Living Car Free - The False Hope of Biofuels (Wash Post article)

If you know the meaning and history of the term 'coal gasification', then you know that no economic factor is going to step in and save us from melting every remaining ice pack on this planet. Much like the Germans when their unsustainable growth policies started to collapse, we can make gasoline from coal and cooking oil from the goo left over, if the whole 'bitter end' approach is really that appealing.

We have better options...I think. Increased efficiency in collecting solar and wind can make a substantive difference in the next fifty years, as can biofuels of various sorts, there being options available right now such as jatropha and palm which are much less energy-intensive to produce.

Trust in technology has been vindicated thoughout the years - America in particular has never failed to rise to the occasion when presented with technical problems.

Hi roadcrusier76,

Today's Post has another article that rebuts much of your post.


A Dated Carbon Approach

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, July 10, 2006; Page A17

These days almost nobody asserts that global warming isn't happening. Instead, we are confronted with a new lie: that we can respond to climate change without taxing and regulating carbon.

The Bush administration -- and many Democrats, too -- promise technological salvation: hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol distilled from grass, solar power, windmills, whatever. It's more fun to call for whiz-bang technologies than regulations and taxes. But it's also dishonest.

...

It feels good to be for new technology rather than for nasty new taxes or regulations. But this is a false choice. If you want the new technology, you have to support the new tax or the new cap. Those who argue otherwise should ask themselves: Would we have rapid medical innovation if we didn't bother to protect intellectual property?

A Dated Carbon Approach (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900537.html)

Trust in technology has been vindicated thoughout the years - America in particular has never failed to rise to the occasion when presented with technical problems. We have managed to cure diseases, defend ourselves against ruthless enemies, and just make our lives a whole lot easier in more ways than one can count

You're trying to compare apples to oranges with regard to our energy probems. By the way, what disease have we "cured" off the face of the earth? Did you know that every single disease is still in existance and none have been cured.



Conservation of any serious magnitude won't create one extra gallon of gas and would require a halt in economic growth which would clearly create more poverty.

Having said that, if you or anybody want to give up automobiles, and live in a highrise apartment, more power to you. That will just make gas a little cheaper for the rest of us.

Isn't this contradictory?

In one statement you say that conservation will create more poverty but if forum members want to conserve, more power to them??

By the way, how does conservation create more poverty? How are we who are car free creating more poverty in this nation?

[....]
In one statement you say that conservation will create more poverty but if forum members want to conserve, more power to them??

By the way, how does conservation create more poverty? How are we who are car free creating more poverty in this nation?
Living in a city and state (Lansing, MI) where a lot of automobiles are built, I'm here to tell you that conservation does crea a hell of a lot of poverty. The oil crises of the 1970s, which led to great consevation efforts and caught the US automakers with their pants down, led to a nationwide recession. But that recession was more like a depression here in Michigan, and it lasted much longer here than everywhere else. Michigan is like the canary in the mine--first to croak when economic hard times hit, and last to recover. Now, we're already starting to see ominous effects of the current high gas prices, while the rest of the nation is still enjoying pretty good times.

Technology and the market are both ruthless destroyers as well as fruitful creators. A lot of people are hurt by change--hurt even by overwhelmingly positive changes like conservation and new alternative energy sources.

Living in a city and state (Lansing, MI) where a lot of automobiles are built, I'm here to tell you that conservation does crea a hell of a lot of poverty. The oil crises of the 1970s, which led to great consevation efforts and caught the US automakers with their pants down, led to a nationwide recession. But that recession was more like a depression here in Michigan, and it lasted much longer here than everywhere else. Michigan is like the canary in the mine--first to croak when economic hard times hit, and last to recover. Now, we're already starting to see ominous effects of the current high gas prices, while the rest of the nation is still enjoying pretty good times.


The layoffs in Michigan started when plants started outsourcing jobs to new factories in Mexico. These same automanufacturers told you conservation was an evil thing but it didn't hurt Japanese auto companies. In fact, conservation efforts are long gone yet GM and Ford continue to layoff workers by the thousands because SUV sales are falling.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges with regard to our energy probems. By the way, what disease have we "cured" off the face of the earth? Did you know that every single disease is still in existance and none have been cured.

Smallpox is pretty much gone.

The layoffs in Michigan started when plants started outsourcing jobs to new factories in Mexico. These same automanufacturers told you conservation was an evil thing but it didn't hurt Japanese auto companies. In fact, conservation efforts are long gone yet GM and Ford continue to layoff workers by the thousands because SUV sales are falling.
No I don't think so. In the gas crisis of the 1970s people quit buying the gas guzzlers that the Big 3 were making. Japan stepped in with their subcompacts and won a big part of the market. It took US makers a few years to introduce their own subcompacts, by that time they had permanently lost a lot of car buyers. Almost the same thing seems to be happening now with the SUVs. The US is great at building light trucks, but we lag behind in passenger cars. The Germans and japanese have small cars ready to go. It's starting to look like the only hope for GM and Ford is to partner with foreign companies, as Chrysler has already done.

YAWN.

Sometimes I bore myself with all this car talk! :o :p

In fairness the jobs lost in Michigan are due to market adjustments to changing conditions, not to "conservation" per se. Jobs can be created by conservation too.

Living in a city and state (Lansing, MI) where a lot of automobiles are built, I'm here to tell you that conservation does crea a hell of a lot of poverty. The oil crises of the 1970s, which led to great consevation efforts and caught the US automakers with their pants down, led to a nationwide recession. But that recession was more like a depression here in Michigan, and it lasted much longer here than everywhere else. Michigan is like the canary in the mine--first to croak when economic hard times hit, and last to recover. Now, we're already starting to see ominous effects of the current high gas prices, while the rest of the nation is still enjoying pretty good times.

Technology and the market are both ruthless destroyers as well as fruitful creators. A lot of people are hurt by change--hurt even by overwhelmingly positive changes like conservation and new alternative energy sources.
It sounds sh*tty and insensitive, I know, but dinosaurs will die eventually no matter what market forces you try to unleash.

Industry needs to adapt. Or else it doesn't deserve to live. If it isn't sustainable then it has no place in tommorrow's world.

I get the feeling there's a small minority on this forum who are hoping for a technological "cure" to our energy problems. It's usually those who have big cars and homes that are watching their fuel prices sky rocket with each passing week. Deep down inside, these folks have to be worried as I sure would be if my overhead was great. Yet, these forum members have no choice but to think postive and that a "cure" is just around the corner because the alternative is quite somber. However, I think most of this is wishful thinking because there isn't an answer around the corner and they know that. In fact, most of us will be long gone or we'll be near the end of our lives by the time a technology is discovered bringing back the good old days of cheap fuel for motoring. Should this day even come! It seems those with the most to lose are also the ones who care the least.

Just think for a second. What if we can't find an alternative to our energy problems? How many years have we been fighting Cancer with no cure in sight? We've been fighting MS for how many decades and yet we're no where near a cure for that dreaded disease. The good news is I don't have to wait decades for science to develop a cheap fuel for motoring purposes. I’m going to sleep tonight completely oblivious of the price of fuel at the pump. The reason I can do this is because I have zero intention in buying an expensive engine for grocery shopping, work and entertainment. Those of us on this forum have discovered long ago the only real way to break free from the skyrocketing cost of gasoline was to become car free.

In fairness the jobs lost in Michigan are due to market adjustments to changing conditions, not to "conservation" per se. Jobs can be created by conservation too.Yes, if it was conservation that hurt the US auto industry, there would be fewer vehicles on the road than there were in the 70s -- which is obviously not true.

I get the feeling there's a small minority on this forum who are hoping for a technological "cure" to our energy problems. .......
.......
The good news is I don't have to wait decades for science to develop a cheap fuel for motoring purposes. I’m going to sleep tonight completely oblivious of the price of fuel at the pump. The reason I can do this is because I have zero intention in buying an expensive engine for grocery shopping, work and entertainment. Those of us on this forum have discovered long ago the only real way to break free from the skyrocketing cost of gasoline was to become car free.
Your post reads like what you are trying to say is that the technological cure is right in front of our faces, we just have to apply it. Live in human oriented communities, ditch the car, etc.

The thing that needs repeating to car people until it finally sinks in is that I'm not suffering. I'm better off without the car and many of my car dependent neighbors would be too. They just haven't figured it out yet.

I'd also like to point out that car free was a good thing for me when the price of gas was much lower. The benefits of a more energy efficient lifestyle go beyond economics. Having better health and more time to do fun things occurs even if automobile operating costs are zero.

I get the feeling there's a small minority on this forum who are hoping for a technological "cure" to our energy problems. It's usually those who have big cars and homes that are watching their fuel prices sky rocket with each passing week. Deep down inside, these folks have to be worried as I sure would be if my overhead was great. Yet, these forum members have no choice but to think postive and that a "cure" is just around the corner because the alternative is quite somber. However, I think most of this is wishful thinking because there isn't an answer around the corner and they know that. In fact, most of us will be long gone or we'll be near the end of our lives by the time a technology is discovered bringing back the good old days of cheap fuel for motoring. Should this day even come! It seems those with the most to lose are also the ones who care the least.

Just think for a second. What if we can't find an alternative to our energy problems? How many years have we been fighting Cancer with no cure in sight? We've been fighting MS for how many decades and yet we're no where near a cure for that dreaded disease. The good news is I don't have to wait decades for science to develop a cheap fuel for motoring purposes. I’m going to sleep tonight completely oblivious of the price of fuel at the pump. The reason I can do this is because I have zero intention in buying an expensive engine for grocery shopping, work and entertainment. Those of us on this forum have discovered long ago the only real way to break free from the skyrocketing cost of gasoline was to become car free.

I'm assuming then, that you don't use electricity from the electric company (which is likely using coal as an energy source), correct?

A recent symposium at the University
of California, broadcast on UCTV on cable,
Dish and DirectTV discussed in detail by
the major players in the industries of Solar,
Wind and Ethanol the viability of using all
three sources and solving the majority of
needs (in conjunction with conservation.)

Corn is not the product to make ethanol with.
The real players, (a company in Canada) are
using what I recall they said was switch grass
to form cellulose based ethanol. Further,
the people in Brazil have a viable program
that is powered by Ethanol from Sugar Cane.
They (the folks in the symposium) have
Venture Capitalists and have already built
several demonstration plants that are putting
out about 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent or
more and have proven that at current levels
for oil prices per barrel that they are a viable
and competitive force.

The war for energy independence won't be
won by a single source solution. It will take
solar, wind and biofuels to do it, in
conjunction as I said above in
conservation.

The speakers at the symposium, all agreed
that the only reason we aren't seeing any
progress in this area is the power of what
they call the 'carbon club.' That, and the
fact that everytime advances are made in
funding during Democratic controlled periods,
that the Republican Oil *****s DEFUND all
the projects when they get back into power.
This process started (that I know of) with
Ronnie Rayguns taking the Solar panels off
the roof of the Whitehouse after the Carter
presidency, and stripping the government
funding for all the progressive programs
implemented as a result of the environmental
awareness of the 70s.

It is all the Republican Oil *****s Fault!

(I rest my case.) :O)

Well duh, the oil, coal and basically every other old world/industrial age energy company primarilly support the GOP. You're a hack if you try to spin it the other way around(admittedly, the dems are supported by some of these companies but do you honestly believe the modern day GOP would embrace alternative energies in the immediate future?).

Well duh, the oil, coal and basically every other old world/industrial age energy company primarilly support the GOP. You're a hack if you try to spin it the other way around(admittedly, the dems are supported by some of these companies but do you honestly believe the modern day GOP would embrace alternative energies in the immediate future?).

Don't blame me, or call me a Democrat.

I voted for Ralph Nader the last 3 times
he ran for President. '96, '00, '04.

I have largely given up on politics other
than to organize with the Green Party.

I am going total car free capable in 21 days
and am planning on surviving the oncoming
civil unrest associated with the mess that
BushCo and Corporate America has created.
I intend to live as invisibly as possible in the
coming days of FASCIST governmental control.

I don't and won't own guns but I won't
go down quitely. And in a desparate
pinch I can pick up even an automatic
weapon and wreck havoc with it.

My vision for the rest of my life is
centered on personal survival and
enjoying my life as much as possible
while leaving a small footprint. But
I expect a lot of pain and suffering in
the US of A as all the SUV and Large truck
owners find that Peak Oil and Global warming
are not liberal conspiracy theories to support
liberal minded peoples secret desire for a one
world government.

Unfortunately most of those bastards are
the ones that own all the guns, and drink
most of the beer.

I intend to live as an "Air Conditioned Gypsy."
Laying low, and flying under everyones radar.
I treasure my liberation from the automobile
and at age 55 can see my way clear to live
(fate willing) another 3 decades without one.

For more on the politics of energy choices ...

from NPR's Diane Rehm radio show

Jeff Goodell: "Big Coal" (Houghton Mifflin)
A journalist exposes the environmental, political, and economic issues behind the myth of cheap coal energy.

http://wamu.org/audio/dr/06/07/r2060705-10785.ram <-- Real Audio link
http://wamu.org/audio/dr/06/07/r2060705-10785.asx <-- Windows Media link (if you must :( )

Corn is not the product to make ethanol with.
The real players, (a company in Canada) are
using what I recall they said was switch grass
to form cellulose based ethanol.

The war for energy independence won't be
won by a single source solution. It will take
solar, wind and biofuels to do it, in
conjunction as I said above in
conservation.

I read through most of the posts in this thread and find this to be the most sensible. I was speaking to a friend a couple of days ago who works for a state environmental agency specializing in biofuels. He also mentioned this switch grass as being a much more efficient way than corn of getting ethanol. The issue is that progress is being made in this area. There are several municipalities in this state that are already fueling their fleets with at least blends. It makes me feel a little better that these buses that go around carrying 2 -4 people per trip so people can feel good about having mass transit are now getting 8 MPG instead of 4 MPG. Improved technology is not 150 years off, it's happening now. I won't even pretend to be any sort of expert, but some people I trust that are experts are very optimistic about the future.

There is no magic bullet to solve energy problems, but a combination of currently available and forthcoming technologies will allow some moderation with any necessary future transitions. Small minded people will poo poo any new ideas. I'm amazed at how many reactionaries there are posting on this forum. In an effort not to be absolutist, I'll charitably say that the number of people in the US that are likely to be convinced that car-free is the ultimate solution to energy problems is roughly equivalent to the number of fans that the boy band Menudo currently claims. Americans love their cars for the convenience and utility they provide. No form of mass transit or bicycle has been able to match either of those benefits.

I'll charitably say that the number of people in the US that are likely to be convinced that car-free is the ultimate solution to energy problems is roughly equivalent to the number of fans that the boy band Menudo currently claims. Americans love their cars for the convenience and utility they provide. No form of mass transit or bicycle has been able to match either of those benefits.
Wrong. On so many levels I don't know where to start.


It makes me feel a little better that these buses that go around carrying 2 -4 people per trip so people can feel good about having mass transit are now getting 8 MPG instead of 4 MPG.This is also wrong, or more likely just a damn lie. Ridership on city busses almost everywhere is quite high. Other than bicycles and walking, they are the most fuel-efficient vehicles ever devised.

I. Americans love their cars for the convenience and utility they provide.

"seem to provide" would be more accurate. Americans don't just spend time in their cars going where they need to go. They also spend a lot of time in gridlock, or searching for parking, or filling up, or taking the car in for service or carwashes. They get sucked into buying homes an hour or more from work (because they can) then have reduced time to enjoy the supposedly idyllic setting. They spend a day a week or more working to pay for their cars and to pay the taxes to fund the "freeways" they drive on, and they miss out on the health benefits and pleasure they would get walking (including walking to the bus stop) or biking.

Americans love their cars for the convenience and utility they provide. No form of mass transit or bicycle has been able to match either of those benefits.
When I quantify convenience and utility car free wins hands down. Time, health, and money. How do you measure convenience and utility? If you measure convenience and utility with oil seller and automobile manufacturers profits maybe the car matches the bike but it can't compete when I measure the alternatives by my health, my time, and my bank account. My impression of car culture apologists is that they are too ignorant to be able to accurately perform 5th grade arithmetic and read their doctor's reports. A car dependent corworker lives on my block. When we pass in the morning, I arrive at my desk first, this doesn't even count the time the coworker spends jogging to maintain cardio vascular health- time I don't need to spend because I bike. A car free person saved $5000.00 per year by not having a car according to the American Automobile Association in the year I sold my car. When I review my bank account for the years of car ownership and car free it corroborates the statements by the American Automobile Association. At my last checkup my doctor remarked that my health has improved since dumping the car- better body mass index, lower blood pressure to quote him "Keep up the good work.". My subjective feeling of more happiness corresponds with my doctor's obvious positive reinforcement. You're suggesting that we car free people should go out and buy cars and use them for what quantifiable gain? You're suggesting that car dependent people not dump their cars, not save money or time and not improve their health for what quantifiable saving? Where is your evidence that my clock, my bank account and my doctor are all three lying to me?

It makes me feel a little better that these buses that go around carrying 2 -4 people per trip so people can feel good about having mass transit are now getting 8 MPG instead of 4 MPG. Improved technology is not 150 years off, it's happening now.





This is also wrong, or more likely just a damn lie. Ridership on city busses almost everywhere is quite high. Other than bicycles and walking, they are the most fuel-efficient vehicles ever devised.

Roody,
I will back jimmuter on this one...At least in the south. I am currently working in the Charleston, SC area even on Free Bus Friday you will see busses running routes with only 2 or 3 people on the bus. I followed one out of the downtown area the other day that had 2 people on it, at one point for over 7 miles it had none. Not exactly high effeciency. Mass transit, buses in particular are under utilized in the deep south, there is still a social stigma attached to it. Eventually people are going to have to get over it and ride. I realize that scheduling vs convience vs rideship all have to come into play. The best way to calculate the true fuel effiecency of buses would be to take the total ridership, total number of miles driven and the total amount of fuel used. I have seen posted stats using "rider miles" in the past. Maybe it should be a requirement for the local mass transit to post the information on a annual basis as part of their annual report...

Aaron:)

Roody,
I will back jimmuter on this one...At least in the south. I am currently working in the Charleston, SC area even on Free Bus Friday you will see busses running routes with only 2 or 3 people on the bus. I followed one out of the downtown area the other day that had 2 people on it, at one point for over 7 miles it had none. Not exactly high effeciency. Mass transit, buses in particular are under utilized in the deep south, there is still a social stigma attached to it. Eventually people are going to have to get over it and ride. I realize that scheduling vs convience vs rideship all have to come into play. The best way to calculate the true fuel effiecency of buses would be to take the total ridership, total number of miles driven and the total amount of fuel used. I have seen posted stats using "rider miles" in the past. Maybe it should be a requirement for the local mass transit to post the information on a annual basis as part of their annual report...Aaron:)

You're correct. I should've noted that this is the situation here. I've been impressed with mass transit options in big, dense cities. It also makes a decent showing in some places such as nearby Chapel Hill where the university population dominates the town and riders ride for free. Because of my employment, I get to ride the buses here for free. I've done it on occassion, though not within the last couple of years. I've never ridden one that was anywhere close to full. My job also has me dealing with our bus system on some levels. I know they count ridership by counting 'trips'. If I take a bus to the depot, one trip. If I transfer there to another bus, 2 trips. If I come back by the same method, 4 trips. When they present ridership info to the public, they make my ride sound like 4 riders rode the bus that day. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. Once you get down to the costs of providing service here, it would be cheaper to provide point to point helicopter service. :D

Roody, though your argument that I'm wrong is quite compelling, I'm not quite convinced into changing my mind. Now I just need MarkS to chime in and accuse me of listening to talk radio all day. I don't know how my points can stand in the face of such erudite criticism.

I will agree that biking provides much better health benefits than driving and for me it's also much less frustrating. However, I'm an able-bodied 30 something. If I'm the caregiver for my 98 year old grandfather, I'm not going to put him in a trailer strapped to my bike and haul him to the doctor. I've used the car a lot more in the past 7 years since my kids were born. It's more convenient for my family to get a week's worth of groceries at a time. Sorry, but my bike doesn't hold 10 bags of food, gallons of milk, packs of beer, laundry detergent, dog food, etc. Even if I had a fully loaded tourer that could cram most of this on there, I couldn't pedal with the 50 extra pounds up hills. I'm not going to take my kids to the bus stop and make a 15 minute drive to their activity turn into a 45 minute planning nightmare on a bus that twists and turns through every neighborhood on the way. When they're older, I'll ride bikes up there with them just for fun. These situations make cars both useful and convenient.

I live in one of the most leftist places in the country. Democrats here outnumber republicans by about a 8 - 2 margin. I could probably count on one hand the number of car-free people here. They think bumper stickers will change the environment I guess because there are plenty of those. They are considering a light rail system here. In surveys they're finding that many people are very supportive of it -- for everyone else. The concensus is basically, yes I support the idea, no, I will not use it. Even in bad traffic, my car will save me at least 20 minutes to a destination 5 miles away or more over any other form of transportation at this point. Again, this just applies here. I would sing a different song in NYC or DC.

I figure that in order to replace fossil fuels it would take 10 - 15 different methods and cost a lot more money. It took billions of days to make that oil so you can't expect something to be an equally good replacement in a few years.

You're correct. I should've noted that this is the situation here. I've been impressed with mass transit options in big, dense cities. It also makes a decent showing in some places such as nearby Chapel Hill where the university population dominates the town and riders ride for free. Because of my employment, I get to ride the buses here for free. I've done it on occassion, though not within the last couple of years. I've never ridden one that was anywhere close to full. My job also has me dealing with our bus system on some levels. I know they count ridership by counting 'trips'. If I take a bus to the depot, one trip. If I transfer there to another bus, 2 trips. If I come back by the same method, 4 trips. When they present ridership info to the public, they make my ride sound like 4 riders rode the bus that day. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. Once you get down to the costs of providing service here, it would be cheaper to provide point to point helicopter service. :D

Roody, though your argument that I'm wrong is quite compelling, I'm not quite convinced into changing my mind. Now I just need MarkS to chime in and accuse me of listening to talk radio all day. I don't know how my points can stand in the face of such erudite criticism.

I will agree that biking provides much better health benefits than driving and for me it's also much less frustrating. However, I'm an able-bodied 30 something. If I'm the caregiver for my 98 year old grandfather, I'm not going to put him in a trailer strapped to my bike and haul him to the doctor. I've used the car a lot more in the past 7 years since my kids were born. It's more convenient for my family to get a week's worth of groceries at a time. Sorry, but my bike doesn't hold 10 bags of food, gallons of milk, packs of beer, laundry detergent, dog food, etc. Even if I had a fully loaded tourer that could cram most of this on there, I couldn't pedal with the 50 extra pounds up hills. I'm not going to take my kids to the bus stop and make a 15 minute drive to their activity turn into a 45 minute planning nightmare on a bus that twists and turns through every neighborhood on the way. When they're older, I'll ride bikes up there with them just for fun. These situations make cars both useful and convenient.

I live in one of the most leftist places in the country. Democrats here outnumber republicans by about a 8 - 2 margin. I could probably count on one hand the number of car-free people here. They think bumper stickers will change the environment I guess because there are plenty of those. They are considering a light rail system here. In surveys they're finding that many people are very supportive of it -- for everyone else. The concensus is basically, yes I support the idea, no, I will not use it. Even in bad traffic, my car will save me at least 20 minutes to a destination 5 miles away or more over any other form of transportation at this point. Again, this just applies here. I would sing a different song in NYC or DC.

I don't know the transit situation in your area. If you live in a wealthy community, transit ridership is probably still low, with conservative or liberal ideologies not being much of a consideration. In more typically diverse communities, bus ridership is rising quickly. In the US, according to the Department of Transportation (http://www.dot.gov/PerfPlan2004/mobility_ridership.html), city bus ridership rose from 41.3 to 47.1 billion passenger miles between 1999 and 2003, the latest figures they published. Note that those figures are passenger miles, not trips that your local system uses.

Obviously, ridership levels can be quite high on average, even if you have seen some busses that are nearly empty. Busses have to run on low volume feeder routes, and also run at off-peak times, just to make them convenient for those who do ride.

I'm getting the impression that you don't have much personal interest in becoming carfree, since you say that it's too inconvenient for you. Mind if I ask your reasons for coming to this Carfree forum if that is indeed the case? I'm certainly not trying to make you feel unwelcome; just wondering how much time I should spend trying to convince you if your mind is already made up. (I mean I spent probably 15 minutes on this post alone, but I'm dubious that you will read it with an open mind. My previous snippy post took 1 minute to write, and I do thank you for reading and responding. :))

BTW, decent public transit includes door-to-door van service for elderly and disabled people like your 98 year old grandfather. I suggest that you look into it. Van service might be much more convenient, and even pleasanter for both him and yourself. Mnay disabled people hate to ask others for rides, so they feel that they better maintain independence with public transit.

You're correct. I should've noted that this is the situation here. I've been impressed with mass transit options in big, dense cities. It also makes a decent showing in some places such as nearby Chapel Hill where the university population dominates the town and riders ride for free. Because of my employment, I get to ride the buses here for free. I've done it on occassion, though not within the last couple of years. I've never ridden one that was anywhere close to full. My job also has me dealing with our bus system on some levels. I know they count ridership by counting 'trips'. If I take a bus to the depot, one trip. If I transfer there to another bus, 2 trips. If I come back by the same method, 4 trips. When they present ridership info to the public, they make my ride sound like 4 riders rode the bus that day. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. Once you get down to the costs of providing service here, it would be cheaper to provide point to point helicopter service. :D

Roody, though your argument that I'm wrong is quite compelling, I'm not quite convinced into changing my mind. Now I just need MarkS to chime in and accuse me of listening to talk radio all day. I don't know how my points can stand in the face of such erudite criticism.

I will agree that biking provides much better health benefits than driving and for me it's also much less frustrating. However, I'm an able-bodied 30 something. If I'm the caregiver for my 98 year old grandfather, I'm not going to put him in a trailer strapped to my bike and haul him to the doctor. I've used the car a lot more in the past 7 years since my kids were born. It's more convenient for my family to get a week's worth of groceries at a time. Sorry, but my bike doesn't hold 10 bags of food, gallons of milk, packs of beer, laundry detergent, dog food, etc. Even if I had a fully loaded tourer that could cram most of this on there, I couldn't pedal with the 50 extra pounds up hills. I'm not going to take my kids to the bus stop and make a 15 minute drive to their activity turn into a 45 minute planning nightmare on a bus that twists and turns through every neighborhood on the way. When they're older, I'll ride bikes up there with them just for fun. These situations make cars both useful and convenient.

I live in one of the most leftist places in the country. Democrats here outnumber republicans by about a 8 - 2 margin. I could probably count on one hand the number of car-free people here. They think bumper stickers will change the environment I guess because there are plenty of those. They are considering a light rail system here. In surveys they're finding that many people are very supportive of it -- for everyone else. The concensus is basically, yes I support the idea, no, I will not use it. Even in bad traffic, my car will save me at least 20 minutes to a destination 5 miles away or more over any other form of transportation at this point. Again, this just applies here. I would sing a different song in NYC or DC.

When I was riding the bus to work it was regularly standing room only. Some of the other routes are not nearly so full, but if you don't provide the service to where people need it, they won't ride the bus at all, even in areas where there IS good service. I don't think I've been on a bus here in Denver that had fewer than 10 people on it for more than about a mile. The times I rode the bus most other places they seemed to have a pretty good ridership.

Personally, I don't see why anyone in this area would want to take a car downtown... the parking sucks, the streets are way too crowded, and it's EXPENSIVE.

But, then, we all know that Americans are in love with their cars.

Personally, I do all my grocery shopping by bike, and can easily carry a half cart of groceries (Including a 12 pack of toilet paper, 25 lbs of dog food, and 2 12 packs of soda, in addition to whatever else I want to get) in one trip with just a rack and panniers. With a trailer I could carry much more. I do the largish trips to the store 1-2 times a week, and if there's anything else I want during the week, I make a seperate trip and grab a few things.

I have a truck, but to be honest, I got tired of feeding the damn thing. And of my wife being so dependent on the truck that I'd have to drive 10 miles from work, pick her up, take her 15 miles to the doctor, drive her 15 miles back home, then drive back to work (if it didn't blow my workday already)....

All this when there's a good bus system that will take her straight to her appointment and home again for $3

What I DON'T get are people that have absolutely no desire to become car free coming in here and trying to tell us why it's impossible?

I enjoy riding my bike, even if it's being used for 'utilitarian' purposes, I'm more healthy, I've lost the extra weight I put on when I hurt my knee, and it hurts my bad knee a lot less than walking does. Hell, I almost look for excuses to run to the store, just so I can ride a bit more!

It's entirely possible to live car free, even in the US, but you have to want to do it, rather than want to find excuses not to do it.

Call me a tree-smoking hippie but...
Industrial grade hemp (hemp...not pot) requires nearly no fertilizer, grows in every part of the world and the biomass can produce methanol which could feed environmentally friendly direct-methanol-fuel-cells.
And hemp (remember how they call it weed? it is an invasive plant) grows like mad in pretty high density
If only it was legal.

I'm not throwing this out as a panacea. (I don't believe there is one for the energy problem) but it is an alternative.

Personally I think its all about a mixture of low-energy lifestyles and diversified use of all alternative sources. its about learning to use everything we have as intelligently as we can and to use the right tools in the right places.

just remember, hydrogen (in combustion or fuel cells) is an energy storage system...not an energy source...stars (or more so the gravitational force that allows stars to do what they do) are the only energy source in the univese (and even then they're just using potential energy stored in elements via fusion reactions) everything else is a trickle down result of either a star or the big bang.

If only it was legal.

Sigh...

You are preach'n to the choir
here man! On so many levels.

I will agree that biking provides much better health benefits than driving and for me it's also much less frustrating. However, I'm an able-bodied 30 something. If I'm the caregiver for my 98 year old grandfather, I'm not going to put him in a trailer strapped to my bike and haul him to the doctor. I've used the car a lot more in the past 7 years since my kids were born. It's more convenient for my family to get a week's worth of groceries at a time. Sorry, but my bike doesn't hold 10 bags of food, gallons of milk, packs of beer, laundry detergent, dog food, etc. Even if I had a fully loaded tourer that could cram most of this on there, I couldn't pedal with the 50 extra pounds up hills. I'm not going to take my kids to the bus stop and make a 15 minute drive to their activity turn into a 45 minute planning nightmare on a bus that twists and turns through every neighborhood on the way. When they're older, I'll ride bikes up there with them just for fun.

It looks like you're addressing 3 issues here.