Living Car Free - "I just don't want to think about it!"

I work with a nice lady--I'll call her Kathy--who drives a huge SUV. The other day she was talking about getting a new vehicle. I asked her what kind of fuel she thought her next vehicle after this one will run on. "Because you know," I said, "this might be the last gas powered car you ever buy in your whole life."

Her answer surprised me a little: "I know that. I just don't want to think about it!"

It seems like Americans are finally getting the message that gasoline is on the endangered list. Maybe they're starting to go through the various stages of grieving. This lady sure sounds like she's in the denial stage....

How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?






Here are the various grieving stages according to Kubler-Ross:




Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my children graduate."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

[QUOTE=Roody;6221334]
How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?


[QUOTE]

A US invasion of anyone who still has a lot of oil. (Our government will just claim they have weapons of mass destruction.)

I don't think it will be like a grieving process; it will be more like the desperate, violent acts of a hopeless addict prepared to do whatever it takes to get his next fix.

[QUOTE=Roody;6221334]
How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?


[QUOTE]

A US invasion of anyone who still has a lot of oil. (Our government will just claim they have weapons of mass destruction, or are planning to make them, or kind of wished they had some lying around.)

I don't think it will be like a grieving process; it will be more like the desperate, violent acts of a hopeless addict prepared to do whatever it takes to get his next fix.

Well from the amount of oil that is flowing from Iraq vs the billions spent...I can't see how that is a viable alternative, not to say that it won't be tried again in the future. But I really think it is part of what is dragging down the US economy. Americans are going to have to get over their love affair with oversize personal conveyances.

Aaron:)

I work with a nice lady--I'll call her Kathy--who drives a huge SUV. The other day she was talking about getting a new vehicle. I asked her what kind of fuel she thought her next vehicle after this one will run on. "Because you know," I said, "this might be the last gas powered car you ever buy in your whole life."

Her answer surprised me a little: "I know that. I just don't want to think about it!"

It seems like Americans are finally getting the message that gasoline is on the endangered list. Maybe they're starting to go through the various stages of grieving. This lady sure sounds like she's in the denial stage....


Is she in denial, or is she already in the bargaining stage? Or perhaps even in the depression stage? She's not at acceptance yet, for sure.

East Hill

Is she in denial, or is she already in the bargaining stage? Or perhaps even in the depression stage? She's not at acceptance yet, for sure.

East Hill

I think bargaining sould be something like, "Give me enough gas to keep the SUV going and I'll put in fluorescent lighting to make up for it." Or maybe buying carbon offsets?

Well from the amount of oil that is flowing from Iraq vs the billions spent...I can't see how that is a viable alternative, not to say that it won't be tried again in the future. But I really think it is part of what is dragging down the US economy. Americans are going to have to get over their love affair with oversize personal conveyances.

Aaron:)

Going to war for oil would definitely be the anger stage. "How dare they put their sand on top of our oil?"

I agree with bragi: America isn't grieving a loss, we're fighting an addiction.

Expect a temper-tantrum, false helplessness, deceitfulnesses to get our last fix, and some serious withdrawal.

How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?




I had a conversation a while back with one individual who was driving a rather large truck (Ford F150 or bigger...) and he confessed that he thought Bush would figure a way to open up the Alaskan oil fields.

I would regard that as the denial stage.

How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?


Have you ever seen that 80's movie titled Mad Max?

I work with a nice lady--I'll call her Kathy--who drives a huge SUV. ...
How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?
I don't know how she will do it, but I'd wager she's got at least thirty years to figure out how.
Who told you gasoline was on the endangered list?
GM?
The same car company who swore they'd be selling 10% electric vehicles in California by the year, uhhh, , , I think it was 2001 they said... (I cannot find a quote now)

The Wiki page says the Impact cost $80,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Costs

---------

If you really want to know when a real, actual electric car for sale will arrive, look for Honda or Toyota or Nissan to start making one. The US automakers are stuck with positively crippling labor and pension costs.
~

I don't think it will be like a grieving process; it will be more like the desperate, violent acts of a hopeless addict prepared to do whatever it takes to get his next fix.

You'll likely find this same reaction in....80?....100?....years when Middle East oil is drained and the folks there realize they're left with dry sand for resources.

I work with a nice lady--I'll call her Kathy--who drives a huge SUV.

Very decent of you to protect her identity. The witness protection program is overburdened as it is.

Very decent of you to protect her identity. The witness protection program is overburdened as it is.

Witness Protection Program Worker: When I say ``Hello Mr. Thompson`` and step on your foot like this... you just nod and smile.

``hello Mr. Thompson`` (Stamps on foot)

Homer: ``I think he`s talking to you...``

Going to war for oil would definitely be the anger stage. "How dare they put their sand on top of our oil?"

It will either be Venezuela or West Africa. Nigeria and Angola have tons of oil.
My guess is it will be Africa. People pay such little attention to what is
going on in Africa, they'll believe whatever cover story is put out to justify it.

Here are the various grieving stages according to Kubler-Ross:

Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my children graduate."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."


You Forgot "Door to door rocking"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFOvk0AFlg

A US invasion of anyone who still has a lot of oil. (Our government will just claim they have weapons of mass destruction.)

I don't think it will be like a grieving process; it will be more like the desperate, violent acts of a hopeless addict prepared to do whatever it takes to get his next fix.

I'm stocking up on detonators.

It will either be Venezuela or West Africa. Nigeria and Angola have tons of oil.
My guess is it will be Africa. People pay such little attention to what is
going on in Africa, they'll believe whatever cover story is put out to justify it.

I agree on Africa...I have seen interesting information from a series of sources including the retraining of the SF groups for African operations. Shortsighted IMHO I would much rather take the Danish approach and plan for a "green" future but I guess that isn't the American way:(

Aaron:)

I had a conversation a while back with one individual who was driving a rather large truck (Ford F150 or bigger...) and he confessed that he thought Bush would figure a way to open up the Alaskan oil fields.

I would regard that as the denial stage.Isn't that supposed to supply something like one day's worth of our oil needs?

Although the general public and big corporations hell-bent on status quo certainly deserve a lot of the blame for our oil addiction, I think that our "leaders", haven't done any better. Instead of putting more effort into the real problem, which is the demand side of the supply-and-demand balance, they basically ask for more oil. But what do you expect in an economy obsessed with the farce of endless growth in a finite world? What "leader" is going to tell Americans to use less?

I am convinced that fundamental changes in our economy are going to be necessary. And look, I love my country, but it's clear that we shouldn't keep carrying on the way we have been. The party's over. Time to grow up.

Though I plan on having a little celebration when gas hits $5 / gal. It's gonna be awesome.

It will either be Venezuela or West Africa. Nigeria and Angola have tons of oil.
My guess is it will be Africa. People pay such little attention to what is
going on in Africa, they'll believe whatever cover story is put out to justify it.

Bush just got back from a "humanitarian mission" (wink wink) to Africa. I heard him answer a reporter's question on TV: "Yes we will be installing a military base on the continent. We just haven't decided which country it will be in." I guess that's the bargaining stage. ;)

Although the general public and big corporations hell-bent on status quo certainly deserve a lot of the blame for our oil addiction, I think that our "leaders", haven't done any better. Instead of putting more effort into the real problem, which is the demand side of the supply-and-demand balance, they basically ask for more oil. But what do you expect in an economy obsessed with the farce of endless growth in a finite world? What "leader" is going to tell Americans to use less?

I am convinced that fundamental changes in our economy are going to be necessary. And look, I love my country, but it's clear that we shouldn't keep carrying on the way we have been. The party's over. Time to grow up.

Though I plan on having a little celebration when gas hits $5 / gal. It's gonna be awesome.

Yeah, sure, when the US economy collapses and food costs skyrocket due to the cost of transportation, we're all gonna have a party.

Yeah, sure, when the US economy collapses and food costs skyrocket due to the cost of transportation, we're all gonna have a party.Paul Krugman touched on that subject the other day:

Don't Rerun That '70s Show (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/opinion/22krugman.html?scp=2&sq=paul+krugman&st=nyt)


Jimmy Carter’s overall economic record was much better than most people realize — the average economic growth rate under his administration was 3.4 percent per year, slightly higher than the growth rate under Ronald Reagan and far better than growth under either Bush.

Reagan famously asked Americans whether they were better off than they had been four years ago; the answer, actually, was yes — most families had higher real income in 1980 than they did in 1976.

But the good economic news came in the Carter administration’s early years, while its final year was marked by rising unemployment and soaring inflation, largely caused by a surge in oil prices.

How do you think the grieving process for the internal combustion engine will work itself out?


It will work itself out fine. The motorist will simply trade in their gas powered F150 for the hybrid F150

Isn't that supposed to supply something like one day's worth of our oil needs?

Probably more like a couple year's worth of supply in Alaska. But I don't think there's much more in Africa, and I can't think of any reason besides oil why the US would want a base in sub-Saharan Africa.

One point about grieving is that it's irrational. A lot of times people spend their fortunes on quack cures because they can't accept that they're dying. America might spend fortunes and lives chasing after tiny amounts of oil.

I honestly think that most Americans who are in denial about this honestly expect gasoline to go back down to where it was at when Clinton was president. Won't happen.

Probably more like a couple year's worth of supply in Alaska.I meant if it was our only source of oil-- it would only help us out for a ridiculously small period of time, but I can't remember exactly how much oil there is compared to our daily national consumption of oil.

It will work itself out fine. The motorist will simply trade in their gas powered F150 for the hybrid F150

That one's definitely denial.

every time i have to go into the city (dallas) i look around at all the suburban housing developments and say to myself that there is just no way we can sustain this. and of course we can't. the suburbs are built on cheap oil and the promise of ever increasing housing prices. already we're seeing the end of that. as gas prices increase there will be an increase in the price of everything including especially food. and as people can't afford to eat there will be a large increase in crime and unemployment. any environmental protections that we have left will be gutted so that we can get more coal from mountain tops and make more dirty air, we'll also increase plans for more nuclear. yeah, it's going to really be a picnic. of course add to this global warming and more catastrophic events like katrina and even less money for infrastructure. then of course you've got the politico's giving tax breaks to their criminal cronies, tax breaks for corporations to take their jobs overseas and people like "kathy" with her head up her tailpipe.

unfortunately none of our leaders have the cojones to tell the public that the party is over, that we need to pony up for all the spending of the past eight misguided years, tighten our belts and start living as though this country is going to be here for our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren, instead of just making it to the next election cycle. grrr... :mad:

unfortunately none of our leaders have the cojones to tell the public that the party is over, that we need to pony up for all the spending of the past eight misguided years, tighten our belts and start living as though this country is going to be here for our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren, instead of just making it to the next election cycle. grrr... :mad:And people think they've had enough of Bush now. Just wait until they actually get the tab for his mis-administration.

Have you ever seen that 80's movie titled Mad Max?

Great movie, but I was always amazed that no one rode bicycles. :rolleyes:

unfortunately none of our leaders have the cojones to tell the public that the party is over

They're all pwned by big business, Republicans and Democrats alike. Running dogs of capitalism.

It will work itself out fine. The motorist will simply trade in their gas powered F150 for the hybrid F150
That one's definitely denial.
Actually, a hybrid F150 or an alternate fuel F150 will likely be the direction we'll see. Depending on the fuel source used, it might allow us to maintain our present way of life without the heavy dependence on oil.

There are some serious drawbacks at the same time. Such a solution does nothing to address the automobile problems not directly related to oil — traffic congestion, urban sprawl, the costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle and others. And depending on the fuels used, we could simply see one pollution problem exchanged for another. There are also ethical issues to address if we use ethanol as a fuel since agricultural land, which could be used to feed the hungry, is also in demand to feed our transportation sources.

Still, it's easier as a society to move to hybrids and alternate fuels than to make lifestyle and cultural changes.

Actually, a hybrid F150 or an alternate fuel F150 will likely be the direction we'll see. Depending on the fuel source used, it might allow us to maintain our present way of life without the heavy dependence on oil.

There are some serious drawbacks at the same time. Such a solution does nothing to address the automobile problems not directly related to oil — traffic congestion, urban sprawl, the costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle and others. And depending on the fuels used, we could simply see one pollution problem exchanged for another. There are also ethical issues to address if we use ethanol as a fuel since agricultural land, which could be used to feed the hungry, is also in demand to feed our transportation sources.

Still, it's easier as a society to move to hybrids and alternate fuels than to make lifestyle and cultural changes.

You're probably right but I think it's more likely that the car people will go to plug-ins. I hope powered with renewables, but they're poised to build a lot of coal plants right now if we can't stop them.

Yeah, sure, when the US economy collapses and food costs skyrocket due to the cost of transportation, we're all gonna have a party.

First, I didn't say "we all". I said me. Secondly, I am well aware of the complications of more expensive oil.

With that being said, I do look forward to seeing America finally realize that we must do things better, and hopefully that includes having fewer cars on the road to contend with. Rising transportation costs mean that more will be produced locally - the way it should have always been. I will be gald to see fewer products, food and otherwise, coming here from China, and a revival of local economies.

Actually, a hybrid F150 or an alternate fuel F150 will likely be the direction we'll see. Depending on the fuel source used, it might allow us to maintain our present way of life without the heavy dependence on oil.

There are some serious drawbacks at the same time. Such a solution does nothing to address the automobile problems not directly related to oil — traffic congestion, urban sprawl, the costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle and others. And depending on the fuels used, we could simply see one pollution problem exchanged for another. There are also ethical issues to address if we use ethanol as a fuel since agricultural land, which could be used to feed the hungry, is also in demand to feed our transportation sources.

Still, it's easier as a society to move to hybrids and alternate fuels than to make lifestyle and cultural changes.

And that move will be super-temporary at best. People can't afford to keep their houses now, so I think hopes of a mass transition to HVs, EVs, etc.. are unrealistic. At best, it'll allow the suicidal run to continue a bit longer.

First, I didn't say "we all". I said me. Secondly, I am well aware of the complications of more expensive oil.

With that being said, I do look forward to seeing America finally realize that we must do things better, and hopefully that includes having fewer cars on the road to contend with. Rising transportation costs mean that more will be produced locally - the way it should have always been. I will be gald to see fewer products, food and otherwise, coming here from China, and a revival of local economies.
That, or the rise of another right-wing demagogue who will promise to lower the price of oil by occupying more oil producing terrorists...er, nations (Iran, or Venezuela, anybody?) and opening up ANWR.

What you've described as the outcome of oil shortages is what you'd like to see. It's not necessarily what will actually happen. Jimmy Carter encouraged energy conservation, and was accused of encouraging the nation to "freeze in the dark" by the right wing. When Reagan entered the White House, the solar panels Carter had installed on the White House roof were removed, and never replaced. Instead of energy conservation and investment in alternative energy, taxpayers are spending nearly $200 million per day to keep Iraqi oil flowing.

And that move will be super-temporary at best. People can't afford to keep their houses now, so I think hopes of a mass transition to HVs, EVs, etc.. are unrealistic. At best, it'll allow the suicidal run to continue a bit longer.

Not necessarily. Cars have become an integral part of our culture. Existing cars have a finite life span and they will be replaced. In addition, if oil prices continue to rise and if alternate fuel vehicles are available at reasonable costs, we can expect a transition away from petroleum-fueled transportation without moving away from motorized vehicles.

Your point about people not able to keep their houses now is a good one. There are some significant economic factors at play. I wonder if auto makers will respond by marketing cheap and basic vehicles to meet the demands of a population which is becoming unable to afford the average vehicles on the road today.

Not necessarily. Cars have become an integral part of our culture. Existing cars have a finite life span and they will be replaced. In addition, if oil prices continue to rise and if alternate fuel vehicles are available at reasonable costs, we can expect a transition away from petroleum-fueled transportation without moving away from motorized vehicles.

Your point about people not able to keep their houses now is a good one. There are some significant economic factors at play. I wonder if auto makers will respond by marketing cheap and basic vehicles to meet the demands of a population which is becoming unable to afford the average vehicles on the road today.

Well I think we are already seeing that. People that have been buying are going for more smaller and more efficient cars. But consider also the credit crunch. How many people do you know that have ever bought a new car outright? These new cars - EV, HV, whatever - will largely be funded by loans that are becoming harder to get. And while buying a Prius might be cheaper in the long run, it seems to me that most of us live something closer to paycheck-to-paycheck, which means that, for now, Joe Six-Pack might be able to handle spending another $30 per month on gas - perhaps he won't be able to go cruisn' for burgers so much, and he might not be able to get to a NASCAR race this year. But another $300+ per month for a new car - if he could even get the loan - is just not gonna happen. Has it ever been more clear that Americans are tapped out? Who's going to loan someone money when it's clear they won't be able to pay it back? With the economy's downward spiral, is there even money to loan? Besides, producing a car alone takes copius amounts of oil. The solution is clear (and I realize I'm preaching to the choir here): move away from car craziness.

I see a lot of people being stuck with what they have. Let's face it - America blew it. We pissed away around half of the oil available to us in an infentessimally small fraction of the time it took to be produced, and now the damage of our dependence on it may never be repaired. The general population - zombified from TV, fast food, cars, and advertisements for all three, will finally be *****-slapped, courtesy of reality, out of the trance it's been in, and be forced to realize that the world has real natural limits.

Fortunately, there is a better way. Even in the ridiculous suburban mold we've made for ourselves, it can do us a lot of good. And people here know what that is.

Not necessarily. Cars have become an integral part of our culture. Existing cars have a finite life span and they will be replaced. In addition, if oil prices continue to rise and if alternate fuel vehicles are available at reasonable costs, we can expect a transition away from petroleum-fueled transportation without moving away from motorized vehicles.

Your point about people not able to keep their houses now is a good one. There are some significant economic factors at play. I wonder if auto makers will respond by marketing cheap and basic vehicles to meet the demands of a population which is becoming unable to afford the average vehicles on the road today.

IMHO not the US manufacturers they are all but bankrupt, with Chrylser having laid off over 25,000 workers in the past year, GM offering buyouts to most if not all of it's remaining 74,000 line workers, not sure what Ford is up to, but with collapsing sales and the F150 being their mainstay model...

They will need to change standards to allow for smaller lighter cars before we will see the smaller lighter fuel efficient cars. I have owned several cars in the past that got 40+ miles per gallon, but they wouldn't come close to meeting the safety standards of today. The two that come to mind were a 1968 Renault R-10 and a 1978 Honda Civic 1200.

Aaron:)

Although the general public and big corporations hell-bent on status quo certainly deserve a lot of the blame for our oil addiction, I think that our "leaders", haven't done any better. Instead of putting more effort into the real problem, which is the demand side of the supply-and-demand balance, they basically ask for more oil. But what do you expect in an economy obsessed with the farce of endless growth in a finite world? What "leader" is going to tell Americans to use less? ...
This part is basically true. Unfortunately, democracy is a popularity contest.

This part is rather strained. You are stating that the US should forgo fossil fuels for something else far more expensive, but otherwise desirable. It's difficult to argue that we should bypass a cheaper energy source for a more-expensive one. You're just driving up the cost of something that lots of ordinary people have to use to make a living.

It would be like if the US government said that since titanium bicycles last longer than other materials, they're going to prohibit all other types so that when people buy a bicycle they get a good one (with a titanium frame) that will last a long time. It's not exactly a false statement, but it's going to have unintended consequences--the first of which would be to price a lot of people out of the bicycle market entirely. People who have titanium bikes probably think they're great, but the rest of us aren't interested in sinking $2500+ into a bare frame. How many titanium bikes do you own?.....

"Car hate" is not the same thing as bicycle advocacy.
~

[QUOTE=Newspaperguy;6225434]There are some serious drawbacks at the same time. Such a solution does nothing to address the automobile problems not directly related to oil — traffic congestion, urban sprawl, the costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle and others. And depending on the fuels used, we could simply see one pollution problem exchanged for another. There are also ethical issues to address if we use ethanol as a fuel since agricultural land, which could be used to feed the hungry, is also in demand to feed our transportation sources.
QUOTE]

Got some pizza last night. In with the little menu they give you stapled to the box, there was a page-long note, apparently explaining their price increases. Part of it is this:
" Ethanol - the demand for and subsidization of ethanol fuel has led to an increase in the amount of acres devoted to growing corn. Acres that were previously devoted to growing wheat are being planted with corn to feed the demand for ethanol. This decreases the supply of wheat and increases prices. "

So, where will the US get all of its' food, once all arable land is devoted to Our Holiness, the Corn, for the Holy Water of Ethanol for our cars?

It will work itself out fine. The motorist will simply trade in their gas powered F150 for the hybrid F150Trade it in to who?

(or whom)

So, where will the US get all of its' food, once all arable land is devoted to Our Holiness, the Corn, for the Holy Water of Ethanol for our cars?

Soylent Green?

You are stating that the US should forgo fossil fuels for something else far more expensive, but otherwise desirable. It's difficult to argue that we should bypass a cheaper energy source for a more-expensive one. You're just driving up the cost of something that lots of ordinary people have to use to make a living.

No, just asking that people who use gasoline pay the full price for it. That includes infrastructure, health costs, AGW, pollution, a large portion of the defense budget, habitat destruction, etc. Gasoline is NOT cheap, Doug, even though it is inexpensive. If true costs were paid, the "more-expensive" alternatives would be much more attractive.


"Car hate" is not the same thing as bicycle advocacy.
~

And this is not the bicycle advocacy forum (http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=8).

This part is basically true. Unfortunately, democracy is a popularity contest.

This part is rather strained. You are stating that the US should forgo fossil fuels for something else far more expensive, but otherwise desirable. It's difficult to argue that we should bypass a cheaper energy source for a more-expensive one. You're just driving up the cost of something that lots of ordinary people have to use to make a living.

It would be like if the US government said that since titanium bicycles last longer than other materials, they're going to prohibit all other types so that when people buy a bicycle they get a good one (with a titanium frame) that will last a long time. It's not exactly a false statement, but it's going to have unintended consequences--the first of which would be to price a lot of people out of the bicycle market entirely. People who have titanium bikes probably think they're great, but the rest of us aren't interested in sinking $2500+ into a bare frame. How many titanium bikes do you own?.....

"Car hate" is not the same thing as bicycle advocacy.
~

I didn't say anything about switching to a more expensive energy source. I think that our addiciton extends beyond oil. We use too much of everything - oil, natural gas, coal, etc.. What I think we should do, after we get out of the zombie trance, is focus on using less of everything. Smaller homes. Smaller cars. Bikes instead of cars. Less transportation. Less TVs in the house. Less digital clocks in the kitchen. Less packaging. Even relatively poor people today on government assistance have an amount of stuff - multiple TVs, excessive amounts of toys, cars - that would be considered luxurious in any other age. I realize this is a far cry from the way we've been living, which is why I believe fundamental changes to our economy will be necessary. The orgy of throw-away consumption isn't going to continue much longer anyway. Using the best insulation for buildings available should be paramount.

Now, after that, once we have learned to get by on less, we can use more renewable sources that yes will probably be more expensive. But since we'll be using less energy, they'll be much better able to meet our needs, and we won't be buying as much anyway - partially offsetting their expense.

And yes, I realize that even after all of the above, we still very well might not be sustainable, considering the way the population has ballooned. But at least we'll have taken some real, bold steps in the right direction, and perhaps more importantly broken free from the corporate-programmed turbo-consumer zombie trance - and that is much better than buying a few hybrid cars. I think it's wise to have 1 batch of kids (which means usually 1) or none.

Not necessarily. Cars have become an integral part of our culture. Existing cars have a finite life span and they will be replaced. In addition, if oil prices continue to rise and if alternate fuel vehicles are available at reasonable costs, we can expect a transition away from petroleum-fueled transportation without moving away from motorized vehicles.

That's two questionble "if"s. Alternate fuels will be far less abundant than oil has been, and the competition from India and China will be higher, so the transition will have to be to mass transit systems. Most people just won't be able to afford to fuel private cars, within the next generation or so.

No, just asking that people who use gasoline pay the full price for it. That includes infrastructure, health costs, AGW, pollution, a large portion of the defense budget, habitat destruction, etc. Gasoline is NOT cheap, Doug, even though it is inexpensive. If true costs were paid, the "more-expensive" alternatives would be much more attractive.
Yea but if you're talking about true costs, then how much should bicycles be charged for using the infrastructure?

Go find any part of a third-world country with low car ownership, and then take a look at how many paved roads they have.....
Or for that matter, how many people even live there....

I find it rather hypocritical to whine about how bad cars are--because most of us are free to move to somewhere that there's no cars, if we had the real motivation. The fact is (if you found such a place) there'd likely be not many paved roads there, and no jobs, and not a lot of other people either. That doesn't sound like the "typical urban center" that many car-free people are so infatuated with.....
~

Yea but if you're talking about true costs, then how much should bicycles be charged for using the infrastructure? Do you believe that cyclists don't pay for paved roads? Second, do you believe that cyclists create wear and tear on the roads?

Yea but if you're talking about true costs, then how much should bicycles be charged for using the infrastructure?
Cyclists should be charged a fair share. That would be a vast improvement over the current state of affairs, where we're being charged more than our fair share. Most revenue for city and county roads (the roads most used by cyclists) come from local taxes, not from gasoline taxes as you evidently think. Also, as I mentioned earlier, carfree people pay for cars not only directly through their taxes, but through their insurance premiums and in many other indirect ways.


Go find any part of a third-world country with low car ownership, and then take a look at how many paved roads they have.....
Or for that matter, how many people even live there....
I find it rather hypocritical to whine about how bad cars are--because most of us are free to move to somewhere that there's no cars, if we had the real motivation. The fact is (if you found such a place) there'd likely be not many paved roads there, and no jobs, and not a lot of other people either. That doesn't sound like the "typical urban center" that many car-free people are so infatuated with....
Don't forget that the first impetus for paved roads came from cyclists in the 19th century and early 20th century, before the Automobile Era even started. One of the major sources of GHG emissions is now coming from cement production in China, where they're building lots of roads in a mad race to catch up with America and Europe in car ownership. And how many people live in countries with low car ownership? I would guess about 4 to 5 billion, certainly the majority of the world's population.

Anyhow, Doug, I can tell you're a smart guy and you write well. But like most Americans, you probably haven't had much exposure to "the other side" of the car culture. It really isn't about "hypocritical whining" or "car hatred" even if there is a small amount of that at times. I hope you'll stick around here for a while, read with an open (if skeptical) mind, and continue to contribute to the conversation. :)

If the US starts tapping ANWR for oil, I will be forced to change my major and ultimately my path of life. ANWR is basically the last place in the states dedicated to preserving the wildness of the area. I've read the mandate for the conservation of ANWR. The intro states:

"According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and
Section 304(b) of the Alaska Lands Act, no discretionary use of a national
wildlife refuge will be permitted by the Service unless it is first determined
to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Uses
specifically mandated by Congress, or for which separate legal standards are
legislatively established, are exempt from the compatibility requirement."

Unfortunately for oil tapping to begin all that would have to take place is a Congressional Mandate.

"The question of oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge, particularly
development of the coastal plain, is of special Interest to many groups.
Section 1003 of the Alaska Lands Act specifically prohibits oil and gas
leasing, development, and production anywhere on the Arctic Refuge. Until
Congress takes action to change this provision, the Service will not permit
oil and gas leasing in the refuge under any of the alternatives in the Plan.
When Congress makes a management decision, that action will be incorporated
into the Plan and implemented."

I say this because one of my top career goals is to research the ecology of ANWR. If any company ever tried to tap the oil reserve in ANWR the ecosystem of that area would significantly be changed. We need to preserve the wild places.

Like the title of this thread, " I just don't want to think about it. "