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? |
Originally Posted by gwd
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by biodiesel
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. 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? |
Originally Posted by gwd
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. 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!
Originally Posted by gwd
When the ground level pollutants become too strong the health department tells us not to exercise outdoors. Is that just scaremongering on their part?
./ 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....... |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:56 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.