could afford them. So why isn’t this happening with cars? Is it that gas does not yet cost enough to make it worth while to investigate new solutions? There is a problem also when a company like Exxon which make billions, sees something that can be a threat to their profits. They can bring millions of dollars to bare to influence policy and stall that “negative” change. That is why the mega oil companies are calling for conservation. They win on two fronts, first the decreased demand means less capitol to spend building new, more efficient and mega expensive refineries and second, the lower cost means that they will loose less consumers to telecommuting, biking and moving closer to the places that they use frequently. In short, cheap oil mean less of a need for consumers to look for and drive the development of better solutions.

As far as Albania is concerned, it has 11, 185 miles of road way and only 39% of those are paved! In 2001 there was an estimated 43 passenger cars per 1,000 people. Major roads in Albania are often in very poor repair. Travel at night outside the main urban areas is particularly dangerous and should be avoided due to deplorable road conditions. During the winter months, travelers may encounter dangerous snow and ice conditions on the roads through the mountains in Northern Albania. Cars are not banned in Albania, you can rent them here:
http://www.albania-hotel.com/rent_car_terms.html
Other Albania facts from the US state department and:
http://www.usemb-tirana.rpo.at/consular/cons_acs_driving.html


Point 6-
Behind Moore’s rhetoric there is a strong anti-change, anti tax message.

He says
No gas tax, no new money for public transportation:
The left is now pining for a $1-a-gallon gas tax to make
driving unaffordable. Washington has also wasted over $60 billion of
federal gas tax money on mass transit systems, yet fewer Americans
ride them now than before the deluge of subsidies began. When the
voters in car-crazed Los Angeles opted to fund an ill-fated subway
system, most drivers who voted "yes" said they did so because they
hoped it would compel other people off the crowded highways.

I am not sure how many lefties are "pushing" for a 1 dollar a gallon gas tax, but right now cigarette taxes are several times higher than the state and federal gas taxes. Also if the auto is such a great freedom machine, why shouldn’t we pay more for the ability to get up and drive for no good reason? Tax is one inducement to change here, but there are many others that might be better. For example give a tax break to companies that make it easier to use alternate ways to get to work, or incentives to live closer to work, or for telecommuting. In deed these ideas could actually boost productivity. What about a tax credit if you buy a bike? What about lower the MPG requirements?

Hey at 42, I am the last of the baby boomers. Isn’t it time to let some good ideas fly and quit clinging to the car? While it may have liberated the housewives and teenagers of the 50s, it is becoming a prison, in which the average American spends a month a year, just getting to work. It is a death machine that kills 40,000 people a year. It is worse for health than cigarettes. Why is it a problem that there are tax dollars being spent to encourage cycling, or bus use? Those commuting cyclists and bus users are actually lowering the cost of gas for the rest of us. I am not so sure that once those kids from Moores class, get their licenses that they will think, like thier parents and grand-parents, that cars will lead to the salvation of the free world.

[atbman]

And there was I thinking that the 1000s of people left behind, sweltering without food, water and medical help were there because of the shamblingly witless, drivellingly stupid, utterly unimaginative, monumental incompetence of FEMA, and the state and city governments. Not to mention corruption in the Big Easy, of course.

There were, after all, lines of empty buses waiting for them wnich the idiots in charge made no attempt to get to them for about a week after Katrina hit.

I watched and listened all this unfolding, from the UK, aghast at the complete and utter balls up which the richest and most powerful nation on earth made of what was largely a straightforward logistical problem of moving some of the poorest of its people away from a long-forecast disaster.

I know that many refused to move from their homes, but the 1000s stuck in the convention Centre and the sports stadium would have leapt at the chance to get on the "mass transit" set up waiting up the road.

BTW, won't it be wonderful when we all have our own aircraft to fly to our chosen destinations, instead of on those owned by all those collective, mass transit, airline companies

[cooker]

it's amazing people like him can be so dumb as not to see that.
He's not dumb, he's smart, and he counts on his readers being either stupid or selfish.