Living Car Free - car free motivation: distrust and independence

I guess I've been car free for about 8 years now and, although I started for reasons of finance and convenience, my primary motivations have changed over the years with some becoming more important and others becoming less.

Last night I went to see the film Crude (http://www.crudethemovie.com/) by Joe Berlinger and it made me think about my current reasons for continuing to live car free. The film is about the environmental and human rights atrocities which have been committed by oil drillers in Ecuador and after the film a discussion with the director Joe Berlinger revealed that he is not at all "anti-oil" nor did he intend the film to be "anti-oil" and he emphasized that it would be hypocritical of a heavy oil user like himself to be "anti-oil".

Well I couldn't help but think what a load of **** that was because at the end of the day the oil company which he seeks to demonize is ultimately empowered by people like you and me (and especially Joe Berlinger who is a self proclaimed heavy oil user who apparently drives a gas guzzling SUV to and from his massive oil heated home in the middle of nowhere) who bank roll these dirty deeds. And it reminded me that perhaps my primary motivation for being car free at this point in my life is to become more self sufficient and independent.

Why independence? Because the reality of life is that money makes the world go round and when you devote a significant portion of your earnings to someone you are in essence transferring your vote, your say, about how the world will be to them; Particularly when we devote those earnings without consideration or scrutiny by allowing it to become a default integral part of our life styles and the life styles of those around us we are literally using our stored up man hours (our blood and sweat) to mandate a corporate army to use that power inscrutably.

Unfortunately the saying "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself" rings true morally as much as it does practically because when society as a whole concentrates as much wealth and power in anything as we do in the oil industry it is always bound to result in dangerous entities committing downright evil acts. So for me to be as dependent on something as most people are on oil is just plain irresponsible because maintaining control of our own actions, as responsible individuals should, requires not empowering people who can't be trusted with no-questions-asked mandates and the sad truth of the matter is it's not just the "dirty" oil companies that can't be trusted but really anyone empowered by billions of dollars.

So, in conclusion, I don't think we as individuals can realistically indulge in the sort of convenience afforded by wholesale participation in a car-centric society in a responsible way and that is presently number one on the long list of reasons why I cycle instead of drive because it gives me the peace of mind of knowing better how my personal man hours used towards transportation are actually being used (for example, whether they are being used towards nefariously and willfully poisoning indigenous peoples or bankrolling terrorist organizations) than any other mode of travel.

Well spoken. :thumb:

I understand the point you make, and I tend to agree: where you invest your money has political and environmental consequences. Whether we like it or not, we all vote with our wallet when we contribute money to Exxon, Walmart, etc... So, let's make our vote count for a progressive and sustainable future, and buy Bianchi/Trek/Raleigh/Specialized.

Investing in oil, however, is unavoidable. Consider this:

A) Roughly 25% of people's income is invested in food (2005 data)
B) Per capita, 400 gallons of oil are used each year to feed each American (1994).

Thus, we can roughly argue that each American, every year, invests 25% of their income to consume oil in order to sustain life. That's a TON of money, and a TON of oil:

C) There are 304,059,724 people in the United States (2009)
D) Thus, according to the 1994 data, that means 121 billion gallons of gas are burnt to feed the entire US population.
E) At $2.50 a gallon, that means the United States spends $304 billion on gasoline JUST TO EAT, much less drive to work.

Don't get me wrong: I agree with Chucky. We should make an effort to minimize our oil consumption. But it would be nieve to think that riding our bikes will negate our oil-footprint.

-------------
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/fossil-fuels.cfm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September08/Findings/PercentofIncome.htm

Don't get me wrong: I agree with Chucky. We should make an effort to minimize our oil consumption. But it would be nieve to think that riding our bikes will negate our oil-footprint.

-------------
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/fossil-fuels.cfm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September08/Findings/PercentofIncome.htm

I disagree with you. Being naive is thinking that we can't make a difference. If enough people took up riding bicycles instead of SUVs and if enough people thought seriously about their food sources, you better believe the oil companies would be impacted. As well, the whole geo-political situation where the US finds itself being the guardian of oil resources (in places like Iraq...) would probably stop too.

Even if we don't get enough people to make a strong impact... hell, I'm doing it anway. It's the right thing to do. (Plus, it's fun :))

car-centric society

bingo!

now someone else has said, "Car-centric"

From a worldwide perspective it seems hard to believe what few of us that have tried to curtail our vehicle usage and even try cycling as an alternative will have much of an impact now that China is moving in the opposite direction. It used to be the great land of bicycles and has 1/3 of the world’s population. But since 2004 things have changed in China. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0628_040628_chinacars.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0628_040628_chinacars.html)

India seems to be heading in the same direction but I believe that the first quarter of this year China bought more cars than US consumers. For personal satisfaction some of us giving up driving might have an impact but it seems a bit like spitting in the wind when you look at the raw numbers of people now turning to the automotive industry as the future. It simply sounds hollow to try and tell the people just discovering car ownership that they don’t want to go where we are. Giving up oil to some degree seems highly likely but something other than human power will have to replace it before people will be satisfied it isn’t necessary.
Just how I see it.

I disagree with you. Being naive is thinking that we can't make a difference. If enough people took up riding bicycles instead of SUVs and if enough people thought seriously about their food sources, you better believe the oil companies would be impacted. As well, the whole geo-political situation where the US finds itself being the guardian of oil resources (in places like Iraq...) would probably stop too.

That's all well and good, but I realised some years ago that "getting enough people on bikes" just isn't going to happen. Most people are too concerned about the perceived difficulty of cycling, the perceived loss of status in the eyes of their peers, and perceived safety issues (whether or not they're real). Even if you come up with logical arguments against all their objections, there's always the old "I just don't want to", to which there's no objection, and I say that as someone who have never owned a car or even held a licence in my entire life.

Furthermore, as a transportational cyclist, I'm not entirely sure that I want to see all these people taking up cycling. I maintain my car free status these days money and convenience (in my younger days the motivation was purely financial). As far as I can see, encouraging too many cyclists might take away some of those finance and convenience related benefits. Already we've had at least three Australian states seriously look into a registration scheme (i.e. a new tax) for cyclists, and reject the idea only because there weren't enough cyclists to make it economically viable.

I've also seen governments and (astonishingly enough) cycling groups lobby for cyclists to be banned from certain roads because of the perceived danger of riding on those roads -- something that would only get worse if we suddenly had a heap of untrained cyclists on the roads. I've also navigated my share of cyclist gridlock when I've ridden in mass rides, and it's an experience rather akin to driving a car in suburban gridlock now. I have no desire to repeat that exercise everyday. As much as I love cycling, my commutes are way down on the list of my favourite rides, and sacrificing those wouldn't be any great loss if they suddenly became more expensive or less convenient than the alternatives.

I also suspect the environmental benefits may be marginal at best. After all, what percentage of the population is realistically likely to take up cycling in the near (or even the distant) future? And of course, do people really expect to have all their goods and services delivered (either to their door or to their local supermarket) by bicycle? Somehow I get the impression that the oil-based economy is here to stay until there alternative fuel to power it, regardless of whatever marginal increase there is in cyclist numbers.

Chris speaks from experience, and from my experience, I agree with every point he makes.

Giving up oil to some degree seems highly likely but something other than human power will have to replace it before people will be satisfied it isn’t necessary. Just how I see it.

Agreed. That's why I support mass transit and cycling and cleaner and more fuel efficient automobiles. Does anyone here seriously back bikes as the only solution to our predicament?

First of all, it is absolutely true that the oil issue goes much further than just transportation and I was in no way taking the naive stance that changing our transportation habits will be enough for those of us that seek to curb oil usage. I was just saying that it is one thing I do and indeed one thing that anyone who wants to reduce their responsibility for things like human rights violations in Ecuador can do. Food choices is another aspect of life warranting great consideration and scrutiny, but this is a bike forum and I currently know more about bikes than I do about food (although I'm learning and trying to make progress there as well).

Second of all, I see a lot of posts with defeatist attitudes about the limited power of us as individuals to make a significant impact. Personally I don't think this is relevant. Each individual is responsible for their own actions regardless of how small those actions may be in the big picture. If I murder my neighbor this year the fact that it would hardly make a dimple in the worldwide murder statistics would not make it any better. The only thing that matters to me is whether my individual contribution is right because insofar as I am independent I am not responsible for what other individuals do (but the key is to be more independent, which is what I'm trying to work towards by being car free).

Lastly, given the magnitude of the problems we are dealing with, part of me suspects that bikes might be the only real solution to our transportation predicament. I mean when you consider the contributions of nontransportational choices and the impacts to things like the global environment, personal satisfaction, health, safety, local society, personal finances, etc in addition to the political and corporate aspects discussed in this thread it seems that we really need to use every tool we can get, which means replacing everything with the best alternatives we have, and in my own experience bicycles and other human powered alternatives to motorization are almost always very workable and effective upgrades to things like mass transit or fuel efficient automobiles.

Chucky makes a good point: the best way to create sustainable, positive change in society is by posting on forums and getting defensive when challenged. The world will definitely benefit from this.

Agreed. That's why I support mass transit and cycling and cleaner and more fuel efficient automobiles. Does anyone here seriously back bikes as the only solution to our predicament?

No but every person that is riding is bike is one less person in a car, and every full box car being pulled by a train is at least 3-5 less heavy trucks on the road.

There is no one best single answer, but the sheer volume of single occupant vehicles on the road makes them the prime target and if you could reduce them by half it would be a huge improvement.

If you could take every single occupant vehicle and have two people in them you would reduce; traffic, pollution and oil consumption. If even a small percentage of those people were to switch to bicycles the improvement would be phenomenal. One person at a time...

Aaron:)

You would have a legitimate and practical point if we were not talking about a minority group within a minority group pushing for a solution that the rest of society doesn’t consider a problem. From the time the first Humans jumped on the back of animals like horses the ones with the horses have had an advantage over the ones without. It isn’t that we shouldn’t look at alternatives it is that the alternatives need to take into consideration our societies desire for a self propelled form of transportation.

You aren’t going to get many people out of their air conditioned car and onto a bicycle. But you could get them out of a gas powered car into a EV or some other vehicle if it gave them the range and convenience of that gas vehicle at a comparative price. Right now oil is a less expensive way to meet the needs of the very population the OP was trying to influence. Trying to make it a moral issue and expecting that to overcome the convenience and ease of use promise of gas powered vehicles is like I said before spitting in the wind. Good thought but a wasted effort.

Our country is simply too large and spread out for “most” people to replace the car for commuting with a bicycle. The ones that can do so most likely will be motivated without anyone’s prompting.

I just personally believe even dreaming of 1 or 2 percent switching to bicycles is a stretch.

Interesting.

I really want to see this movie since my parents were born in Ecuador. I never knew the people were being exploited and killed through petroleum toxicity. I always knew Ecuador was rich in oil and the standard of living is better than Peru because of it but the price some of the people are paying is just incredible.

I guess we have to hope Ecuador runs out of oil soon because that's the only way they are going to stop drilling. Once it's over, the environmental mess will never be cleaned. Never. This movie is just the forerunner of what's eventually going to happen here once we start drilling off the coast of California

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]From a worldwide perspective it seems hard to believe what few of us that have tried to curtail our vehicle usage and even try cycling as an alternative will have much of an impact now that China is moving in the opposite direction.

It might be a good thing if China and India motorize because in doing so, they will extract billions of gallons from the world market causing the price to rise while diminishing the current supply of oil available on the earth. It's only when the price of oil skyrockets, that we began looking at alternatives.

It was five years ago, no one would have thought GM would ever develop an electric car. Now it seems an electric car is in the works for every manufacturer. Unfortunately, the need for oil for food production is only replaceable but at a very high cost. It's a cost our children's children will have to pay once our generation exhausts the inexpensive supply of oil.

It might be a good thing if China and India motorize because in doing so, they will extract billions of gallons from the world market causing the price to rise while diminishing the current supply of oil available on the earth. It's only when the price of oil skyrockets, that we began looking at alternatives.

It was five years ago, no one would have thought GM would ever develop an electric car. Now it seems an electric car is in the works for every manufacturer. Unfortunately, the need for oil for food production is only replaceable but at a very high cost. It's a cost our children's children will have to pay once our generation exhausts the inexpensive supply of oil.

More than 10 years ago GM introduced the EV-1 and Toyota had a fleet of leased Rav4 EVs in New York. So Five years ago they were all dropped for Hybrids. GM even refused to allow people to buy the EV-1s they had. China and India may or may not drive up the price of fuel I can’t say but there is little chance that will affect mankind’s preference for non human powered transportation.

As we humans have advanced from walking everywhere to all the other forms of transportation cycling always been a footnote in the transportation world. I don’t expect that will change in my lifetime or my children’s. I think we will bust our collective bottoms to develop EVs, Fuel cells, or anything that doesn’t require us to physically move ourselves. All shopping malls have stairs but people use the escalators and elevators. Kids in school today have never had a TV that didn’t have a remote and more that 90 percent of the American driving population drives a vehicle with an automatic transmission. What chance do you think there is that people will turn to bicycles rather than a self propelled vehicle in the next 50 to 100 years? I say slim and none unless society collapses.

What would you say the odds are?

That's all well and good, but I realised some years ago that "getting enough people on bikes" just isn't going to happen. Most people are too concerned about the perceived difficulty of cycling, the perceived loss of status in the eyes of their peers, and perceived safety issues (whether or not they're real). Even if you come up with logical arguments against all their objections, there's always the old "I just don't want to", to which there's no objection, and I say that as someone who have never owned a car or even held a licence in my entire life.

Furthermore, as a transportational cyclist, I'm not entirely sure that I want to see all these people taking up cycling. I maintain my car free status these days money and convenience (in my younger days the motivation was purely financial). As far as I can see, encouraging too many cyclists might take away some of those finance and convenience related benefits. Already we've had at least three Australian states seriously look into a registration scheme (i.e. a new tax) for cyclists, and reject the idea only because there weren't enough cyclists to make it economically viable.

I've also seen governments and (astonishingly enough) cycling groups lobby for cyclists to be banned from certain roads because of the perceived danger of riding on those roads -- something that would only get worse if we suddenly had a heap of untrained cyclists on the roads. I've also navigated my share of cyclist gridlock when I've ridden in mass rides, and it's an experience rather akin to driving a car in suburban gridlock now. I have no desire to repeat that exercise everyday. As much as I love cycling, my commutes are way down on the list of my favourite rides, and sacrificing those wouldn't be any great loss if they suddenly became more expensive or less convenient than the alternatives.

I also suspect the environmental benefits may be marginal at best. After all, what percentage of the population is realistically likely to take up cycling in the near (or even the distant) future? And of course, do people really expect to have all their goods and services delivered (either to their door or to their local supermarket) by bicycle? Somehow I get the impression that the oil-based economy is here to stay until there alternative fuel to power it, regardless of whatever marginal increase there is in cyclist numbers.

Getting enough people on bikes may or may not happen, but there's a lot more people in North America taking to the streets on bicycles compared to... say ... five years ago. Of course, there will always be a sizeable portion of the population who aren't fit enough or otherwise energetic enough to get out on bicycle.

While that may be the case, you need to understand that while 100 years ago the vast majority of people were carfree and in another 100 years, it's very doubtful that you'll see personal automobile ownership as a reasonable thing. Even if there were lots of people who were inclined to ride around in resource consuming vehicles, it's just not feasible... even right at this moment, whenever China sees the next rise in wealth, we'll see major chaos in terms of ecological damage as well as economic damage to unprepared countries like the US. For most North American cities, traffic congestion is already near unmanageable. At some point, things will tip.

So you may not envision a future when your ride to work features nothing but lines of car traffic, but... realize that one day... one way or the other... we are in for major change.

More than 10 years ago GM introduced the EV-1 and Toyota had a fleet of leased Rav4 EVs in New York. So Five years ago they were all dropped for Hybrids. GM even refused to allow people to buy the EV-1s they had. China and India may or may not drive up the price of fuel I can’t say but there is little chance that will affect mankind’s preference for non human powered transportation.

As we humans have advanced from walking everywhere to all the other forms of transportation cycling always been a footnote in the transportation world. I don’t expect that will change in my lifetime or my children’s. I think we will bust our collective bottoms to develop EVs, Fuel cells, or anything that doesn’t require us to physically move ourselves. All shopping malls have stairs but people use the escalators and elevators. Kids in school today have never had a TV that didn’t have a remote and more that 90 percent of the American driving population drives a vehicle with an automatic transmission. What chance do you think there is that people will turn to bicycles rather than a self propelled vehicle in the next 50 to 100 years? I say slim and none unless society collapses.

What would you say the odds are?

Preference has nothing to do with it, if energy costs make powered transportation cost prohibitive.

I've also got to disagree about cycling being a footnote in the transportation world. In most of the US that's certainly so. But again, we have societies where not only gasoline, but real estate for roads and parking is much more rare and therefore expensive, you can see a tremendous increase in 'self powered' transportation.* America is urbanizing fairly quickly, and I suspect in 50 to 100 years, it just won't make sense for everybody to have these huge honkin' machines out on the road.

* http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/07/worlds-most-bicycle-friendly-cities.html

Furthermore, as a transportational cyclist, I'm not entirely sure that I want to see all these people taking up cycling. I maintain my car free status these days money and convenience (in my younger days the motivation was purely financial). As far as I can see, encouraging too many cyclists might take away some of those finance and convenience related benefits. Already we've had at least three Australian states seriously look into a registration scheme (i.e. a new tax) for cyclists, and reject the idea only because there weren't enough cyclists to make it economically viable. .

Isn't that a bit elitist and selfish - you don't want other people to cycle because they'll spoil it for you?

Preference has nothing to do with it, if energy costs make powered transportation cost prohibitive.

I've also got to disagree about cycling being a footnote in the transportation world. In most of the US that's certainly so. But again, we have societies where not only gasoline, but real estate for roads and parking is much more rare and therefore expensive, you can see a tremendous increase in 'self powered' transportation.* America is urbanizing fairly quickly, and I suspect in 50 to 100 years, it just won't make sense for everybody to have these huge honkin' machines out on the road.

* http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/07/worlds-most-bicycle-friendly-cities.html

Have you traveled across the US? Have you seen how much space there is in most places? Define a tremendous increase. What percentage of commuters are riding bikes? Is the number more tremendous than the number not riding bikes? Is the growth rate as high as it was in the 70s? It isn’t if you read the National bike manufacturers newsletter. It sounds a bit more like wishful thinking at this point. A reasonable prediction but just as likely to never happen.

all this kind of stuff, just brings out frustration, self righteousness, etc...
heck... I had been referred to as a "Fat Tyre Evangelist"

in the end, its just a bunch of head ache

if you love riding a bike, i think thats enough

strangely enough
it seems that many people love riding bikes

Isn't that a bit elitist and selfish - you don't want other people to cycle because they'll spoil it for you?

Yes it is, but have you ever taken a critical look at the reasons for wanting to get more people on bikes? Think about it, what could possibly be more selfish than wanting to force the rest of the world to do what you do?

Preference has nothing to do with it, if energy costs make powered transportation cost prohibitive.

I've also got to disagree about cycling being a footnote in the transportation world. In most of the US that's certainly so. But again, we have societies where not only gasoline, but real estate for roads and parking is much more rare and therefore expensive, you can see a tremendous increase in 'self powered' transportation.* America is urbanizing fairly quickly, and I suspect in 50 to 100 years, it just won't make sense for everybody to have these huge honkin' machines out on the road.

And just what percentage of trips are done by bicycle in these so-called "bicycle-friendly" cities (so-called because these cities are usually the first to ban cyclists from using certain roads)? If you can find me a substantial number* of cities in the developed world where cycling accounts for more than 50% of trips, or even the same percentage as automobile trips, then I might believe it. Until then, I'll happily accept that I'm part of the very special elite that chooses cycling as a transport option, and continue to enjoy all the benefits of only being 1%.

* Yes, I mean a substantial number. I'm sure someone here will find a link to a single city or suburb that is the exception, but until it's adopted on a large scale, it's a bit like setting one's watch by a stopped clock just because it's right twice a day.

And just what percentage of trips are done by bicycle in these so-called "bicycle-friendly" cities (so-called because these cities are usually the first to ban cyclists from using certain roads)? If you can find me a substantial number* of cities in the developed world where cycling accounts for more than 50% of trips, or even the same percentage as automobile trips, then I might believe it. Until then, I'll happily accept that I'm part of the very special elite that chooses cycling as a transport option, and continue to enjoy all the benefits of only being 1%.

* Yes, I mean a substantial number. I'm sure someone here will find a link to a single city or suburb that is the exception, but until it's adopted on a large scale, it's a bit like setting one's watch by a stopped clock just because it's right twice a day.

What I'm talking about is localities in which the cost to operate and store a vehicle has become cost prohibitive for a growing number of people. We've seen this trend in the metropolitan areas of Europe, Japan, China, and even the US. (Boston, New York). Most of these places also have fairly steep gas prices. As owning and operating a private car becomes more expensive, people will find alternatives. Since these are densely populated areas I'm talking about, cycling and walking are going to be high up on the list.

Most of rural America and Australia are likely to be completely unaffected by this, so I'm sure you can continue to be totally leet.

Think about it, what could possibly be more selfish than wanting to force the rest of the world to do what you do?

Chris, you, who [maybe] think of yourself as elitist and selfish, might be way off in your characterization of the rest of us as selfish.

I want people to choose methods of transportation that will help keep the world safe for people several generations from now. I want people to make lifestyle choices that reflect a desire for everyone in the world to have enough, rather than for 70% of the resources being used by 10% of the people.

Call me selfish. Go ahead.

Do all that you can

What chance do you think there is that people will turn to bicycles rather than a self propelled vehicle in the next 50 to 100 years? I say slim and none unless society collapses.

What would you say the odds are?


I think the odds are very high. Unfortunately, we will not live long enough to see the change.

I'm one of those that does not their there is a scientific discovery around the corner (or ever) that can create a chemical to replace oil and keep the population motoring inexpensively forever. Once we're halfway through with the current worlds reserves, everything is going to become expensive very quick. Transportation, food, clothing, housing are all going to become more expensive with each decade as we become a world with massive energy shortages. The only way for the family of the future to mitigate these costs is to become car free. This is something we will have to pass onto our children if they are to have any future at all.

I don't believe the population will be richer 100 years from now in today’s dollars. There are a few studies available that predict this nation will become poorer in the coming future. With inflation, education, food, daycare and housing prices sky rocketing, how is the population of the future going to have enough money for new expensive automobiles? The current crop of electric and hybrid cars on the market or about to enter are neither inexpensive to buy, maintain or insure. If this is the automobile of the future, we will see motoring become a vehicle of the privilege as it was 100 years ago.

less cars on the road the better...like bill mahr said, let the prices of gas go up up up....of course, i still use my CARbon Imprinter from 1999....but i do use it less and less. like today when i had to go 35 miles to pick up a bike. things like that.

car design (as an abstract art) is cool to me, but in a way, it enables the desire to keep motoring. i still admit to a love for rally racing, but really, think about all the fuel blasted at NASCAR racing in just one season....

sorry for the ramble!

Chris, you, who [maybe] think of yourself as elitist and selfish, might be way off in your characterization of the rest of us as selfish.

I want people to choose methods of transportation that will help keep the world safe for people several generations from now. I want people to make lifestyle choices that reflect a desire for everyone in the world to have enough, rather than for 70% of the resources being used by 10% of the people.

I don't think my characterisation is "way off" at all. How much consideration have you given to the right of these people to make choices of their own? And who decides how much is "enough" for these people? You? What about all the people on this sub-forum lamenting the fact that people in places like India and china now have the wealth to make their own transport choices, and, like America, are choosing to drive in large numbers?

Yep, all sounds pretty selfish to me.

BTW, there was a report on the BBC Science page some years ago (I think it was in about 2005), that ws also published in a few science journals, which suggested that at the world population of the time, we'd all have the standard of living of Nigeria if we wanted to live "sustainably". So tell me, if you're so concerned about resources, what are you doing right now to get to the level you need to be at to do this? Or is this just something you expect everyone else to do?

Chucky makes a good point: the best way to create sustainable, positive change in society is by posting on forums and getting defensive when challenged. The world will definitely benefit from this.

Nope. The best way is to go out and do the stuff. Posting on forums and getting defensive when challenged is just a good way to keep yourself from getting frustrated enough to punch babies. :thumb:

If you have something to teach us about how food relates to oil usage then by all means go on. As I said I am learning so school me.


You would have a legitimate and practical point if we were not talking about a minority group within a minority group pushing for a solution that the rest of society doesn’t consider a problem. From the time the first Humans jumped on the back of animals like horses the ones with the horses have had an advantage over the ones without. It isn’t that we shouldn’t look at alternatives it is that the alternatives need to take into consideration our societies desire for a self propelled form of transportation.

You aren’t going to get many people out of their air conditioned car and onto a bicycle. But you could get them out of a gas powered car into a EV or some other vehicle if it gave them the range and convenience of that gas vehicle at a comparative price. Right now oil is a less expensive way to meet the needs of the very population the OP was trying to influence. Trying to make it a moral issue and expecting that to overcome the convenience and ease of use promise of gas powered vehicles is like I said before spitting in the wind. Good thought but a wasted effort.

Our country is simply too large and spread out for “most” people to replace the car for commuting with a bicycle. The ones that can do so most likely will be motivated without anyone’s prompting.

I just personally believe even dreaming of 1 or 2 percent switching to bicycles is a stretch.

Yeah, but pollution and energy shortages are only some of the problems created by the oil culture. There are also health epidemics, concerns of local society, etc; Alternative energy sources and more efficient energy usage aren't even targeting many of these problems.

You could write a book about all the different issues, but the particular problem this thread is about is widespread societal dependence...on anything (not just oil) and the monopolistic and exploitative conditions it promotes and I'm not sure alternative energy really addresses that because it's still not really something that can be done independently by the individual.


I don't think my characterisation is "way off" at all. How much consideration have you given to the right of these people to make choices of their own? And who decides how much is "enough" for these people? You? What about all the people on this sub-forum lamenting the fact that people in places like India and china now have the wealth to make their own transport choices, and, like America, are choosing to drive in large numbers?

Yep, all sounds pretty selfish to me.

BTW, there was a report on the BBC Science page some years ago (I think it was in about 2005), that ws also published in a few science journals, which suggested that at the world population of the time, we'd all have the standard of living of Nigeria if we wanted to live "sustainably". So tell me, if you're so concerned about resources, what are you doing right now to get to the level you need to be at to do this? Or is this just something you expect everyone else to do?

Thats why I'm just content to try to keep the blood off my own hands. Sad as it may be, people have a right to do what's wrong.

I think the real issue is contention between two wings of the environmental movement. Since the first Earth Day, the thrust of environmentalism has been to get individuals to change their personal habits so that they're contributing less to pollution, greenhouse warming, etc. This has been valuable because it get's people involved, and it also makes some dent in the big problems.

However, it doesn't seem likely that individual behavior change alone is going to solve the complex environmental problems--particularly global warming and sustaining a larger human population. For these problems, we need social and political co-operation on all levels from the community to global. A bunch of individuals working separately just won't get it done anymore.

I think it's a big mistake to rule out either political (co-operative) action or individual behavior change. The problems are big enough and important enough that we need to use all the tools and weapons that we have.

I don't think my characterisation is "way off" at all. How much consideration have you given to the right of these people to make choices of their own? And who decides how much is "enough" for these people? You? What about all the people on this sub-forum lamenting the fact that people in places like India and china now have the wealth to make their own transport choices, and, like America, are choosing to drive in large numbers?

Yep, all sounds pretty selfish to me.


We don't give people the "right to choose" to spray paint their gang name on a collectively owned bridge. It's equally possible to deny people the right to pollute or otherwise damage something that belongs to all of us collectively, like the atmosphere or the ocean.

We don't give people the "right to choose" to spray neurotoxins in a subway tunnel, making it dangerous and unusable for all others. It's equally possible to deny people the right to poison the air with carbon, eventually making it unusable for all others.

We are always denying people the right to do what they want when it causes collateral damage to the neighbor's life, health or property. That's pretty much the definition of civilization, actually.

BTW, it is physically impossible that the people of India, China, and the rest of the developing world will ever be able to "catch up" with America, Europe and Australia on per capita use of gasoline and other petroleum products. We would run out of it long before that ever happened. The Chinese and Indians are well aware of this simple fact, even if you are not.

We don't give people the "right to choose" to spray paint their gang name on a collectively owned bridge. It's equally possible to deny people the right to pollute or otherwise damage something that belongs to all of us collectively, like the atmosphere or the ocean.

Oh yeah? Where does that sewage you use after flushing your toilet end up? Where was that fish you ate last night caught? And what about the industry that made all those goods in your home? Or the electricity that powered your computer while you made your post? How do you think that got there? How would you react if someone tried to prevent you from performing any of these activities because they pollute?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that trying to stop people from polluting is more than just impractical, it's actually impossible. The mere fact that we all excrete is enough to pollute the Earth if we have enough people in the world doing it. And looking at global population growth, I suspect that in a generation or two, the burning of oil will be the least of the environment's concerns.



BTW, it is physically impossible that the people of India, China, and the rest of the developing world will ever be able to "catch up" with America, Europe and Australia on per capita use of gasoline and other petroleum products. We would run out of it long before that ever happened. The Chinese and Indians are well aware of this simple fact, even if you are not.

That's a red herring. The issue is that people in America, Australia and Europe all used as much oil as they wanted/needed to build up their economies and provide the standard of living they enjoy, but now people in America want to stop people in China and India from doing the same? Yeah, that's a lot more "selfish" and "elitist" than anything I've posted in this thread to date, and it's also possibly just a bit racist.

Oh yeah? Where does that sewage you use after flushing your toilet end up? Where was that fish you ate last night caught? And what about the industry that made all those goods in your home? Or the electricity that powered your computer while you made your post? How do you think that got there? How would you react if someone tried to prevent you from performing any of these activities because they pollute?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that trying to stop people from polluting is more than just impractical, it's actually impossible. The mere fact that we all excrete is enough to pollute the Earth if we have enough people in the world doing it. And looking at global population growth, I suspect that in a generation or two, the burning of oil will be the least of the environment's concerns.



I don't believe anyone has a perception that you can stop pollution entirely, that is just foolish. Its more of a fact of using fossil fuels more wisely, to conserve for the future. I really think the problem is that a majority of people only think about themselves and their needs. I think once you can demonstrate to people that not everything is about them, you can get somewhere, but that is a huge task to undertake. Hopefully people come around to the realization that they really do need to conserve what we have left for generations to come, but IMO the only way I to get people to change, is through their pocketbook.

I don't believe anyone has a perception that you can stop pollution entirely, that is just foolish. Its more of a fact of using fossil fuels more wisely, to conserve for the future. I really think the problem is that a majority of people only think about themselves and their needs. I think once you can demonstrate to people that not everything is about them, you can get somewhere, but that is a huge task to undertake. Hopefully people come around to the realization that they really do need to conserve what we have left for generations to come, but IMO the only way I to get people to change, is through their pocketbook.

+1 Reducing pollution to a sustainable level as opposed to eliminating it entirely is the oft misunderstood goal.

Although I agree it's futile because people are selfish. The best one can do is not be guilty like the others, but I'm not holding my breath for this to, by some miracle, become popular with the majority. Personal responsibility is the key. Oftentimes just doing the right thing yourself has to be enough even if it's being destroyed by those around you. Otherwise why not just rob from future generations if we're not going to live to face the consequences?

What the results driven people such as Robert Foster fail to understand is that without a moral compass it's a perfectly "legitimate and practical" point of view to consider anything we won't be able to see or measure (such as what happens after we die) as irrelevant. The only logical way to proceed is to make doing the right thing the number one goal regardless of whether it is low impact, spitting in the wind, etc.

Oh yeah? Where does that sewage you use after flushing your toilet end up? Where was that fish you ate last night caught? And what about the industry that made all those goods in your home? Or the electricity that powered your computer while you made your post? How do you think that got there? How would you react if someone tried to prevent you from performing any of these activities because they pollute?

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that trying to stop people from polluting is more than just impractical, it's actually impossible. The mere fact that we all excrete is enough to pollute the Earth if we have enough people in the world doing it. And looking at global population growth, I suspect that in a generation or two, the burning of oil will be the least of the environment's concerns.



That's a red herring. The issue is that people in America, Australia and Europe all used as much oil as they wanted/needed to build up their economies and provide the standard of living they enjoy, but now people in America want to stop people in China and India from doing the same? Yeah, that's a lot more "selfish" and "elitist" than anything I've posted in this thread to date, and it's also possibly just a bit racist.

I'm not sure where your philosophy leaves our species. Are we supposed to just give up and succumb to global warming and pollution because to do otherwise would violate somebody's rights? Or do you know a way to solve environmental problems that doesn't involve regulation and control?

BTW, it's fairly obvious (despite their government's love of secrecy) that Chinese leaders and thinkers realize that they can't go the western route of burning through resources like there's no tomorrow. All indications are that they will be far ahead of the west when it comes to developing and implementing sustainable technology.

I'm not sure where your philosophy leaves our species. Are we supposed to just give up and succumb to global warming and pollution because to do otherwise would violate somebody's rights? Or do you know a way to solve environmental problems that doesn't involve regulation and control?

The problem is that regulation and control will only work if you have tight enough regulations to force people to comply, if you can target the right areas, and if you can apply it globally. Don't think that a ban on cars in America would have a long term effect on the number of cars in use throughout the world. Car manufacturers would simply find someone else to sell to, as would oil producers. And just come for a ride in this city on any given day and count the red light runners to see what happens if laws and regulations aren't enforced properly.

Besides, virtually everyone in the climate change debate is ignoring the real cause of the problem, which is that there are simply more people in the world than the Earth could ever sustain. Even if everyone gave up their cars tomorrow, there are other forms of pollution that would still cause major problems. Just go and visit India some time and see how much damage human waste does when enough of it accumulates. Give it a generation or two and many other parts of the world will have the same problem unless this issue is addressed. And that's before we've even discussed feeding all these people.



BTW, it's fairly obvious (despite their government's love of secrecy) that Chinese leaders and thinkers realize that they can't go the western route of burning through resources like there's no tomorrow. All indications are that they will be far ahead of the west when it comes to developing and implementing sustainable technology.

Well, I hope you're right, but if you're not, I won't be criticising the Chinese for whatever decision they make. If everyone else can burn through resources like crazy, why can't the Chinese?

The problem is that regulation and control will only work if you have tight enough regulations to force people to comply, if you can target the right areas, and if you can apply it globally. Don't think that a ban on cars in America would have a long term effect on the number of cars in use throughout the world. Car manufacturers would simply find someone else to sell to, as would oil producers. And just come for a ride in this city on any given day and count the red light runners to see what happens if laws and regulations aren't enforced properly.

Besides, virtually everyone in the climate change debate is ignoring the real cause of the problem, which is that there are simply more people in the world than the Earth could ever sustain. Even if everyone gave up their cars tomorrow, there are other forms of pollution that would still cause major problems. Just go and visit India some time and see how much damage human waste does when enough of it accumulates. Give it a generation or two and many other parts of the world will have the same problem unless this issue is addressed. And that's before we've even discussed feeding all these people.
I'm not going to get into the population debate on this thread, beyond saying it's highly exaggerated IMO. About "banning cars". I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm in favor of banning cars. I am not. Now, banning coal and oil...that's another story.

At this time, I think the best thing we can do is make carbon expensive enough that alternatives will be cost-effective. Once the price of petro is higher than alternatives, the marketplace will take care of the rest, since people will buy what's cheapest, all else being equal. IOW, you don't tell people that they can't drive gasoline-powered cars, you tell them it would be cheaper to use some other fuel for their cars.

I'm not an expert, but the research I've done indicates that stable oil prices of $70 per barrel would stimulate development and adoption of alternative cars. A similar price on coal would stimulate alternative electricity generation. This is not a large enough price increase to damage the economy, despite what some politicians (and the coal and oil lobbies) say.


Well, I hope you're right, but if you're not, I won't be criticising the Chinese for whatever decision they make. If everyone else can burn through resources like crazy, why can't the Chinese?
The Chinese are developing at a time when the pitfalls of carbon based technology are more well known. They also have a history of being a little more foresighted than some other cultures.

I'm not going to get into the population debate on this thread, beyond saying it's highly exaggerated IMO. About "banning cars". I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm in favor of banning cars. I am not. Now, banning coal and oil...that's another story.

At this time, I think the best thing we can do is make carbon expensive enough that alternatives will be cost-effective. Once the price of petro is higher than alternatives, the marketplace will take care of the rest, since people will buy what's cheapest, all else being equal. IOW, you don't tell people that they can't drive gasoline-powered cars, you tell them it would be cheaper to use some other fuel for their cars.

I'm not an expert, but the research I've done indicates that stable oil prices of $70 per barrel would stimulate development and adoption of alternative cars. A similar price on coal would stimulate alternative electricity generation. This is not a large enough price increase to damage the economy, despite what some politicians (and the coal and oil lobbies) say.


The Chinese are developing at a time when the pitfalls of carbon based technology are more well known. They also have a history of being a little more foresighted than some other cultures.


It that way the took the worlds Toxic waste in computers, Monitors and TVs and decided to poison their own land and people? Because they have foresight? I might be a bit skeptical.:innocent:

By the way it was others not the Chinese that have passed restrictions against sending toxic waste like this to China. The Chinese also bought all the old polluting diesel heavy equipment that California decided was too dirty for our air. But maybe they will get better.

+1 Reducing pollution to a sustainable level as opposed to eliminating it entirely is the oft misunderstood goal.

Although I agree it's futile because people are selfish. The best one can do is not be guilty like the others, but I'm not holding my breath for this to, by some miracle, become popular with the majority. Personal responsibility is the key. Oftentimes just doing the right thing yourself has to be enough even if it's being destroyed by those around you. Otherwise why not just rob from future generations if we're not going to live to face the consequences?

What the results driven people such as Robert Foster fail to understand is that without a moral compass it's a perfectly "legitimate and practical" point of view to consider anything we won't be able to see or measure (such as what happens after we die) as irrelevant. The only logical way to proceed is to make doing the right thing the number one goal regardless of whether it is low impact, spitting in the wind, etc.

Truthfully you have bracketed me fairly. I am results driven to a degree, possibly because of the years of watching what people and governments do and listening to what they say. Most often the two simply don’t match.

After years of watching the reaction to some of the idea expressed I simply realize some things will never change. They did a study just this year on how many people believe in global warming and in 2006 it was in the high 70 percent range but now it is down to 57 percent. Someone or some group is not telling us the truth. Some have said we are running out of oil yet years ago our government gat a report stating differently.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Results put an end to speculation. Results will prove who is right and who isn’t.

For me it goes way beyond the problems of the petro economy, though that's a part of it. I really hate what the personal auto has physically done to us and the country. It's literally been paved over with parking lots and superhighways. That's no way to live. It's insane.

A car is a cage in every respect. It pins you down and straps you in physically. It ties you down financially. It limits you morally since you can drive by in your own little world without worrying about the scenes you pass by. It separates you from the world. And as traffic gets worse and worse it eats up your time.

Some have said we are running out of oil yet years ago our government gat a report stating differently.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Results put an end to speculation. Results will prove who is right and who isn’t.

The Bakken re-evaluation is small potatoes. The world uses 80 million barrels of oil a day. That's 30 billion barrels a year. The new Bakken estimate is 3-4 billion. A month and a half's supply. It's not going to save the world.

The Bakken re-evaluation is small potatoes. The world uses 80 million barrels of oil a day. That's 30 billion barrels a year. The new Bakken estimate is 3-4 billion. A month and a half's supply. It's not going to save the world.

No but it proves the old estimates that no new oil is available was false as well. The old Miller report everyone seems to use for peak oil production is past due by more than 30 years. Nothing will save the world if the world is headed for destruction. But we need to be honest with what will destroy it. If indeed the earth is 4.6 Billion years old it is hardly likely we are the most destructive force it has faced on all that time. This is not the first time the earth has gotten warmer nor can we be sure it won't get cooler again if history is any indication.

I'm probably one of the few people who is considering going car-free (at least for a time) who doesn't hate cars. In fact, I love them! Customs, race cars, muscle cars, hot rods, etc. I own a supercharged Saturn Ion (yes, it has a supercharger, not just saying that) and took it to the track as often as I could afford to...which wasn't often. I'm currently trying to sell it, to save $500 a month on a note, insurance, and gas. I'm not really in a hurry to replace it, which brings me to my dilemma:

My wife doesn't want me to go car-free. I've explained to her (numerous times) that I don't really need a car as much as she thinks. She is worried that I will "borrow" the minivan, and leave her "stranded" with our 4 kids at home. But seriously, I haven't taken a solo trip for quite a while. And most of my trips *could* be done by bike if I wanted to. I could even get an Xtracycle and carry a few kids with me if I really wanted to.

So how do I convince her that I don't need a car? Should I just go without one for a few months to prove I can do it? And eventually, I will probably get a car again, but my next car will be built, not bought if possible. I really love Rat Rods, and would love to build one on the cheap. I just want to prove that I don't *need* one.

If indeed the earth is 4.6 Billion years old it is hardly likely we are the most destructive force it has faced on all that time. This is not the first time the earth has gotten warmer nor can we be sure it won't get cooler again if history is any indication.Umm...when I referrred to "saving the world" I really meant saving our civilization. Of course the planet earth will survive; it's us I'm concerned about.

I'm probably one of the few people who is considering going car-free...

My wife doesn't want me to go car-free. I've explained to her (numerous times) that I don't really need a car as much as she thinks. She is worried that I will "borrow" the minivan, and leave her "stranded" with our 4 kids at home....

So how do I convince her that I don't need a car? Should I just go without one for a few months to prove I can do it?


By your definition I am car-free, in that our only car is the minivan my wife primarily drives, However I suspect most people would describe that situation as "car-light".

Do you need to prove in advance that you can manage without a separate car? What if you simply prove it by doing it?

By your definition I am car-free, in that our only car is the minivan my wife primarily drives, However I suspect most people would describe that situation as "car-light".

Do you need to prove in advance that you can manage without a separate car? What if you simply prove it by doing it?

True, the family would be "car light" but I personally want to be as car free as possible. And I guess (if you use your imagination) we would be "car free" but not "minivan free!" :rolleyes:

I've pretty much decided the only way to convince my wife I can do it is to just park the car until I sell it, and go without. The problem comes when I want to justify spending money to buy fenders, panniers, and lights for the bike, and raingear for myself. She doesn't want me to spend $200 one time on bike supplies, but is okay with me spending $200 a month on a beater car's gas and insurance for convenience.

True, the family would be "car light" but I personally want to be as car free as possible. And I guess (if you use your imagination) we would be "car free" but not "minivan free!" :rolleyes:

I've pretty much decided the only way to convince my wife I can do it is to just park the car until I sell it, and go without. The problem comes when I want to justify spending money to buy fenders, panniers, and lights for the bike, and raingear for myself. She doesn't want me to spend $200 one time on bike supplies, but is okay with me spending $200 a month on a beater car's gas and insurance for convenience.

Playing devil’s advocate for your wife for a moment. If you aren’t driving the beater how are you spending $200.00 on Gas? Two cars and a travel trailer cost me $900.00 a year. Last year I paid a bit more but it was reduced. Last year I paid close to $1200.00 and that makes 100 a month for three vehicles. Divide that by three and you have $33.33 a month. By riding my bike as much as I do I only get gas in the car about every five weeks and the Truck about every two and a half to three and a half months. And I thought California insurance was high. But I only have to pay PL and PD so it isn’t so bad. The car is a 92 Pontiac 4 banger with 38k Original miles. It also helps that I put less than 6k miles a year on the car. My wife is supportive however so if I were even slightly interested in rain gear I suppose I could get it.

I lived car free for 10 years and recently purchased a truck mainly for long trips. Now I feel like driving more and have no guilt. I think it really depends on where you live and living in atlanta GA I feel like the last 10 years were a little tougher than it may have been other places. Here's a little magazine I picked up recently that is pretty cool Boneshaker, A Bicycling Almanac (http://throughtheringer.com/2009/10/28/boneshaker-a-bicycling-almanac/)
It's very anti car culture and some good casual reading material.

there is Momentum magazine
http://www.momentumplanet.com/

and

Donald Shoup is pretty much a genius
http://intransitionmag.blogspot.com/2009/03/shoup-shows-cities-how-to-just-say-no.html

the crazy thing about the Auto-mobile
is not so much the use
but really...
the abundant availability to park.

Shoup has a brilliant take on this subject.

its not so much the use
but
rather
where to put it