Walter S

With all the support on the Internet more and more people are inspired to live car free or car light. This is a favorite frugal-living blog I follow.

Mr. Money Mustache ? Early Retirement through Badassity

cooker

Actually, technology has a good chance of saving us from an Ebola pandemic, and probably already did.

Mobile 155

Some will say we dodged a bullet. But the people where it started weren't so lucky. But I said like Ebola and new strains of flu even could hammer society without a cure. But do we worry about that? Or do we hope technology will come to our rescue? I think you answered with the same reaction most have to private vehicles and their impact on the future. They used the Grandchildren will pay on the government bailout back in 2008. Yet people were willing to take the chance today that it will work out in the future. And indeed our grandchildren will be paying the cost of that bailout long after we are taking a dirt nap.

But the point may be people simply don't believe they need to give up cars so it shouldn't be surprising or depressing. What are the personal advantages to giving up cars as we know them? Will mass transit ever be on demand and as easy as getting in your own car and going where you want and when you want?

Maybe I do live in a world of new and improved has to be better, faster, more convenient. But it seems as if I am not alone. I simply believe we as a race will adapt to the challenges tossed at us unless nature tosses a curve ball at us. We came up with air conditioning, I picture us increasing desalination to solve water problems. The earth is after all more water than land. So many of the suggested fears of the future aren't as scary to me as they are to some. Who would have thought in my great grandparents time that we could have seasonal fruit 12 months a year? And what made that possible? Cars, Trucks, Trains, Planes, and Power driven Ships have made the whole world our super market. The world has become a much smaller place because of cars, Trucks, Trains and Planes. I can't see it ever going back in all reality can you?

chewybrian 

I browsed it briefly, and I like what I see. It's in my favorites, and I'll be checking back on it when I have more time. Thanks.

cooker

You specificaly referred to a pandemic and it didn't happen. Technology could both facilitate a pandemic through increased travel, and block it due to better prophylactic, therapeutic or hygienic practises. A lot of people are working on the blocking part, while you seem to have adopted a rather passive attitude of come what may.I really don't get the point of that analogy. Are you saying future generations will pay if we impede the American economy by limiting the market for automobiles? I think future generations will pay if we don't.

If cars are bad, then what people want is irrelevant - the people who recognize the threat should be working to get rid of cars. So let's establish if you think cars are bad. I still think you do, despite your half-hearted denials. You were concerned at your own carbon footprint and significantly reduced your impact - if not because you thought it was a good thing, then why? You can say it was just a personal preference but at the root there must be a deeper rationale, for why you prefer those choices. I think you know your actions were harming the environment, and it's not hard to impute from that that deep down you know other people's actions are harming the environment. So why give them free rein, and, more pertinent to the thread, why pay them to do it?

I'm sure the Mycenaeans and Romans and the Easter Islanders didn't foresee the collapse of their civilizations either, and of course it could happen to us too (I hope it doesn't). All those benefits like air conditioning, global travel and year round fruit that you mentioned, come with a cost, so instead of just seeing them as a short term good, let's do a full cost-benefit analysis. Are those year round vegetables worth the price of a ruined aquifer? Will desalinization arrive in time to save the almond trees or block the spread of the Sahara? Time will tell.

Mobile 155

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooker

You specificaly referred to a pandemic and it didn't happen. Technology could both facilitate a pandemic through increased travel, and block it due to better prophylactic, therapeutic or hygienic practises. A lot of people are working on the blocking part, while you seem to have adopted a rather passive attitude of come what may.I really don't get the point of that analogy.

If cars are bad, then what people want is irrelevant - we should be working to get rid of cars. So let's establish if you think cars are bad. I still think you do, despite your half-hearted denials. You were concerned at your own carbon footprint and significantly reduced your impact - if not because you thought it was a good thing, then why? You can say it was just a personal preference but at the root there must be a deeper rationale, for why you prefer those choices.

Maybe I do live in a world of new and improved has to be better, faster, more convenient. But it seems as if I am not alone. I simply believe we as a race will adapt to the challenges tossed at us unless nature tosses a curve ball at us. We came up with air conditioning, I picture us increasing desalination to solve water problems. The earth is after all more water than land. So many of the suggested fears of the future aren't as scary to me as they are to some. Who would have thought in my great grandparents time that we could have seasonal fruit 12 months a year? And what made that possible? Cars, Trucks, Trains, Planes, and Power driven Ships have made the whole world our super market. The world has become a much smaller place because of cars, Trucks, Trains and Planes. I can't see it ever going back in all reality can you?

I'm sure the Romans and the Easter Islanders didn't see the collapse of their economies either, but of course it could happen to us to. All those benefits like air conditioning, global travel and year round fruit come with a cost, so instead of just seeing them as a short term good, let's do a full cost-benefit analysis. Are those year round vegetables worth the price of a ruined aquifer? Will desalinization arrive in time to save the almond trees? Time will tell.[/QUOTE]

Israel is already turning itself into a water rich country with desalinization. But yes we shall see. And in the meantime cars will continue to be a popular method of transportation to those that value their freedom of movement and time. People only buy what they want to buy and go where they want to go. Without some totalitarian force the less than 1 out of ten will not convince the nine that they have made the wrong choice and only the 1 knows what is best for them. We as a society have developed and distaste for elitist run society for as long as any of us in this forum have been alive.

No one has convinced society that cars are bad and so far the elected government is on the majority's side. I think people and inventors will be willing to do whatever it takes to give people what they are willing to pay for. So far I haven't seen any examples of transportation that will give the people the freedom of movement the obviously desire. As far as I can see there is no one working on a replacement for the family vehicle even if there are plenty of people working at improving those same vehicles. Like we have debated many times before, China was not that long ago the very society so many car free have been advocating as Nirvana. The Kingdom of the bike. They had the brass ring so to speak and in just a few short years as they gained the ability to buy cars the kingdom of the bike became the kingdom of cars and pavement. They now buy more cars than the US does. What changed? Is the assumption being made that the whole nation has been fooled and not counted the cost verses the benefits?

I am not nearly as surprised half of the people in the survey said they would never consider giving up their car. I am astonished any said they could see themselves giving them up. Even if I can accept their choice.

cooker

Maybe someone still has to. And you're still evading the question. You said in another post you went green due to "conviction" and "walking the walk" or something like that. The inescapable conclusion is that you think there was an environmental harm in some of the things/behaviours you gave up. So why are you so tolerant/forgiving of other people continuing to do that harm?

cooker

Here's an article on Israeli desalinization. There are a couple of interesting points. They don't just give it away, they price excess use very steeply. Also they only have a surplus because they very aggressively reined in the use of natural fresh water and tightly regulate it.

So lets learn from this excellent example, and apply those principles to North American roads and fuels - tightly regulate the use of these national resources and charge people steeply if they use them excessively.

Also the super-salty brine carrying the removed salt is just pumped back into the ocean. What impact will that have on marine life etc. if California or Saudi Arabia start doing it on a massive scale? And how much plastic membrane do they use and how do they dispose of it? How much energy does it take per gallon?

You have to look at the full cost. Is it sustainable?

Israel Bringing Its Years Of Desalination Experience To California : Parallels : NPR

I-Like-To-Bike

Walk the walk, indeed!

How do you feel about using electricity, considering the environmental harm caused by its production? Have you disposed of your electrical appliances and turned off the lights yet ? Are you more forgiving of these things/behaviors because you find them useful and the alternatives less appealing? After all, back in the day nobody used electricity and got along just fine, eh?

Mobile 155

Cooker,
While I don't know that an explanation of my motives is necessary I will just this once confess. I realized I had over booked myself with "stuff". I had to race through life to do all the things I bought the stuff for. I didn't believe my stuff had much of an effect on the environment.

Having once built a telescope and joining an astronomy club I have seen the example of our solar system in relation to our galaxy, pretty small. I have seen the example of our planet next to the sun and other planets, still pretty small. Then my location compared to the planet and finally me verses my community. Nothing that would convince me that my carbon foot print has much environmental effect.

once I got rid of my stuff I realized I now had a carbon foot print lower than most of the environmentalists that I knew. I realized they talked a big talk but didn't walk the walk. One of the reasons I started reading up on UHI and could see others not walking the walk.

The added benefit was I could afford to give more to charity and could devote time to helping in hospice care. Another thing that would have been close to impossible if I had given up all of my vehicles.

So no it wasn't for the environment. No I don't see cars as the problem. And no I don't use my car as much as most people. And lastly no I don't see anything wrong with not telling someone else what to buy or how to live.

Like the earlier vegetarian said, some my be encouraged by his example but he isn't preaching it.

cooker

I certainly could do better, but I use less than I used to. What's your point - is it that if I'm not living a life of the absolutely most extreme conservation, then everybody else has permission to be as wasteful as they can be?

cooker

I only ask because of the odd contradictions in what you've been saying. You said you "reduced your carbon footprint", which is a pretty odd thing to say if you don't think there's a carbon problem, and you explicitly said you joined some environmental groups, and left because they weren't "walking the talk", which I think any reasonable person would logically see as evidence that you believe there is some kind of current threat to the environment, and that people aren't doing enough about it - unless you just joined to meet girls

Mobile 155

Cooker, now that made me laugh. But once again you assume motives.

I-Like-To-Bike

You obviously use as much electricity as you want to use despite the harm created by its production, and have no intention of getting rid of its use in your living arrangements.

Why is expecting you to stop using harmful-to-the-environment-and-public-health electricity any more "extreme" than your expectation that everyone else should get rid of cars for the same reason?

cooker

As i have repeatedly and patiently explained to those capable of hearing it, i would like to reduce or eliminate subsidies to car and gasoline use (and electricity, by the way) so individuals and businesses are not incentivised to overuse them but choose freely and rationally to use only what they need and/or can afford, based on the actual cost, not a phony low price.

Roody

Tropical diseases are already spreading due to warmer climates caused by global warming, which is caused by humans. But that will be the least of our worries, according to climate specialists.

It's not a question of "adapting to what nature throws at us." The issue is what we humans are throwing at nature, and how that will challenge our lives today and in the near future. You are saying that we should just sit back and let everybody do as they please when it comes to operating automobiles that pollute heavily. But sorry, your "live and let live" philosophy is not acceptable when my neighbor's lifestyle is gravely threatening my own grandson's opportunity for living out his life in a fully habitable world. I wouldn't just "live and let live" if somebody was trying to run him over with an SUV. I would try to prevent it. So why would I just stand by when somebody is trying to harm his environment with their SUVs? No, I will speak out and tell them that they do not have a "right" to indulge their own lifestyle while destroying the future life of my grandson. "Your right to do as you please ends with the air we all breathe." I'll promote policies and social awareness about the destructiveness of these vehicles. I'm going to tell people and show people that a carfree lifestyle can be enjoyable, economical, and protective of our shared resources.

Measures taken to end global warming certainly do not have to mean the end of prosperity and good living. As you say, in many cases we can use science to replace dirty old technology with better, cleaner versions. Maybe we can still have 2 or 3 large personal cars for each driver (as we do now), but the cars will use some alternate energy source that doesn't put more carbon into the atmosphere. Or maybe we will evolve to the point where people will have full freedom of movement without cars.

Either way, the sooner we get started, the sooner we can get on with cleaner, more prosperous lives.

Roody

It sounds like you had a conversion experience, not unlike Saul on the road to Damascus. You stopped believing in the rational study of the natural world, and converted to some hippy idea holding that since the rings of Saturn are so lovely, we will all be just fine. IOW, you "converted" from astronomy to astrology.

But we have no impact on the atmosphere of Saturn, because we are not on Saturn. We are on Earth, and it is here that we have an enormous impact on the local air quality and the global climate. As every scientist in the world (except for a couple who are either hippies or employed by the oil companies) will agree.

If you want to look further out into the Solar System for inspiration, turn your telescope on Venus. Notice that the Venusian atmosphere is loaded with carbon dioxide and the temperature there is hundreds of degrees hotter than any other planet. Yes, there is a relationship between atmospheric carbon content and planetary temperature. Scientists and educated people have known that for almost 200 years now. You used to know that, but I guess you forgot while peering through your telescope.

wphamilton

External costs still get paid ultimately. Monetizing may not be the most precise way to associate benefits and damages of a technology, but it does allow the free market to efficiently regulate a technology.

Industrial farming is successful because it's profitable. There may be technological advances to mitigate its reliance on on fossil fuels, but that's not necessarily the only path. When the costs become too great, there will be social and economic changes, other methods become more profitable and that energy use will diminish.

I see the same applying to the OP article and people accepting transit and car-pooling and alternatives of that nature. Whatever they may say about it, envisioning what those alternatives might be like, it will ultimately be a free market process that changes their behavior.

wphamilton

Sounds to me like he decided to simplify for other reasons, realized that other people who adopted similar lifestyles weren't really living up to their own standards, and doesn't much want to debate motivations. What people actually do is more important than all the talk about it, all of the evangelism and all that goes with that - and I agree with him about that.

Roody

Another possibility is to lobby your government to adopt protocols for non-fossil production of electricity. Also, it's been effective in some cases to exrt public pressure on power companies that are thinking about building new coal-fueled generation plants.

This idea that environmental activists must be pure martyrs is a smoke screen put up by anti-environmentalists. They have no effective logical or data-based arguments, so they resort to attacking the personal lives of their opponents.

cooker

Having to pay those real costs is what will drive the innovation.

Roody

There have been many approaches to changing major problems facing a society. I was just watching a PBS show last night about the Abolitionists. They literally put their lives on the line to end slavery, but after 30 years of individual activism it didn't seem like much had been accomplished. Then one of them wrote one book (Uncle Tom's Cabin) --and everything changed almost overnight. But still, it took a war and much political maneuvering to actually end slavery.

When it comes to ending AGW (to pick a modern example)--what percentage will come from scattered individuals changing their lifestyles? What percentage will come from grassroots political activism? What percentage will come from inspirational and motivational individuals like Harriet Beecher Stowe? What percentage will come from mainstream political leaders?

wphamilton

What percentage? I think you need to construct a plausible sequence, trail-blazers and innovators preceding and enabling the agents of widespread social change. Politicians usually come last.

Roody

What were you thinking about as a model for that process? Does change ever come without people being informed of the need for change? If people don't agree with the need for change, are we just supposed to shut up about it? Or should we continue trying to inform them about the problems that need to be changed? Do we tell them about how their own behavior affects the problem, or do we just live and let live?

wphamilton

When has there been a headlong rush into systemic change without early adopters proving that it was feasible? I can't think of any examples. Sometimes a person or movement is a catalyst or focal point, but that's after the fact of conditions already extant, and people already exploring the solution.

Electronic communications you think of Bell and Marconi, perhaps Antonio Meucci, sure! Other inventors. But these guys didn't bring the changes about. Large corporations, stock exchanges, newspapers found the utility of telegraphs, and of course the history and evolution is complicated from there, to the modern wonders that we carry in our pockets. No doubt there were politicians and movements along the way, people informing other people, but in hindsight they were just hanger-ons to an evolution already in progress and driven by the free market.

I'll ask you the same question you posed: what percentage of the adoption of cell phones come from the newspapers and stock exchanges using telegraph? What percentage from the politicians who facilitated the infrastructure? The question doesn't seem very meaningful when put into this perspective.

Look at the graph on this page regarding motor vehicle registrations since 1900. Like many of the growth graphs of this kind of thing, it is roughly an S-curve, or series of S-curves. Slow initial growth (early adopters, hobbyists etc) followed by exponential growth and a plateau. Does the process start at all without the slight initial portion in the graph? Does advocacy really even matter in the exponential growth section?