While it would be accurate to say that much of our oil comes from the middle east, most of our oil does come from closer to home.

(From http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/Bac-Oct5.pdf)

US petroleum imports by country Jan-Oct 2005
1. Canada 15.7%
2. Saudi Arabia 12.6%
3. Venezula 12.4%
4. Mexico 11.0%
5. Nigeria 9.2%

Rounding out the "top 10" are Iraq, Algeria, Angola, Russia and the UK, each with less than 5%. "Other" countries accounted for 20.8% in this period. (Those figures are percentages of all imports; we supply about a third of our own petroleum).

But as tight as the oil market is, the point's still valid that our pathetic dependence on oil leaves us knee-deep in unnecessary violence around the world.

Right now, global oil production can barely keep up with demand -- and most of us think it's only going to get worse. Even relatively small disruptions in any country that supplies us with oil cause market panic and price spikes.

The tight market keeps prices high even without disruptions. Expensive oil threatens our economic security, because our economy depends on cheap oil to function. Because it threatens our economic security, we (the US) are willing to make morally-questionable judgments and do things that would clearly be seen as wrong in any other context.

All of this is a good argument to be as car-free as possible, both as a nation, and as individuals (whether in families or not).

Current import patterns aside, keep in mind that by far the largest available reserves are in the middle east, especially Saudi Arabia, so dependence on these politically unstable sources might increase in just a short time.

But we're getting WAY off topic here. . . . .

The availability of cheap gas is certainly one factor. But keep looking deeper. Why is gas so cheap? To what extent is this due to free markets, and to what extent were markets manipulated by governments and corporations?
Free markets. The reason gas is so much more expensive in say Europe is because of government taxes. The costs of oil research, drilling, refining and transportation are real. The oil companies have to pay these costs, and they do it with the money the earn from selling gas. The reason gas is so cheap is because that's all it costs to bring it to the pump. If it cost more than that, then oil companies would not be making the profits they're making. Any manipulation would ultimately result in higher, not lower, prices for the consumer.


Also, there is some evidence that auto companies in many American cities bought out bus an train services and closed them down, thus eliminating their main competition.
There is some evidence of that. Not definitive proof. There is also much more evidence of suburbanization in areas where there is no evidence of such buyouts. In other words, the likelihood is it would have happened without the buyouts anyway. I'd say a definite factor is "residential zoning", which effectively ruled out the kind of European mixed commercial/residential communities where people walk/bike to at least many of their destinations.


Today in Lansing, new auto plants are built in the suburbs and the central city plants are closed, making it imperative that auto workers drive to work. Many other plants and offices have followed he sam path. Why?
Corporate decisions are made to save and/or make money. Lots of corporations that don't have a direct incentive to sell more cars made similar decisions.


One reason is clearly racism. White flight from the cities helped create the suburbs, once autos were available for long commutes. The city of Detroit has lost more than half it's population due mainly to white flight. There are almost no jobs for the people still living in Detroit. No job => no car => no way to get to where the jobs are (suburbs) => no job => . . . .
The reason for the white flight is racism. The reason for the factories following the white flight is economic.


We're just scratching the surface here. But the big point is that our cities have been deliberately engineered to make private automobiles a necessity for most workers.
Disagree. People did not vote for city leaders who would pass low density residential zoning laws in order to make automobiles a necessity. They voted for these leaders because they wanted to create and preseve low density residential areas. Now, cars made living in such areas more appealing, to be sure, but to claim that the reason these were created was in order to make cars a necessity I just don't see.


Like you, I hope new technology will help us find an answer. But until we solve the basic economic, political and, especially, social wrongs, new technology will only seve those who are already well served by the old technology.
Changing our zoning laws to allow for much more mixed commercial/retail/residential and high density would probably do it too, and much sooner.

One hurdle: so far, it's still considerably cheaper to drive to Costco and transport the $250 loot home in the car than pay to have it all shipped from costco.com.

In my opinion, transporting $250 of stuff from Costco is far, far from the biggest thing to get people car-independent for.

You can easily transport 250lbs of stuff, or however much you get for $250, on a bike if you have the proper equipment. But if being car-lite is for you and you find that when you need to move hundreds of pounds of stuff you want to use the car, go for it. Pretty well all of us buy stuff that is transported in automobiles to the store where we buy it, and in that sense we're not car-free.

The truly inefficient use of a car is not when you use it occasionally to move stuff that weighs a significant proportion of the vehicle weight such as a huge shopping trip, but when you use it day after day to move one person around. I just don't think it makes sense for a 150lb person to be transported alone, via 3000-6000lb car all the time. Look at the roads, and you'll usually see that cars are carrying one person and little else.

Free markets. The reason gas is so much more expensive in say Europe is because of government taxes. The costs of oil research, drilling, refining and transportation are real. The oil companies have to pay these costs, and they do it with the money the earn from selling gas. The reason gas is so cheap is because that's all it costs to bring it to the pump. If it cost more than that, then oil companies would not be making the profits they're making. Any manipulation would ultimately result in higher, not lower, prices for the consumer.



There is some evidence of that. Not definitive proof. There is also much more evidence of suburbanization in areas where there is no evidence of such buyouts. In other words, the likelihood is it would have happened without the buyouts anyway. I'd say a definite factor is "residential zoning", which effectively ruled out the kind of European mixed commercial/residential communities where people walk/bike to at least many of their destinations.



Corporate decisions are made to save and/or make money. Lots of corporations that don't have a direct incentive to sell more cars made similar decisions.



The reason for the white flight is racism. The reason for the factories following the white flight is economic.



Disagree. People did not vote for city leaders who would pass low density residential zoning laws in order to make automobiles a necessity. They voted for these leaders because they wanted to create and preseve low density residential areas. Now, cars made living in such areas more appealing, to be sure, but to claim that the reason these were created was in order to make cars a necessity I just don't see.



Changing our zoning laws to allow for much more mixed commercial/retail/residential and high density would probably do it too, and much sooner.
If you believe that free markets and elected officials have made most of the decisions related to land use, that's a pretty big IF.

If you believe that free markets and elected officials have made most of the decisions related to land use, that's a pretty big IF.
I think the poll is stupid.

I notice that you guys are missing another land use factor. When the suburbs were being built around here, according to one of the local historical societies, banks wouldn't loan city home owners money to fix their houses but would loan them money to buy suburban houses. The housing stock in the city deteriorated and people moved out. I have known a few older people who are very very bitter about what happened to their childhood neighborhoods. Several have told me they grew up in the Anacostia neighborhood and swear it used to be a wonderful place to live. It hasn't been called a wonderful place in many years now. The value of urban homes didn't plunge due to racism alone but also because their value couldn't easily be maintained through physical upgrades.
Now things are changing. Banks are giving home improvement loans and house prices are increasing. The city is still loosing population but the loss rate is decreasing.

I don't have a kid, I don't own a car, I have a job. I voted accordingly. But even in my simple, single, big-city existence, I accept that life would often be easier if I did have a car -- visiting suburban friends, taking the cat to the vet, doing my share of carpooling to the country bike rides, and things like that. If I had to worry about other people, take kids to soccer games, visit elderly parents in retirement homes, I can see the temptation would be very strong, even in the city. It's the 2-person, 3-car families I find harder to understand, or the big-city people who insist on driving large, gas-guzzling SUVs.

It's the 2-person, 3-car families I find harder to understand, or the big-city people who insist on driving large, gas-guzzling SUVs.
What about people who use 8, 12, 15 or even 20 squares of toilet paper, when 2 or 3 will do?

What about people who buy way more clothes than they need? Do I even need to mention jewelry? Water ski boats? TVs? Electric pencil sharpeners? Stereos? Home entertainment centers? Computer games? Homes with more than 200 square feet per person? Electric mixers and toasters? Recliner chairs? Towels in the bathroom that are just "for looks"? Owning more than one jacket? Taking vacations? Are any of these luxuries really necessary? What do we "really need"? A tiny fraction of what we actually have and use.

I'm supportive of the carfree lifestyle. That's great. But criticizing others for not being carfree, or even carlite, based on the "they don't really need it" argument, seems inconsistent and perhaps even hypocritical, if it is not also directed at all of the other "don't really need" luxury items in our lives. In other words, why pick on cars in particular?

What about people who buy way more clothes than they need? Do I even need to mention jewelry? Water ski boats? TVs? Electric pencil sharpeners? Stereos? Home entertainment centers? Computer games? Homes with more than 200 square feet per person? Electric mixers and toasters? Recliner chairs? Towels in the bathroom that are just "for looks"? Owning more than one jacket? Taking vacations? Are any of these luxuries really necessary? What do we "really need"? A tiny fraction of what we actually have and use.

All excellent points, and all things we should consider. Some of the above are things we indulge in here at home, others are things we try to eliminate. I think every person and household has a responsibility to balance the luxuries they want with responsible behaviour, and that balance will be different for each of us. I value my electronic toys, for example, but I try to make up for that in other ways (like not having a single incandescent light bulb in the entire house).


I'm supportive of the carfree lifestyle. That's great. But criticizing others for not being carfree, or even carlite, based on the "they don't really need it" argument, seems inconsistent and perhaps even hypocritical, if it is not also directed at all of the other "don't really need" luxury items in our lives. In other words, why pick on cars in particular?

Two reasons. First because, compared to a few extra sheets of toilet paper, we see cars as grossly wasteful. Secondly, because we see them as very much luxuries and not requirements.

I want to clarify here: I speak against cars because I feel they are harmful to the point of being inexcusable as personal use vehicles in urban centres. I don't comment on public motor vehicles, or rural inhabitants.

I of our environmental footprint in terms of karma... maybe saving toilet paper is a +1, and cutting our electricity use by 35% a few years ago was a +20, but if we owned a car (living as we do in an urban centre) than would be a -10000. No way we could ever balance that out!

Please include

Dishwashers
Clothes Dryers
Washing Machines
And.............

People who own more than 1 bike!

There is an argument that dishwashers use much less water than a sink to wash the same number of dishes, although the detergents used are much more harmful. Our dishwasher is certainly a guilty pleasure, a nod to our basic laziness when it comes to housekeeping. I do wish we had room for line-drying clothes, though.

All this is a red herring. I don't believe the above, put together, cause as much direct harm to people as a car in an urban setting.


This is the "Living Car Free" forum, do you have anything to say about LIVING CAR FREE?

Free markets. The reason gas is so much more expensive in say Europe is because of government taxes. The costs of oil research, drilling, refining and transportation are real. The oil companies have to pay these costs, and they do it with the money the earn from selling gas. The reason gas is so cheap is because that's all it costs to bring it to the pump. If it cost more than that, then oil companies would not be making the profits they're making. Any manipulation would ultimately result in higher, not lower, prices for the consumer.



There is some evidence of that. Not definitive proof. There is also much more evidence of suburbanization in areas where there is no evidence of such buyouts. In other words, the likelihood is it would have happened without the buyouts anyway. I'd say a definite factor is "residential zoning", which effectively ruled out the kind of European mixed commercial/residential communities where people walk/bike to at least many of their destinations.



Corporate decisions are made to save and/or make money. Lots of corporations that don't have a direct incentive to sell more cars made similar decisions.



The reason for the white flight is racism. The reason for the factories following the white flight is economic.



Disagree. People did not vote for city leaders who would pass low density residential zoning laws in order to make automobiles a necessity. They voted for these leaders because they wanted to create and preseve low density residential areas. Now, cars made living in such areas more appealing, to be sure, but to claim that the reason these were created was in order to make cars a necessity I just don't see.



Changing our zoning laws to allow for much more mixed commercial/retail/residential and high density would probably do it too, and much sooner.


Gas is cheaper in the US because the US buys in much greater quantities than, say, Europe.

The evidence of oil/auto corporation destruction of America's original mass transit systems is overwhelming, as is the evidence of Republican subsidies of highways & suburbs that brought the car to dominance in the 1950s. We're in denial about it because in the US you don't buck the "free market" system, our replacement for God.

By the way, are you using a computer to post messages in this forum? Does it use electricity? Is it plugged into a wall socket? Is that wall socket connected to a substation? Is that substation connected to a Power station? Is that power station Hydro? nuclear? Ummm oil?

Do you have anything to say about living car free? Can you argue that any of the above directly applies to using a personal motor vehicle in an urban centre? Can you show that the above does the same direct harm as using a personal motor vehicle in an urban centre?


Yes, all I'm learning here is how to live a double standard.

What double-standard? I advocate doing without a personal use motor vehicle in urban centres. I live without a personal use motor vehicle in an urban centre. I advocate being car-free, I am car-free. What double standard?

I advocate being a responsible human being, which includes minimizing any direct negative impact I may have on others. I live my life, as much as possible, in a way that minimizes direct negative impact on others. What double standard?


Can you give me the answer I seek.....???
The question I ask is....."How do I live in harmony with my surroundings?"

I don't know or care, seek that answer elsewhere. This forum is about "living car-free". Do you have anything to say about being car-free? Tips to help people achieve that goal?

(If you are so concerned with analyzing me, make yourself useful and have a look at our natural gas bill. According to our supplier, our usage has gone up 1% despite weather being 6% warmer. Do you think that's entirely due to our installation of an HRV, or do we have a problem to look into?)

Amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid this forum's topic!

What about people who use 8, 12, 15 or even 20 squares of toilet paper, when 2 or 3 will do?

What about people who buy way more clothes than they need? Do I even need to mention jewelry? Water ski boats? TVs? Electric pencil sharpeners? Stereos? Home entertainment centers? Computer games? Homes with more than 200 square feet per person? Electric mixers and toasters? Recliner chairs? Towels in the bathroom that are just "for looks"? Owning more than one jacket? Taking vacations? Are any of these luxuries really necessary? What do we "really need"? A tiny fraction of what we actually have and use.

I'm supportive of the carfree lifestyle. That's great. But criticizing others for not being carfree, or even carlite, based on the "they don't really need it" argument, seems inconsistent and perhaps even hypocritical, if it is not also directed at all of the other "don't really need" luxury items in our lives. In other words, why pick on cars in particular?
The automobile is a luxury item. Where we live, where we work and how we get around are all choices that we make. I have always chose to live close to work because my time is too precious to spend comuting to and from work every day. I must admit though, I haven't always been car-free. It wasn't until my car would sit in the garage for weeks at a time collecting dust that I finally got up the courage to do without. I figured with all the money I would save not owning a vehicle that I could easily rent one when ever I needed. Several years have gone by now and I haven't driven a vehicle since.

In addition to choosing the luxury of an automobile, I am certain you will find automobile owners choose to consume more luxury items in general than those without. And how many people without automobiles choose to live in large homes with a multi-car garage or choose to own a ski boat that only gets used a few times per year? First of all, the larger homes are usually located farther out from the city center and are difficult to access without an automobile. Secondly, without an automobile you cannot haul many of the other luxury items including ski boats.

The automobile is a luxury item and most often the biggest luxury of all, but we each make our own choices in our own time.

Gas is cheaper in the US because the US buys in much greater quantities than, say, Europe.



Umm. Gas is cheaper in the US because other countries tax it to hell. It's a revenue thing for the governments, of course, but it also encourages people to run smaller cars, or to think harder about whether they want to run one at all.

Here is a site with some interesting data showing the true cost of driving a car at an average of $14,000 per year when all the related costs are added.

Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Guidebook (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm66.htm)

What about people who use 8, 12, 15 or even 20 squares of toilet paper, when 2 or 3 will do?

What about people who buy way more clothes than they need? Do I even need to mention jewelry? Water ski boats? TVs? Electric pencil sharpeners? Stereos? Home entertainment centers? Computer games? Homes with more than 200 square feet per person? Electric mixers and toasters? Recliner chairs? Towels in the bathroom that are just "for looks"? Owning more than one jacket? Taking vacations? Are any of these luxuries really necessary? What do we "really need"? A tiny fraction of what we actually have and use.

I'm supportive of the carfree lifestyle. That's great. But criticizing others for not being carfree, or even carlite, based on the "they don't really need it" argument, seems inconsistent and perhaps even hypocritical, if it is not also directed at all of the other "don't really need" luxury items in our lives. In other words, why pick on cars in particular?

Maybe you will go to a ToiletpaperFree subforum and then post about how wonderful Charmin feels on your butt? :)

You're starting to sound like a carpetbagger. You started a "poll" to prove some point that we have conceded here many times--in many parts of the world carfree living is very difficult for families, nigh onto impossible. You offer not one suggestion for changing that sorry state of affairs, or explaining why it exists, nor do you indicate that you think it should be changed. Then you harp about other "luxuries," another issue that has also been adressed here many times. I suggest you start by reading the sticky here about living simply, or the thread about the Green Test, or any of dozens of threads and posts that have thoroughly discussed the brave new issues ;) that you imagine you have disovered.

And remember, this is a carfree forum. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that all who post here must be carfree. It does mean, as patc and others have indicated, that posts should be relevant to the idea of furthering carfree living. If you bring up an impediment to dumping cars, try to think of a solution, or at least keep an open mind to a solution.

In fact, I would suggest to anybody who is new to any forum: Scroll through the archives. Lurk around a little bit. Spend a couple hours learning what the forum is all about before you post your amazing new discoveries. It's a little embarrassing when you find out that your "new" ideas have already been raised many times, and are even being discussed in currently active threads and stickies. I'm not saying that you can't revisit familiar topics, that's a good thing to do if you have questions or somthing different to contribute. Just don't start thinking that you were the first one to think about selling sliced bread.

Here's a more contructive thread along similar lines:

"I've been with my girlfriend for almost 8 years now, and around mid-march, we will be parents. :) ..."

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=163053

If you believe that free markets and elected officials have made most of the decisions related to land use, that's a pretty big IF
If not free markets and elected officials, then who?

By the way, what I mean by "free markets" is consistent with the wikipedia article.

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

Perhaps you mean something different?

By the way, I never thought or meant to imply that any of my ideas were "new ideas".

This poll is missing one very important factor: gender. How many people who have children and voted they are car free are mothers and how many are fathers?

This poll is missing one very important factor: gender. How many people who have children and voted they are car free are mothers and how many are fathers?
Good point.
I'm a dude, and I've yet to meet a single mother that would even consider losing the cage.

I've yet to meet a single mother that would even consider losing the cage.
My neighbor is a single mother of 2, young, a car-free bicyclist and proud of it.

Here's a more contructive thread along similar lines:

"I've been with my girlfriend for almost 8 years now, and around mid-march, we will be parents. :) ..."

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=163053
YAY great news on the baby hmmm now you both have to get a baby trailer for your bikes :)