Living Car Free - Who is carfree NOT for environmental reasons?

For real information and not either media hype or industry schill information, see:

www.realclimate.org

Do a search for any question or concern or criticism, and chances are their archive has already discussed it. I'll not answer rudely out of the realization that you're only ignorant and not well-informed on the topic of global climate disruption.
Very nice site and one I'd not seen before. Thanks for the pointer!

I'm working on car lite. Not because of global warming, but because it's good exercise, and because every dollar I don't spend on gas is a dollar that won't end up in the bank account of some terrorist freak who wants to destroy Western civilization because we don't require women to put a bag over their heads before they go out in public. :mad:

I've been much more austere in my way of life even outside of the car, extending into things like clothes washing, shopping with canvas bags, diet, electricity use, etcetera... What's so austere about shopping with canvas bags? They are just more aesthetically pleasing and better for the environment than that plastic crap! In fact they are more luxirious. :)

To answer the question: there is no one single reason I'm car-free. Environmental benefit is definitely a factor but not the main one. Money isn't the main one either, for that matter. I think the main reason I don't have a car is the same reason you don't have a trolley bus: I don't need one, I don't want one, it doesn't make sense for me to have one. I don't need reasons not to have a car - I need reasons to have one, and there aren't any good ones, really.

I own a car now, but my commute is 65 kms round trip with absolutely no other way out there (I do commute by bicycle in the summer), and soon my commute will be 300 kms round trip. I'm looking at alternatives for the 300 km commute, but so far, I think driving it might be the least expensive option. :eek: :eek: :eek: Ho-ly mother of god! That better be a superb job AND your home better be a superb place to live if you're willing to put up with a 300 km commute to keep 'em both. Good luck...

I own a car now, but my commute is 65 kms round trip with absolutely no other way out there (I do commute by bicycle in the summer), and soon my commute will be 300 kms round trip. I'm looking at alternatives for the 300 km commute, but so far, I think driving it might be the least expensive option. I'm not terribly happy about that because I still think cars are expensive hassles ... but I'm not sure what else to do.

When I become car free again, it will be to free myself from the expense and the hassle.

I don't know... anyone who would subject themselves to a 180mi commute doesn't strike me as the type of person who minds expense OR hassle.

This is one of the reasons I'm not a big proponent of home ownership. A person will readily change apartments to be closer to work. People will rarely sell a house to do the same. Owning a house and land made sense when you lived off of that land. In a world where it's just a residence it only serves to tie you down.

I'm not car free. I am voluntarily car lite (I own a car, in fact 2 cars. I perfer to ride my bike most of the time). I do not beleive in the doomsday scenario painted by much of the global warming/ climate change reporting these days.


same boat here: 2 cars but lite car useage. I do it for fun, fitness, $ savings. and because driving puts me in a bad mood cause most drivers are friggin idiots! find the gas pedal, use your blinkers, get in the right lane, ya slowass!:mad: <- that's how driving makes me feel.

What's so austere about shopping with canvas bags? They are just more aesthetically pleasing and better for the environment than that plastic crap! In fact they are more luxirious. :)


Well, you've got me there. Nothing austere about that at all, though even here in "left coast" California I get a lot of funny looks when walking with a canvas bag slung over my shoulder.

It's one of the few things I think everyone could do but for some reason doesn't - probably because they don't think about it, but I can't speak for anyone else about that.

It's interesting how much plastic waste there is though. Here in the Bay Area, there was a recent report of islands of plastic garbage swirling around in the Pacific Ocean. One is twice the size of the state of Texas, which is just disgusting. Read on, for your daily dose of environmental depression:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/10312783/detail.html

For real information and not either media hype or industry schill information, see:

www.realclimate.org

Do a search for any question or concern or criticism, and chances are their archive has already discussed it. I'll not answer rudely out of the realization that you're only ignorant and not well-informed on the topic of global climate disruption.

Very nice site, but if you understand their arguments rather than naively trust their conclusions then I think it supports my point of view more than yours.

Climatology depends heavily on statistical methods which are notoriously difficult to interpret. Statistics is plagued by a problem called "robustness" in which small changes to the models can result in vastly different answers. For example, look at this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/#more-355) where they discuss how some scientists are using the same data and the same statistical methods to "prove" that global warming can be fully attributed to solar variations. The author of the article goes on to say that this conclusion is flawed because the model used did not take into account all relevant factors. He then argues that since his model takes into account more relevant factors, his conclusion must be more correct. However, how does the author know that his model includes all the relevant factors? The fact is that he doesn't know and, due to the robustness problem, even if his model is lacking in a few minor details the conclusion could completely change.

Medicine has the same problem. That's why the medical community is always flipfloping on whether or not certain things are good for you or bad for you ("drink lots of milk...no don't drink too much milk"). The difference is that at least medical scientists can conduct controlled experiments to try to compensate for some of these statistical shortcomings. Unfortunately, climatologists can't even do that much and are, therefore, forced to come up with much less reliable conclusions.

The robustness issue is somewhat real, but is mainly a delaying tactic. Climate models are evaluated on their ability to replicate past climate using their embedded assumptions.

Statistical signifigance is also really difficult when dealing with a dataset that only really goes back to the 70s, when multiple superimposed climate fluctuations are happening at the same time as the overall warming, in a system as complex as the global climate.

The real questions are more complex ones of precisely when and where and what. For example, how much fresh water in the north atlantic will cause thermohaline slowdown or shutdown? Will warming speed the winds of the southern ocean enough to really isolate antartic air masses from the rest of the earth, and will the worsen the ozone problem? What will happen to the gigantic perrennial east-west sloshing of mass and energy that is El Nino? Will it tilt one way or the other? Precisely where will sea-walls need ot be built? Precisely which species will shift their ranges, and are these species that carry disease?

One degree celcius will have billions of dollars worth of impact. Three degrees will have trillions, and several degrees is doomsday (until the next ice age in a few thousand years)

Proving that we're screwing up the environment is like proving that tobacco smoke is bad for you.

Everyone knows it; they've always known it. It will just take a hundred years or so for people to admit it, and even then most won't care.

Very nice site, but if you understand their arguments rather than naively trust their conclusions then I think it supports my point of view more than yours.

Climatology depends heavily on statistical methods which are notoriously difficult to interpret. Statistics is plagued by a problem called "robustness" in which small changes to the models can result in vastly different answers. For example, look at this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/#more-355) where they discuss how some scientists are using the same data and the same statistical methods to "prove" that global warming can be fully attributed to solar variations. The author of the article goes on to say that this conclusion is flawed because the model used did not take into account all relevant factors. He then argues that since his model takes into account more relevant factors, his conclusion must be more correct. However, how does the author know that his model includes all the relevant factors? The fact is that he doesn't know and, due to the robustness problem, even if his model is lacking in a few minor details the conclusion could completely change.

Medicine has the same problem. That's why the medical community is always flipfloping on whether or not certain things are good for you or bad for you ("drink lots of milk...no don't drink too much milk"). The difference is that at least medical scientists can conduct controlled experiments to try to compensate for some of these statistical shortcomings. Unfortunately, climatologists can't even do that much and are, therefore, forced to come up with much less reliable conclusions.


I don't think any scientist will say that the climate data "proves" anything. As you know, they will instead discuss the probablility that their findings support a certain hypothesis. In the case of anthropogenic global warming, the consensus of climatoloists is at the 90 % level.

It is not up to scientists to decide whether this confidence level is high enough to act on. That decision must be made by politicians and other policy makers, not scientists. They will use even less precise analytical methods to determine the costs and benefits of certain policy changes, or the costs and benefits of not making any changes.

The costs here are astronomical. If we don't act, and it turns out that we should have, we will have consigned our descendants to hellish climate conditions here on Earth. Many people will suffer, perhaps even die. If we do act, and it turns out that we should not have, we and our descendants will be subjected to unnecessary economic hardships, which will be especially devestating to people in the developing countries of the world. Again, many people will suffer.

You mentioned medical issues. My father is facing a decision that's similar to the one we all face regarding climate change. He's learned that a certain operation might reduce the pain in his legs and greatly improve the quality of his life. However, there are grave risks that his health might suffer if he has the operation. His doctors are analogous to the climatologists. They can give my dad the scientific facts and figures, and also an educated guess about the costs and benefits of having the operation, or not having it. However, they can't give him all the information he needs to decide with 100 % certainty. The final decision is up to my dad. He's a rational man, and he will use the scientific facts to guide his decision. But it boils down to a guess, in the final analysis, and an acceptance that his decision may turn out to be wrong.

This is a very difficult situation for my father. In some ways, it's very similar to the decisions that we humans now face. We must take uncertain data and make a fateful decision on behalf of our species and our planet.

I am not car free but car lite.
It all boils down to fitness and money for me.
I can afford quite a bit more cycling gear without a car to support. Plus, it provides a nice excuse to purchase a cycling item when I want it. Now if I could manage to pay off my wife's car....

I don't think any scientist will say that the climate data "proves" anything. As you know, they will instead discuss the probablility that their findings support a certain hypothesis. In the case of anthropogenic global warming, the consensus of climatoloists is at the 90 % level.

It is not up to scientists to decide whether this confidence level is high enough to act on. That decision must be made by politicians and other policy makers, not scientists. They will use even less precise analytical methods to determine the costs and benefits of certain policy changes, or the costs and benefits of not making any changes.

The costs here are astronomical. If we don't act, and it turns out that we should have, we will have consigned our descendants to hellish climate conditions here on Earth. Many people will suffer, perhaps even die. If we do act, and it turns out that we should not have, we and our descendants will be subjected to unnecessary economic hardships, which will be especially devestating to people in the developing countries of the world. Again, many people will suffer.

You mentioned medical issues. My father is facing a decision that's similar to the one we all face regarding climate change. He's learned that a certain operation might reduce the pain in his legs and greatly improve the quality of his life. However, there are grave risks that his health might suffer if he has the operation. His doctors are analogous to the climatologists. They can give my dad the scientific facts and figures, and also an educated guess about the costs and benefits of having the operation, or not having it. However, they can't give him all the information he needs to decide with 100 % certainty. The final decision is up to my dad. He's a rational man, and he will use the scientific facts to guide his decision. But it boils down to a guess, in the final analysis, and an acceptance that his decision may turn out to be wrong.

This is a very difficult situation for my father. In some ways, it's very similar to the decisions that we humans now face. We must take uncertain data and make a fateful decision on behalf of our species and our planet.

FWIW: the people who climate change impacts will hit the worst are those who don't have much farther to fall economically. if climate change was to really be tackled, the main economic losers would be americans, indians and chinese. less so for europeans, who are somewhat ahead of the curve.

but then, in many ways the US and the EU will benefit from the impacts of climate change. especially russia, which has stralled on the issue because they could become a major breadbasket in an increasingly hot and arid world, as their climate becomes more suited to agriculture.

india and china will be the major losers, as they are dependent on himalayan glaciers for water. bye bye to the ganges, the yangtze, the yellow, the pearl, the indus, the brahmaputra, etc etc etc. they will be raging muddy torrents in the summer and pits in the winter. those countries will have to import food, and disasters and water shortages will eat into their economies and create instability, making them less attractive to foreign investment. but the rich in those countries will get what they need. the poor will have no water.

africa will be shafted, but then africa always is, so nothing new there.

Good points, generic. Another point is that developing and adopting new emission-free technologies might be a stimulant to he world economy, much as the development of new communications and computer technology has been.

I am not car free but car lite.
It all boils down to fitness and money for me.
I can afford quite a bit more cycling gear without a car to support. Plus, it provides a nice excuse to purchase a cycling item when I want it. Now if I could manage to pay off my wife's car....

I might as well jump on the car-lite bandwagon, I too do it for fitness and saving money and enviromental benefits are an added bonus. I calculated my savings from riding a bicycle to work and not taking the SUV, the greatly lowered maintenance upkeep on the SUV, and not having to buy a new vehicle with monthly payments, I figure I could have fleet of bicycles in a few years time, if I only had more room in the shed. Maybe I'll take the savings and build a bigger shed. ;)

Good points, generic. Another point is that developing and adopting new emission-free technologies might be a stimulant to he world economy, much as the development of new communications and computer technology has been.
Yup, yup. Both of you and genericbikedude have earned my respect.

Try the search feature on the website - such as the term set climate modelling. I cannot begin to tell you how much information is on that website. If you have any concern or criticism, most likely it has already been addressed.

Try the search feature on the website - such as the term set climate modelling. I cannot begin to tell you how much information is on that website. If you have any concern or criticism, most likely it has already been addressed.

Yes, it does seem to address many criticisms. However, merely addressing or discussing a criticism does not necessarily constitute a conclusive answer as to whether or not it is a valid criticism. So I'm not sure what point of view you're trying to support. From what I can tell realclimate.com doesn't seem to give conclusive answers about much of anything. That doesn't reflect poorly on the site or it's contributors. It's just the state of climatology.

FWIW: the people who climate change impacts will hit the worst are those who don't have much farther to fall economically. if climate change was to really be tackled, the main economic losers would be americans, indians and chinese. less so for europeans, who are somewhat ahead of the curve.

We talk about these issues like they are going to happen in the future. I've just read an article in the Atlantic that equates the destruction going on in Sudan's Darfur region ultimately to the severe droughts in the north. These groups are essentially fighting over arable land, which is a vanishing commodity. And the reason for this is climate change.

In the same issue, another article talks about economic winners and loser in global warming. While predictions are almost impossible, it seemed likely that northern countries like Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden and probably the northern US might benefit most.

We talk about these issues like they are going to happen in the future. I've just read an article in the Atlantic that equates the destruction going on in Sudan's Darfur region ultimately to the severe droughts in the north. These groups are essentially fighting over arable land, which is a vanishing commodity. And the reason for this is climate change.

The droughts in Darfur (and the rest of the southern saharan fringe) are cyclical. They happen every few generations based on mass fluxes in the indian and atlantic oceans. Climate change will make these droughts worse, for ****ing certain. But big droughts and wet periods happen every 30-50 years. The cause of the darfur problem is political. In the 80s in Mali, Touareg herders (similar to the ethnic groups that make up the janjaweed) rebelled agains the govt. This was prompted by massive droughts that threatened their livelihoods -- they took their herds south to the better pastures, and found black farmers. They lost the fight because they were in Mali -- politically controlled by Africans, rather than Arabs. Sort of like Darfur but reverse. Sort of.

And the ancient west african empires of Wagadu, Old Mali, and Songhai all depended on trans-saharan trade. The balance of power between the arabs with camels and the africans with food and gold depended on large part where the boundary of the desert was. The desert would shift all the time, leading to famines, which led to wars. Wars made slaves, and slaves were traded across the sahara for horses which were used to fight the wars. It continued from when islam was introduced to when the white folks showed up in boats in the south and changed the horses-for-slaves thing into a guns-for-slaves thing. This time across the atlantic. Climate has always played a major role in history, I've always found it to be really fascinating stuff.



In the same issue, another article talks about economic winners and loser in global warming. While predictions are almost impossible, it seemed likely that northern countries like Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden and probably the northern US might benefit most.


You'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think that these northern rich countries didn't have smart people figuring out EXACTLY what the costs and benefits might be.

OK. You cannot predict what specific year corn will be growing in Siberia. But you can get it down to a ballpark of one or two decades. You can also figure out when rice will stop growing in india, or when china will run out of water for irrigation. Economic planners can plan accordingly, and increasingly they are. Russia and Canada stand to gain immensely, as food prices increase with hunger, and the American West gets drier.

OK. You cannot predict what specific year corn will be growing in Siberia. But you can get it down to a ballpark of one or two decades. You can also figure out when rice will stop growing in india, or when china will run out of water for irrigation. Economic planners can plan accordingly, and increasingly they are. Russia and Canada stand to gain immensely, as food prices increase with hunger, and the American West gets drier.
The town where I lived in Canada in the 80s and 90s never had corn growing locally. Now, the climate (and seed varieties...) have improved to the point where you can pick up local corn during the summer months...

Well, you've got me there. Nothing austere about that at all, though even here in "left coast" California I get a lot of funny looks when walking with a canvas bag slung over my shoulder.

It's one of the few things I think everyone could do but for some reason doesn't - probably because they don't think about itThat's actually the reason most people do what they do and don't do what they don't do. It's depressing to realize what sheep-like creatures humans are, even more depressing for me is to see that I myself ain't all that different. At least I fancy I keep a relatively open mind and can be reasoned with...

I've been reading realclimate.org for quite a bit of time now... and heavily disagree with the sentiments shown on this thread. Note that I'm not too interested in debating if you're going to stick into dogmatic climate denialism. I'll boil down the science of global climate disruption to the very basics:

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1200



It is extremely important to note that the Greenhouse Effect of CO2 on Venus and Mars are virtually undisputed. The CO2 molecule is a greenhouse gas because of its dipolar characteristics which absorb and radiate the infrared energy (1/3 the wavelength of a microwave). The effects of infrared energy on dipolar molecules are also virtually undisputed. Apparently, no 'scientist' was able to gain personal blood or grant money for disputing these facts.

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

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the following (the science taken down to its most BASIC level):



Even though only a tiny amount of the gasses in Earth’s atmosphere are greenhouse gases, they have a huge effect on climate.

There are several different types of greenhouse gases. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. All of these have molecules with three or more atoms. The atoms are held together loosely enough that they vibrate when they absorb heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will release the radiation. The radiation will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This process, which keeps heat near the Earth’s surface, is called the greenhouse effect.

Almost all of the other gasses in Earth’s atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen. The two atoms in these molecules are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate, so they cannot absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.


Note the animation on the page.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ear...i_greengas.html

As for water vapour - which is bound to come up - realclimate.org search function.

Also I suggest looking up the authors of the website and seeing what their credentials are. They know their shyte.

I might as well jump on the car-lite bandwagon, I too do it for fitness and saving money and enviromental benefits are an added bonus. I calculated my savings from riding a bicycle to work and not taking the SUV, the greatly lowered maintenance upkeep on the SUV, and not having to buy a new vehicle with monthly payments, I figure I could have fleet of bicycles in a few years time, if I only had more room in the shed. Maybe I'll take the savings and build a bigger shed. ;)
Get rid of the SUV and you'll have room for lots of bikes. And you don't get the really deep savings until you go carfree either. :)

I gave up my vehicles a few years ago. Of course my carbon foot print was a big part of the decision, but the biggest factor is that I am a diabetic and the job I work at doesn't allow a lot of extra time for workouts. I commute by bike (which actually saves time versus a car due to heavy urban traffic) and I add miles on to my commutes to get my training in. It also forces me to get my exercise in. As an additive benefit it's nice to have the extra dollars to spend on new bike/accessories purchases. If I really need a car for something, I just rent one and that only happens a couple of times a year.

BTW if anyone has a peer reviewed scientific study (as opposed to an "opinion paper") that shows man made global warming isn't happening, please feel free to post the link.

Get rid of the SUV and you'll have room for lots of bikes. And you don't get the really deep savings until you go carfree either. :)

Ah, but the SUV is always parked outside, it's my 60's muscle car that is being the culprit in the lack of space for extra bikes. :)

I enjoy reading this forum (I am a longtime lurker). Even though I am not carfree I enjoy reading about people using there bikes for utility purpose (I like the commuter forum too).

I own a car and drive like a grandma and have managed to get 40mpg out of my Mazda.

I may consider being carlite/ carfree if I lived in the right location.

My riding is for two main reasons (this week). 1. I love the chemical rush I get in the brain. 2. I'm still a poor fool, but don't pity me.

I would like to live in a society that values a utilitarian bicycle life style, so that's the environmental extent of my bike riding.

I pick up trash around my neighborhood.

I don't know if this has been said, but for most people who are car free, there can't be a single, idealistic motivating factor.

If it's purely for political/socio/environmental reasons, it's easy for the zealousness to peter out. if it's just something you do, then it's a lot easier and more fun.

I don't know if I qualify as car free. I have no interest in a drivers license, but I'm only a High school senior, and I live in a city that's very bike friendly and has a great public transit system to boot. We'll see how long I last when I go to college, living in a smaller town.

I don't know if this has been said, but for most people who are car free, there can't be a single, idealistic motivating factor.

If it's purely for political/socio/environmental reasons, it's easy for the zealousness to peter out. if it's just something you do, then it's a lot easier and more fun.

Dear M_S,

Your are a wise person. The very best of luck to you in all your endeavors!

hotwheels

While I like riding for riding's sake, I got rid of my car when it no longer made economic sense. I live and work in a city with good transit and normally either biked or bussed to work. I went over my vehicle use and found I was driving my car ~1000 miles a year and the cost to do so was more than if I had just taken a taxi for all those trips! Most were local trips to the store, which I should have been biking or walking to anyway.

So now I bike most places, take the bus when going downtown or more than 15 miles distance (or it's raining hard) and have a Flexcar hourly rental membership which I haven't even used yet (but it's there if needed). 1.5 months away from being car-free for a year! I don't miss it.

i went car free for environmental, health, and financial reasons. after years of cross country trips, i got to the point that i absolutely hate driving.

I'm carfree, and have been for the past 4 years, but won't be for much longer. I go to school in a big city, and a car would be both prohibitively expensive to park (and gas is expensive here too), and mostly useless. I can get anywhere I need to go in DC in about 45 minutes, usually much less, which is comparable with a car (I occasionally get a ride with a friend for my commute, and it actually takes longer from door to door than my bike does).

I'm moving to a different, less bike-friendly city (Charleston, SC), and, while I think I'll still try to commute by bike, it's not going to be practical to not have a car at all (though I intend to keep my car use as little as possible, primarily for economic and fitness reasons).