Living Car Free - if we all took up cycling, it would have negligible impact...

For the record, I agree with pretty much everything in this article, except that I think that if we all took up cycling (which we won't) we would end up wanting to put pressure on government, and all other organizations, to be no more wasteful than we are in our personal lives.

Forget Shorter Showers

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801


I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.



Kirkpatrick Sale : “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”

I wouldn't exactly call it negligible. What's the estimate of pollution caused by transportation, like 20% or something? Not the majority, but I certainly wouldn't call that negligible.

I believe it is %30 of all green house gas emission from the USA.

Americans have 35% of the world's automobiles (compared to 10-15% in Europe), and have the highest per capita output of CO2 in the world (20 tons.) Each vehicle on the road puts out 6 tons of CO2 per year on average, and just about every household that does own a car, owns more than one.

Significantly reducing the number of automobiles on the roads would solve a large part of the problem, but bikes are only one part of the solution. We need buses, trains, light rail, and trolleys to take their share of the transportation load.

His argument is that personal consumption is currently only 22%. However, he fails to note that the remaining 78% (mostly business... particularly agriculture...) also has some individual consumption factored in. If you stop eating beef, it has a major impact on a whole chain of industrial/agriculture "consumption". The kind of corn mono-culture that we seen in places like Iowa would be severely impacted.

So individual acts can have an impact.

But he does make a good point in that much of our reaction tends to be personal -- what can I do in my life to reduce my carbon footprint. This is certainly an admirable thing. But we still need to be active in shaping the policy and direction of the country we live in. It's totally useless if I quite driving a car while the remaining population drives Hummers. We need to be active on a broader scale, acting as groups, to change government and industry.

I believe it is %30 of all green house gas emission from the USA.

Is that why the US Olympic athletes had to use respirators in China?

Is that why the US Olympic athletes had to use respirators in China?

Strictly speaking, I don't think particulate soot is a greenhouse gas, but your point is well made. :P

Is that why the US Olympic athletes had to use respirators in China?

What was your point? I was saying that 30% of the United States' green house gases come from transportation. I didnt say anything about China or how we compare to them. By the way I live in South Korea where every spring we get blasted by the "yellow dust" from Beijing when the winds change East so I am not exactly ignorant of China's polluting. However, I have also lived in L.A. and I can tell you that its really not all that different. Food for thought.

What gerv said in #5. If everyone rides bikes then the car companies automatically stop making cars. I don't know about the advocacy thing. I've seen cycling infrastructure designed and advocated by the car dependent. I think things would be better if the car dependent cycling advocates became car free for a few years before they lobby the government for those flood plain trails that don't go anywhere useful. They might change their tunes and start asking for safer streets.

How much of an impact do you want to have? I think it's reasonable that bikes and walking could take over 10 percent of all trips (it's at 3 or 4 percent right now), within a couple years, without any major changes in the average person's lifestyle.

10 percent is a lot. It's significant. It's worth doing.

IMO, the best ways to encourage that 10 percent include better infrastructure for non-motor transit, eliminate free and cheap parking, and...TA-DA...the good example set by people like us who are already using non-motor transit to a great extent.

Zeppinger is right in saying that transportation is close to 30% of the American fuel consumption. 2/3's of that is for personal use, so around 20% of our energy use goes into getting us around. I don't think that's trivial.

Policy is important, but completely useless without personal responsibility. They go hand in hand. The government can dictate the MPG of the cars on the roads, but not driving habits or number of miles driven per year. Things have to be done at all levels to really work, IMO.

Zeppinger is right in saying that transportation is close to 30% of the American fuel consumption. 2/3's of that is for personal use, so around 20% of our energy use goes into getting us around. I don't think that's trivial.

Policy is important, but completely useless without personal responsibility. They go hand in hand. The government can dictate the MPG of the cars on the roads, but not driving habits or number of miles driven per year. Things have to be done at all levels to really work, IMO.

I've always wondered whether the impact should go from bottom-up (those showing "personal responsibility" influencing government) or top-down (some charistmatic character like Obama influencing folks at all levels.)

There are several indicators that tell me there is a solid bottom-up movement happening. Of course, the rise in the number of bikes on the street is one, but even little indicators, like the number of people in the grocery stores who are now bringing in their own bags. I guess this savings in plastic bags isn't going to have a huge impact on fuel consumption, but it is a heartening sign... and, I think, an indicator.

An interesting article on Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog... a commentary by Laurie Dougherty, "In Praise of Activism". She's also an ardent cyclist.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/in-praise-of-activism/

A note from one of her commentaries:


I also noticed something in this post that I have noticed several times before which is giving short shrift to the efforts of activists and the realm of politics. As if all we have to do is wait for the human race to grow up and everything will be OK. A great deal of what you call the dirty decades came of unintended consequences from industrialization. But once those consequences became known, then obstruction of attempts to put things riight was indeed malfeasance. It has been, and continues to be, the efforts of activists that bring problems to light and that demand solutions. Tremendous time, energy and persistence goes into the achievement of every iota of improvement, often in the face of powerful opposing interests. These things don't just happen - they won't just happen. They take attention, learning and persistent effort.

owever, he fails to note that the remaining 78% (mostly business... particularly agriculture...) also has some individual consumption factored in.

Not just "some," but virtually all of it. Apart from the consumption for the basic power grid, the commercial production and transportation is mostly about filling the ceaseless demands of consumers. A smaller, bike-based lifestyle makes far fewer demands. Which is why you'll never see the government encouraging people to buy bikes during a recession. It's bad for business. The madness has sunk in very deep. So deep the government has had to create and prop up the market for cars in order to keep the factories going.

Pollution would be cut back but what about the long term healthcare savings from a bike led lifestyle. Before cars people were more involved in their communties but that was also before television and internet.
The stress of going carless would affect many in adverse ways.

Policy is important, but completely useless without personal responsibility. They go hand in hand. The government can dictate the MPG of the cars on the roads, but not driving habits or number of miles driven per year. Things have to be done at all levels to really work, IMO

Yeah, we really do want the combination of public policy and personal responsibility. And I agree that dictating MPG of cars on the roads is going to have a fairly small impact.

Much more powerful would be a "cap and trade" system where a limited number of permits to produce carbon dioxide are sold and/or given out, so that at first there's a minimal reduction in emissions but eventually fossil fuel use from all sectors is limited to a level that is considered safe for the environment.

Even a little helping hand would be nice. Like a tax credit for commuting by bike or a program encouraging people to simply have their cars destroyed and NOT replaced. A real cash for clunkers program, not new just Detroit for old Detroit.

The stress of going carless would affect many in adverse ways.

The "Stress" of going carless in a country where owning at least two cars per person is the norm would be stressful. However, if less people owned cars, meaning also that there was better mass transit and walkable streets, then it would be stress RELIEVING to not have to work so many hours to support a car habbit.

What people dont realize is...if they didnt own a car..they woulnd not have to work nearly as much. Also they would be much healthier. Apparently theres some people that just dont get this or just dont care. Oh well :)

also of course if alot of people went carfree it would have a huge postive impact. Less polution, healthier people, the list is endless.

The stress of going carless would affect many in adverse ways.

Tell us what stress you had that affected you in adverse ways when you went car-free. I find car-free so much less stressful that I can't imagine what you could be referring to.

Even a little helping hand would be nice. Like a tax credit for commuting by bike or a program encouraging people to simply have their cars destroyed and NOT replaced. A real cash for clunkers program, not new just Detroit for old Detroit.


Not just "some," but virtually all of it. Apart from the consumption for the basic power grid, the commercial production and transportation is mostly about filling the ceaseless demands of consumers. A smaller, bike-based lifestyle makes far fewer demands. Which is why you'll never see the government encouraging people to buy bikes during a recession. It's bad for business. The madness has sunk in very deep. So deep the government has had to create and prop up the market for cars in order to keep the factories going.

In the US there is a tax credit for bicycle commuting, paid to employers who choose to participate. This program was initiated during the recession. My city and state governments continue to support Bike to Work and Smart Commute programs, even though Michigan has been in a recession for nine years now.