Living Car Free - Energy, Gas usage, and the debates

This may get moved to P&R, but I feel this is a good place to post it up.

Did anyone else get kind of angry about the debates concerning energy? The candidates seem so focused on finding alternative energy sources, which is cool, but they never consider that the level of usage is a major part of the problem. Reduce, reuse, recycle, that is how it goes. Why can't they admit that americans need to first reduce usage? Oh yeah, they may lose the election if they say that. It kind of angers me that it is always about finding alternate ways to continue this culture of consumption instead of changing our ways.

Of course, those countries that don't care about the environment as much as we do are the problem. :rolleyes:

I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the debate last night. (We don't have good TV reception.)

But the night before I went to a talk at the college here. It was a two part talk. One half was a photo journey through the tar sands operations and problems with it in Canada by Garth Lenz (apparently he's a famous photographer from Canada). The other half was by Colorado politician Mark Udall talking about the oil shale situation here in western Colorado. He talked about alternate energy sources as well.

I was wondering about simply reducing energy useage, but my SO finally asked Udall about that during the question-asking session. The question was sort of brushed off.

We had walked to the talk. We should have asked how people got there.

Few people want to use less.

I share zoltani's frustration.

We have a population of 6 billion headed to 9 billion, and rising expectations for lifestyles. Alternative energy alone will never meet energy demands in a safe or sustainable fashion. Even the cleanest and greenest proposed alternatives have serious economic and environmental drawbacks.

In the next 50 years, I suspect we will have to cut individual energy consumption by 90 % or more. It's going to require great ingenuity and wisdom to accomplish this in a morally acceptable manner.

I share zoltani's frustration.

We have a population of 6 billion headed to 9 billion, and rising expectations for lifestyles. Alternative energy alone will never meet energy demands in a safe or sustainable fashion. Even the cleanest and greenest proposed alternatives have serious economic and environmental drawbacks.

In the next 50 years, I suspect we will have to cut individual energy consumption by 90 % or more. It's going to require great ingenuity and wisdom to accomplish this in a morally acceptable manner.
Gee, since the 1970's oil embargo, engineers have been pointing out that there are many conservation measures that reduce individual energy consumption without noticeably changing our conspicuous consumption patterns. We could begin there. I KNOW the current administration maintains that conservation can't be part of energy policy but some of us car-free people are living proof that the current administration is wrong on this point. I recall that one of the democrats running for president this time said something about adopting conservation measures without sacrificing quality of life. Maybe the next administration will pick up on that theme?

The goal has never been to consume less. We're selfish. This isn't exactly news.

The goal has never been to consume less. We're selfish. This isn't exactly news.

And you haven't exactly added anything....so??

Do you post just to post?

And you haven't exactly added anything....so??



I'm not sure why you're getting upset. Did you simply want people to agree with your post?

I'm not sure why you're getting upset. Did you simply want people to agree with your post?


YoI would like to see some actual discussion not an "old news" post.
In fact this is new news, or reoccurring news that all of us (not specifically car-free people) should be talking about. When the repubs use it as a way to attack candidates we should really be concerned IMO.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/10/03/weasel-alert-republican-organization-says-biking-walking-is-a-wacky-idea/

"The National Republican Congressional Committee is running an ad against Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania (she’s leading a close race against Republican incumbent Phil English) that points out her “wacky” ideas. Among them are the appalling fact (sacrasm) that she says one way out of our energy mess is to walk and bike more.

After pointing that out, the narrator in the ad says sarcastically, “Hmmmm… why don’t we use dog sleds too.”"

YoI would like to see some actual discussion not an "old news" post.
In fact this is new news, or reoccurring news that all of us (not specifically car-free people) should be talking about. When the repubs use it as a way to attack candidates we should really be concerned IMO.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/10/03/weasel-alert-republican-organization-says-biking-walking-is-a-wacky-idea/

"The National Republican Congressional Committee is running an ad against Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania (she’s leading a close race against Republican incumbent Phil English) that points out her “wacky” ideas. Among them are the appalling fact (sacrasm) that she says one way out of our energy mess is to walk and bike more.

After pointing that out, the narrator in the ad says sarcastically, “Hmmmm… why don’t we use dog sleds too.”"

I think it is a mistake to quote individuals who are so obviously out of touch with reality that would not even recommend walking as a means of transportation... Most of these ads are so reprehensible, they don't deserve quoting, as you have above.

I'd be a little more concerned about the general tone of "serious" responses to the energy crisis. I mean when we have Obama and Biden talking about "clean coal technology", I think we have a problem... even the people who should get it, apparently don't.

Maybe this is all just politics, but as I point out in another post, there are quite a number of people who want to reduce their energy use -- even call themselves "green" -- and think buying a hybrid car is the answer. :eek:

YoI would like to see some actual discussion not an "old news" post.
In fact this is new news, or reoccurring news that all of us (not specifically car-free people) should be talking about. When the repubs use it as a way to attack candidates we should really be concerned IMO.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/10/03/weasel-alert-republican-organization-says-biking-walking-is-a-wacky-idea/

"The National Republican Congressional Committee is running an ad against Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania (she’s leading a close race against Republican incumbent Phil English) that points out her “wacky” ideas. Among them are the appalling fact (sacrasm) that she says one way out of our energy mess is to walk and bike more.

After pointing that out, the narrator in the ad says sarcastically, “Hmmmm… why don’t we use dog sleds too.”"

You're right; this does bear discussion. But the problem, as gerv pointed out, isn't just that people are flat out denying the need to consume less, it's that the people who are supposed to know better are playing nearly as dumb as the people playing 100% dumb.

Our politics have been this way for a long time, and it's more than a little disheartening to continually choose between the party that believes we have the right to destroy the earth and the party that believes we have the right to destroy the earth at a slightly slower rate.

Few people want to use less.

That's the main culprit of North American societies.

It doesn't take much to use less energy but the transition to a lifestyle that uses less energy than before is the one that shocks people, they do not want to make that transition, once you passed the transition stage, it doesn't take much to keep up the lifestyle.

I said this before and I'll say it again, changing people by convincing them is always the least costliest method but it is also the most difficult, it's much easier for the higher power to accommodate them instead, regardless how much it cost in resource.


Our politics have been this way for a long time, and it's more than a little disheartening to continually choose between the party that believes we have the right to destroy the earth and the party that believes we have the right to destroy the earth at a slightly slower rate.

At least that's a start, when you have a party believing we have the right to destroy the earth at a slightly slower rate and the next party to come up with let's not destroy the earth, one day, we might have a party that believes we should save the planet. Not that I care about saving the planet, I do environmentally good deeds not for the purpose of saving the planet, I do them because it's my way of life, it's not intentional.

Walk, bike, buy wholesome food, live in high density location, energy efficient electronics and minimize electronics use overall, done. Live this way and you'll ween off oil easily, and the government doesn't have to invest to expand energy infrastructure, just maintain and replace. It's not hard, most Americans just aren't willing to try it.

Now you put it that way;

I will look into dog sleds

At least that's a start, when you have a party believing we have the right to destroy the earth at a slightly slower rate and the next party to come up with let's not destroy the earth, one day, we might have a party that believes we should save the planet.

Sure. I'd never consider saying "both parties are the same", etc, as unsatisfied as I am with the party I vote for. I'm just pointing out that as long as the fundamental selfishness/reality disconnect remains in our population where people refuse to even consider consuming less or investing in shared transportation, both of our major parties will reflect that selfishness/delusion to a great degree. So we really shouldn't be surprised that there's nothing good to eat at the buffet when people keep going for the crappy food.

Neither major party is going to openly support reduced energy use. To the masses, reducing energy use is just another way of saying lower standard of living, reduced freedom of movement, etc.

Although I agree. Reducing our energy use is going to be necessary. We can start doing it voluntarily, which some of us already have; or we can wait until it is forced upon us when there isn't anymore easy, cheap energy (oil). Which is going to really suck when it happens. Now, how to get the masses on board with energy conservation and reduction of use? I don't think it's gonna' happen until it's a forced issue.

^ And I agree. 10,000 years ago in North America, the cheap, affordable energy source was the wolly Mammoth. It only took extinction to turn our ancestors toward other sources of food, tools, and clothing. Likewise, we'll trim our consumption when it becomes too expensive to consume, and not a moment before.

This may get moved to P&R, but I feel this is a good place to post it up.

Did anyone else get kind of angry about the debates concerning energy? The candidates seem so focused on finding alternative energy sources, which is cool, but they never consider that the level of usage is a major part of the problem. Reduce, reuse, recycle, that is how it goes. Why can't they admit that americans need to first reduce usage? Oh yeah, they may lose the election if they say that. It kind of angers me that it is always about finding alternate ways to continue this culture of consumption instead of changing our ways.

Of course, those countries that don't care about the environment as much as we do are the problem. :rolleyes:

59 million stupid people voted for Bush in 2004. Kinda clears things up huh........:notamused:

Neither major party is going to openly support reduced energy use. To the masses, reducing energy use is just another way of saying lower standard of living, reduced freedom of movement, etc.

Although I agree. Reducing our energy use is going to be necessary. We can start doing it voluntarily, which some of us already have; or we can wait until it is forced upon us when there isn't anymore easy, cheap energy (oil). Which is going to really suck when it happens. Now, how to get the masses on board with energy conservation and reduction of use? I don't think it's gonna' happen until it's a forced issue.

If we can make a low energy lifestyle attractive, others may wish to follow. If we make it look like a struggle, we won't see any changes.

59 million stupid people voted for Bush in 2004. Kinda clears things up huh........:notamused:

Yup and don't forget the 36% that chose not to vote...perhaps the outcome would have been different?

Aaron:)

The Republicans and the Democrats both refuse to lead in any meaningful way on the environment. That really is sad, frustrating, disgusting and disheartening. Boo-hoo, waah-waah. :cry::cry:

But if they won't do it, find somebody who will. When what you're doing isn't working, try something different.

Start with the website linked in my sig. Get together with other people who care and TELL the politicians what to do.

People are generally lazy, selfish, and greedy. The only way people will change to lower energy and lower consumption is when there's not enough to go around, and they will change because they are deprived of it, not because they choose to.

Asking people to consume less is like asking a plague of locusts to devour the crops more slowly. It won't happen until there is literally no more to be consumed.

People are generally lazy, selfish, and greedy. The only way people will change to lower energy and lower consumption is when there's not enough to go around, and they will change because they are deprived of it, not because they choose to.
Somewhere along the line, energy has been equated with convenience. This isn't always true. We still have to pay for those conveniences, which may mean working longer and harder than without them. For a middle-class individual, the cost of a new car is between six months' and one year's salary, before deductions. The car might save some time and energy, but it requires more time spent at work to pay for it.

Also, enery costs are heavily subsidized by the government, much like bread and circuses were subsidized in ancient Rome. This doesn't make energy any cheaper for the average person, it just hides and disguises the real cost.

But it does suggest that one way to cut consumption would be to end subsidies so people are paying the real costs up front.

Why can't they admit that americans need to first reduce usage? Oh yeah, they may lose the election if they say that. It kind of angers me that it is always about finding alternate ways to continue this culture of consumption instead of changing our ways.


Americans are reducing their usage. I believe this is the first time in history the number of miles driven decreased due to the high price of fuel. We have record numbers taking public transportation that has not been seen in 40 years. Don't think it's going to stop there. By next year, millions more will be driving less as gas hits another record high and even more will be taking the bus.

There's no question in my mind, we will go kicking and screaming into the 22nd century without the motorcar.

I am disappointed in the fact that the main focus of the government is to find ways to lower the cost of gasoline. I think the best solution to the whole problem would be for gas prices to rise to $20/gallon or so. This would force most people reduce their consumption and look for other solutions.

I am disappointed in the fact that the main focus of the government is to find ways to lower the cost of gasoline. I think the best solution to the whole problem would be for gas prices to rise to $20/gallon or so. This would force most people reduce their consumption and look for other solutions.

Most of us here on the Living Car Free forum have already done something to reduce our consumption. But we won't see a widespread change until systems are put in place to allow us some alternatives. Because of years of cheap fuel, we've been able to build a society with suburban sprawl, networks of highways and long commutes. Raising the price of gasoline would not bring about a radical change in behaviour; it would only put more people into financial crisis.

I am disappointed in the fact that the main focus of the government is to find ways to lower the cost of gasoline. I think the best solution to the whole problem would be for gas prices to rise to $20/gallon or so. This would force most people reduce their consumption and look for other solutions.

I started a thread on the $20/gallon idea. Think of the reaction in this thread but multiplied by the millions.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379857&highlight=