Did I get it wrong?
 

The radio announcer said that in order to alleviate the suffering in
New Orleans, the government is "loaning" the oil companies oil from the
stragic reserve. Apparently the refineries can't refine crude oil right
now so the oil companies need a loan of crude oil. Another measure reported
on the radio is that the government is rescinding portions of the clean air
act pertaining to gasoline refining. On the face of it both these measures
seem like the government using the suffering in New Orleans as an excuse to
further enrich the oil companies.

With the crude oil loan, the oil compainies get the oil when the prices are
relatively high, then if they ever pay it back, they can wait to do so when
the prices are lower and pocket the difference. The radio announcer did not
report the rate of interest the oil companies will pay on the loan. Last I
heard the accounting in the strategic oil reserve was almost non-existant.
If that is still true the oil companies may receive more than they will be
required to pay back.

The second issue is the living car free issue. Compared with car people we
breath more air in our trips from point A to point B. We have a higher exposure
to the toxins because we breath more. We're going to get gassed so the refiners
can increase their profit margins. We who have a choice not to use our cars are
doing our part to keep the price of gas low, yet the government punishes us
differentially in the name of keeping the price down. At lunch I surfed around to
the news sites and didn't see any one calling the government out on these
moves. Did I mis-hear the reports? I didn't hear any report about the
government asking citizens to conserve fuel for the people who need it most. If
the availability of fuel is an issue wouldn't it be prudent for citizens to stop using
so much? Wouldn't it make sense for the government to remind people that this
is something they can do themselves just like donating to the red cross?

The head of the API (American Petroleum Institute) did ask the President to urge Americans to conserve. So far he has declined to do so (Shades of Jimmy Carter! :eek: ). I guess conservation makes you look weak.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ation_gas_yet/

In his address today, Bush suggested conservation in very faint terms: He urged Americans to be "prudent" in their use of gasoline and said, "Don't buy gas if you don't need it."

Bill o-reily went on record yesterday saying that every American should avoid driving unless nessecary and to walk or bike to conserve gas.
cool.

The breathing thing is debateable. Sounds like a study the overweight car driving masses will use to say "see, exercise is bad for you." In an ideal world riding in traffic might be bad for you but i suspect that it's better than not riding at all.

I had to google to find Bill O-Reilly. So is he influential? It looks from his website that he's a TV personality trying to make a buck by mouthing platitudes. Maybe google pulled up the wrong Bill O-Reilly?

If the reason for the air quality rules is based on absorbtion of dangerous chemicals through the lungs it isn't so debatable its chemistry. Its how the lungs work. When the ground level pollutants become too strong the health department tells us not to exercise outdoors. Is that just scaremongering on their part? If Biodiesal is right the thread should be dropped from the living car free forum.

But you guys agree that I heard right, some of the first decisions Bush announced about the disaster were to further enrich his buddies in the oil industry and harm citizens health?

It escapes me where I read it, but studies publicized in England showed that the level of dangerous pollutants is higher inside cars than on bikes. The reason for this is that cars suck air in near the ground where all the exhaust fumes are concentrated. Cyclists breath in higher off the ground, where the air is cleaner.

As far as cyclists breathing hard in polluted air and the effects on their health - the British Heart Foundation announced new research last week. The small particulates from diesel fumes can cause a higher incidence of heart attacks in people who are already at risk of coronary disease. The British Heart Foundation strongly emphasized that to most cyclists the positive health benifits far outweigh the risks from cycling.

2 years ago the Norwegian ministry for Transport published that the positive health benifits from cycling were so great that for each $1 they spent on infrastructure for cylists, the country saves $16 on health care from inactivity-based illnesses (weight-issues, coronary health etc). It pays to think further than the bottom line!


Ok, now tell me what's wrong with this! Pollution is too high, so they ask people to stop going outside********** Instead of going to the root of the problem and reducing the pollution!!! This makes me angry!!!! :mad:

./ Magnus

Consistantly they find that while air is bad next to the roadway, it's worse inside the cars, no matter how many little pine tree thingies you hang on your mirror.

Riding alongside a bunch of stinky cars, yeah, you're gonna breathe some bad air. But on a bike you get opportunities to breathe nice clean air that drivers tend to get less, and the effects of exercise are tremendous, even if we're breathing more funky air when close to the stinkpots the good effects of exercise are undeniable and dramatic.

Heck around here at times the pine trees put so much pollen in the air (aaaigh! tree sex!) that it's all misty, what can ya say? Life's messy.......