Fight the gas prices

[Treesh]

I don't buy this at all. Most people I know are perfectly happy to walk places, but it's not like you can walk 5 miles to the store or something as is the case for most people I know...

And yet, in my little rinky-dink town here in Missouri, I get gasps of amazement from damned near everyone I work with when they find out that I walk to work every day. It's a short 15-20 minutes and they're flat out amazed that anyone would walk "that far". "Why walk when you have a car?" There are very, very few people that I've spoken to here that don't drive everywhere; some of them don't even walk to the mailbox at the end of the driveway (and no, these aren't driveways that are a mile long either:P).

[eppie]

And yet, in my little rinky-dink town here in Missouri, I get gasps of amazement from damned near everyone I work with when they find out that I walk to work every day. It's a short 15-20 minutes and they're flat out amazed that anyone would walk "that far". "Why walk when you have a car?" There are very, very few people that I've spoken to here that don't drive everywhere; some of them don't even walk to the mailbox at the end of the driveway (and no, these aren't driveways that are a mile long either:P).

This is a story I can indeed relate to more.

It is just that many many people don't even think about not taking a car.....these are actual very irrational things that would be very interesting for psychologists.

30 % of the people in the western world are overweight, and even more people get too little excercise.

I don't think it is a question of "winning" this discussion. People should seriously think about how to change behaviour.

[TheDragoon]

And yet, in my little rinky-dink town here in Missouri, I get gasps of amazement from damned near everyone I work with when they find out that I walk to work every day. It's a short 15-20 minutes and they're flat out amazed that anyone would walk "that far". "Why walk when you have a car?" There are very, very few people that I've spoken to here that don't drive everywhere; some of them don't even walk to the mailbox at the end of the driveway (and no, these aren't driveways that are a mile long either:P).

Well there must be a difference between there and here. When I was living in the U-district in Seattle, everyone walked all over the place. However, that was largely because shopping needs were within 20-30 minutes of walking time. If you live in that sort of an area, great. Where I live now, I am several miles from the store and walking takes over an hour to get there. I would consider spending that much of the day to walk to a store (and then have to carry the groceries back) to be unreasonable. But if people are driving a few hundred yards down the road, then I suppose there is some room for improvement, there. :)

[Treesh]

Well there must be a difference between there and here. When I was living in the U-district in Seattle, everyone walked all over the place. However, that was largely because shopping needs were within 20-30 minutes of walking time. If you live in that sort of an area, great. Where I live now, I am several miles from the store and walking takes over an hour to get there. I would consider spending that much of the day to walk to a store (and then have to carry the groceries back) to be unreasonable. But if people are driving a few hundred yards down the road, then I suppose there is some room for improvement, there. :)

Yeah, folks in this town (in general) are pretty darned lazy. I honestly don't know though which experiences (yours or mine) are more representative of the US as a whole or if we're at different ends of the spectrum and neither one of us is representative. I haven't dug up the research (you know someone has to have done a study on driving habits in the US;)).

[Swiss Mercenary]

Well there must be a difference between there and here. When I was living in the U-district in Seattle, everyone walked all over the place.

West vs Mid-west. Possibly different, culturally. Because you CAN walk (Or take the bus) to places, people keep that possibility at the front of their minds.

On driving habbits, I am personally more ticked off at parents driving their kids to school, when it's a 10-15 minute walk in a good neighbourhood.

[kandrathe]

I agree with you that this should not be an America vs. Europe thing.

I believe the US is actually a leader in innovation and ecologically based government regulations, like the Clean Air Act, CAFE standards, emissions standards, for not only autos, but also power plants, and other pollution sources.

I like EU VERSUS USA by Fredrik Bergström & Robert Gidehag

:D

[kandrathe]

West vs Mid-west. Possibly different, culturally. Because you CAN walk (Or take the bus) to places, people keep that possibility at the front of their minds.

On driving habbits, I am personally more ticked off at parents driving their kids to school, when it's a 10-15 minute walk in a good neighbourhood.

Be ticked at the media who sensationalize every child abduction (even when its the divorced dad), which has fed hysteria and paranoia. It gone from "Don't talk to strangers" to "Don't trust your child alone anywhere." A 5 minute drive to school for the paranoid is worth the peace of mind of knowing your child hasn't been abducted, raped, and tossed dead in a drainage ditch.

Parents by nature need to have vivid imaginations on the ways in which their children will get hurt. Children are born with zero common sense, so we have it on their behalf. I'm not saying I'm that paranoid, but as a father of two young children I can empathize with the position.

[Nystul]

West vs Mid-west. Possibly different, culturally. Because you CAN walk (Or take the bus) to places, people keep that possibility at the front of their minds.

I don't think this is so much a matter of region as it is town and country.

I grew up in a rural patch, and I would walk or run miles just for fun, but there was nothing. No sidewalks. No place to go except one bank and one convenience store about half a mile away. Then nothing for a good 3 miles. The speed limit was 55 mph, with nice deep ditches.

Now in the suburbs, you have slower speed limit and sidewalks. But there is still not all that much within walking distance. Everything is set up for the commuter, and all of your shopping needs are available on the beltway. Wherever you need to go, parking will not be an issue either.

But when you live in a college town or some poor urban neighborhood (which is basically what a college town is, after all), everything is crammed together. There is no parking space anywhere. There are lots of sidewalks and everything is pretty close. Depending on where you live, you may have to walk further to get to your parking space than to get to the nearest restaurants or convenience store.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Be ticked at the media who sensationalize every child abduction (even when its the divorced dad), which has fed hysteria and paranoia.

I'd rather place the blame at the people who follow through on the inanity. Might as well wrap the kids in enough shrinkwrap to suffocate them.

[Ebaneezor]

Rebellion without a well considered direction is not only ineffective, it can be counterproductive. I noted a slant toward bio fuels, which when one peels back the onion, have a considerable carbon investment per BTU extracted in the production cycle, and which also demand an unassessed, to my satisfaction, drain on water resources as an element of the production cycle of any crop.

"Fight gas prices" by asking Congress to intervene? To boycott gasoline? The supply and demand forces will, in the short term, render such moves laughable, while in the long term, a policy (personal) of making a smaller carbon footprint through one's own choices may, over a generation, have an impact. (The kicker is the cost benefit analysis each of us can make, and makes, based on resource constraints.)

Ill founded, iconoclastic idealism was a factor in the slow down, and then near cessation, of the licensing of nuclear plants in the US back in the 1980's. This mind set, rebellion against "evil nukes" absent a clue, led to the first ever State Utility, in New Hampshire, going bankruptcy due to a Massachusettes NIMBY policy about a "buffer zone" on the border of Mass and NH. The plant was built, but could not be used.

Qui Bono? The US Coal industry in particular, and to a different extent, anyone selling oil and gas. Thirty four years of poor energy policy (since the first Arab boycott) bolstered by the non-science of appeals to fear (Chernobyl) and emotion (Three Mile Island) have contributed materially to power generation not converting to more carbon friendly forms, like nukes.

Granted, nukes pose their own challenges, but nothing that R & D and hard work can't address, rather than the Ostrich method of policy crafting the "no nukes" crowd advocated, and achieved, to the detriment of the environment and US energy policy. Note: the French produce about 70-80% of their electricity from nukes. It can be done.

Your opening post, and some of the dross on the front page of your site, is examplary of misguided demagoguery on the energy topic.

Clicking, I found myself confronting yet another "rebel without a clue," and so noted my reaction.

For a similar type, see the people who bomb abortion clinics: rebels without a clue, on a different topic, or Jack Thompson, and his uninformed campaign against video games.

To your credit, you appear to be as much into fact gathering as in campaigning, so

Lay on MacDuff, and damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"

Added/Edit: If you want to influence global supply and demand problems, and thus cut gas prices, kill off about 500 million Chinese people. Then, cut drilling restrictions off the US coast. Then, do your best, and institute a viral campaign among your friends and associates, to use one less gallon of gas each week, than you did last year. Behavioral choices are hard to enforce, so it is hard work (but worth doing by those with the gift) to sell the change credibly. <== Aye, there's the rub. ;)

Occhi

ok, now I can breathe a bit reading your insightful reply. thank you. I dont know you, so I wanted to understand it better. I posted here because, however inapropiate a place for it, I knew I would get top shelf premium answers, which is what I need. I was wanting some feedback regardless of what it was, as I only look to try and accomplish something, even if just a fraction to do my part in being aware and assisting others with an educated outlook on what we can do now and in the future to help us all keep hard earned money where it belongs, in our control. Gas boycotts really dont work, but what about this idea I read about - Exxon for example, what if we boycott just the BIG companies for a certain time then move to another one, or simply keep on that one. I understand there is little we can actually do except wait 10 years for tech to catch up, but we can certainly share ideas on how to save and creat inovative ideas to help us, no one else is going to. that is simply my sites goal.

[kandrathe]

ok, now I can breathe a bit reading your insightful reply. thank you. I dont know you, so I wanted to understand it better. I posted here because, however inapropiate a place for it, I knew I would get top shelf premium answers, which is what I need. I was wanting some feedback regardless of what it was, as I only look to try and accomplish something, even if just a fraction to do my part in being aware and assisting others with an educated outlook on what we can do now and in the future to help us all keep hard earned money where it belongs, in our control. Gas boycotts really dont work, but what about this idea I read about - Exxon for example, what if we boycott just the BIG companies for a certain time then move to another one, or simply keep on that one. I understand there is little we can actually do except wait 10 years for tech to catch up, but we can certainly share ideas on how to save and creat inovative ideas to help us, no one else is going to. that is simply my sites goal.

What did Exxon do to you?

[ETA]

[quote name='Ebaneezor' post='129755' date='May 16 2007, 10:34 PM']
http://fightthegasprices.com/

New site I just made, give it a look see please.

[Jarulf]

I still don't think you're fully understanding my point about the difference in the US compared to Europe.

I think you need to get rid of the idea that Belgium is representative of the population density of Europe.....

It is just as wrong equating Europe with Belgium as it would be to equate USA to Nevada (although you seems to pick it as the reason for the whole USA).


Sure one can need cars to travell long distances, but that doens't say one need to do it in short distnaces either. Or say that because one lack good infrastructure on non car usage, the solution is to cut gas prices (perhaps building up the infra structure should be a complement as well). By the way, I would say that a far more important reason than the size of the USA compared to Europe (which isn't that big really) is the way things such as towns are actually constructed (designed or whatever you want to call it).

Completely unrelated but in part telling I recall one time I was in USA, at a conference in Atlanta. We was at the big conference hotell outside town and asked the recpetion for a grocery or some other place were one could shop bit, such as bottles of water or something else to drink. They looked at us and asked if we had a car. No we did not, but we didn't mind a walk. They looked baffled at us and we could hear how they sighed at felt sad for us for our "mission impossible". It would really be tough and tiresome then, a really long walk and they adviced against it but if we really wanted to, there was a shoping mall quite some distance away. We had to walk out and follow the street on to the left. Later wee would come to a big road which we had to cross but they really adviced agianst it, it could be hard to get across with the trafic and all. And then on the other side we would then find the mall, but it would certainly take some time going there. Well, having nothing better to do, we thought we should take our chances, we could even get a nice tour out of it so of we went. After a mere 5 minutes we got to the big road we had to cross, considering the lack of traffic, it was no problem, never the less we took advantage of the traffic lights and crossed when it signaled green to walkers to cross the street. The mall was just on the other side, perhaps another 50 meeters (well, it was a big parking lot as well but the shops we wanted was on our side of it).

Well, we got ourself a laugh. No idea if this has anything to do with the topic or if one can draw any conclusions, I still like the horror story of going shopping something to drink without the car.


PS! No, we don't have good publi transportation in northern Sweden either. Yes, it is isolated with not much people living there. Admitadly, no desert but still (different climate I would say being the reason). Yes, people complain there too about how they have to travell far and wide for work, shopping, friends and everything one can imagine. Not all of Europe is like in Rhur!

PPS! Of course our cultural history and many other things has made USA and Europe quite different in many aspects which leads to the differences in views on things, I suppose we just have to accept it and feel "the others" are a bit off.

[Occhidiangela]

Gas boycotts really dont work, but what about this idea I read about - Exxon for example, what if we boycott just the BIG companies for a certain time then move to another one, or simply keep on that one. I understand there is little we can actually do except wait 10 years for tech to catch up, but we can certainly share ideas on how to save and creat inovative ideas to help us, no one else is going to. that is simply my sites goal.

Exxon pumps what the refineries sell. If you don't pump it at an Exxon station, you will pump the same gas somewhere else if Exxon can't sell the volume. The Exxon refineries will sell to Valero or Citgo, to keep cash flow up, if the Exxon stations can't meet the need and people need gas at their stations.

Until this part, I was having second thoughts about "rebel without a clue."

As I noted earlier, setting a baseline of your own energy usage, and trying to find sane ways to reduce it is a good start for everyone. If your site is about that, great.

If not, well, I've already covered that ground.

In any case, Lay on MacDuff. Not trying anything is hardly the answer, eh?

Occhi

[Ebaneezor]

http://fightthegasprices.com/

New site I just made, give it a look see please.

Thanks

I appreciate everyones input. Thanks so much, it helped me greatly with shaping some really good ideas, and quelling some really bad ones. Ive added daily RSS feeds related to all relevant topics and some other things a felt were neat.

[Munkay]

Hail Jarulf, good to see another European weigh in on the discussion:)

I wanted to clarify the main reasons for my posts.

First off, a lot of places in Europe seems to have a system that works great. Higher taxes and tariffs on gasoline (enforced by government legislation) have made people shy away from driving in favor of public transportation. Note, I don't think this is the case for *all* of Europe. Nor do I think it's a bad system.

Secondly, I was replying to a comment Eppie made originally about the low cost of gasoline in America being the problem. My reply was to say the answer has nothing to do with increasing prices at the pump. Both Europe and the United States buy their crude oil at roughly the same price per barrel. The price difference is almost entirely based on taxes and tariffs, in other words higher prices in Europe is often a conscious decision by European governments. Former Russian states denied access to the Russia oil pipeline excluded, of course.

Now, to reply to your post directly Jarulf. The reason I brought up Nevada is to illustrate the US does have a lot more barren areas, and they are located often between highly valued areas. States like Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico have cities, but are for the most part pretty unusable barren stretches of land (again, forgive me anyone from the area for the unfavorable light). To the east is the farming mid-west, to the west is California. The purpose was to say, now if I have economic or personal interests in those two areas, how am I going to travel? I'm going to drive. There's no other strong infrastructure of travel. And honestly, building one there makes zero sense fiscally.

As for Europe, I'm aware there are some pretty barren places. I'm in agreement with your example of Scandinavian countries, there's definitely a lot of unused 'barren' space. But I still disagree with the sentiment (not necessarily from you, but from other loungers!) that there's little difference between Europe and the United States. There is, and I don't believe what works over there will necessarily be a solution over here. If I recall correctly, Europe and the US have roughly the same size land mass. But Europe has about 700 million people in it, to the US's 300 million. The population density is over double in Europe. I concede that my comparison of Belgium and Nevada was rhetorically slanted - comparing one of the least populated states with one of the most densely populated countries. But I think the underlying point is valid: the structure of Europe as a whole is very different than it is in the states.

I agree with your point about the structure of the towns making a big difference as well. This may or may not be what you meant, but in the town I grew up in and my parents live in, there are almost no sidewalks. Nothing is accessible by foot, and there has been no attempt to make it so by the town. Now I already can hear the cries to pave every street and make it better! But that's exactly not the solution. The people here pay a high enough tax burden as is, and taxing them more for sidewalks (construction, upkeep etc) is something people don't want. And yes, it quite literally went to a town vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated.

But to be clear, just because I see the solution as apples and oranges for what works here vs. Europe, I'm not defending the US remaining on the path it is currently. We do consume a lot of crude oil in its many forms, and we do create a massive amount of waste per person as a country. The solution has to come in efficiency and alternative energies. The world as a whole needs to push hard into developing the technology to make these two goals a quickly attainable reality. I don't think we'll find much disagreement here at the Lounge about that.

But to leave it at such a vast generalization is what I have a problem with. Perhaps in Europe the solution will be making more efficient smaller engined cars. Or using solar power reflected by mirrors (quite a feat I must admit). But these technologies may not work the same way in the US. In the US the solution might be powerful diesel truck engines that burn cleaner and more efficiently in the farming mid-west. And more of our landfills (which there certainly are a lot of due to our waste output) could be converted into methane energy production. About the actual specifics, it's entirely up to debate. But what I do think is the solution isn't a one size fits all technology. Hydrogen fuel, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The answer isn't in one route to a better planet. It's developing many different ones for different applications.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Does anyone else agree saying things like 'teach people to conserve by changing their mentality' is a platitude? Seriously, it's like saying "lower crime by teaching people to be lawful". Isn't that a given? It's not a bad thought, but do we need to say it on the news every few days? Who out there is disagreeing with it?

[eppie]

But to leave it at such a vast generalization is what I have a problem with. Perhaps in Europe the solution will be making more efficient smaller engined cars. Or using solar power reflected by mirrors (quite a feat I must admit). But these technologies may not work the same way in the US. In the US the solution might be powerful diesel truck engines that burn cleaner and more efficiently in the farming mid-west. And more of our landfills (which there certainly are a lot of due to our waste output) could be converted into methane energy production. About the actual specifics, it's entirely up to debate. But what I do think is the solution isn't a one size fits all technology. Hydrogen fuel, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The answer isn't in one route to a better planet. It's developing many different ones for different applications.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Does anyone else agree saying things like 'teach people to conserve by changing their mentality' is a platitude? Seriously, it's like saying "lower crime by teaching people to be lawful". Isn't that a given? It's not a bad thought, but do we need to say it on the news every few days? Who out there is disagreeing with it?

I am a big supporter of alternative energy sources. Not just for the lower CO2 output but also for a the high tech economy it can bring. A country like Holland could have build itsself a great economy by investing in the development of such things as solar cells etc. instead our christian friends of the government rather spend our tax moneyby giving it to farmers so we can raise 20 milion pigs and 100 milion chicken in our small country...talk about high tech export products.

However, I never think that any energy source can help us generate the energy we need if we (in the west) continue living like we do now. We should understand that not too long from now, putting the airco at 18 degrees is not longer an option. There are so many things we can do to save energy which don't actually cahnge our lives......but still many people don't give a #$%&. Mentality change is neccesarry......maybe not by teaching...but by enforcement.

[Jarulf]

Hi Munkay,

I was just trying to put some more fule onto the fire. Didn't have any real stance on anything. By the way, it has always been my understanding that, in part due to the size (after all, I would say Europe was much more "isolated" into separate countries except for late) USA *did* have a good infrastructure for long distance travel, namely by air. That one did travell much more by air than in Europe. Sure, we travell a lot here too and more so recently perhaps with EU and so , but I think that at least non business travell has not been by air here in Europe so much.

By the way, I thought it was quite clear that I also thought that what works "here" doesn't work "over there" many times. Yet, it makes people on both sides think that "the silly people over there" complain about things when in fact they have it much better than we in that aspect and so on. I think that goes for both directions over the Atlantic Ocean.


As for land mass and population, it all depends on were you draw the boarders of course, yes, we are for the most part more populated but sure, if you like to add Alaska, we should be allowed to add Greenland:)I don't think the popultion density difference as such makes any difference, you will probably see the same mentality and use of cars if you go to some densly populated area of USA as one not so dense.

By the way, you mentioned the differences in towns. I think that is an interesting topic. In part, I believe it comes from the fact that most towns in Europe are quite old and comes from a time when they were very small and have then grown. Sure, US towns has also grown but basically also been built from scratch pretty recently. The main difference is that, at least to me and also many others one talk to, is that people in USA tends to live much more outside towns. Downtown in USA is usually business areas and poor areas. SUre, we have business areas downtown too but much of the shopping is (or at least was, it is slowly changing) is traditinally downtown and a lot more people from all social classes lives downtown. There are some exceptions and the ones that pop up immediately are New Your, San Francisco and Boston, they feel more "European" in that aspect. But the differences is everywere even if small (and they sure exist between countries in Europe too). I recall always sighing when reading a book or viewing a film from USA on how they always had to conveniently place a fire escape ladde outside every building/flat/whatever to get the story flow. Then I came to USA and realised (obviously) that that is how houses are, most of them, everywere. There are tons of small things like that, and I like it:)

If this has anything to do with the mentality of how one view cars, I have no idea.....



PS! I had a friend here in Sweden and once, long ago, we were a few people that decided to start excesize together in the form of swiming. So we decided to meet at the local swiminghall each saturday. Now, he lives about 400 meters from the swiming hall, in a town were people (especially students and young on, use bicyle a LOT, yes even by Swidish standard and we travell by bicyle a lot as a whole). We all got there the first time, took our swim, enjoyed our sauna and then were going home when he went out to his car!!!! The car trip probably took longer as well since you had to go way arround since there was no short cut like if you walked or took a bike, and he did this when we were going to train. We still like to tease him about it these days. Perhaps he had american blood in his veins:)

[kandrathe]

... A country like Holland could have build itsself a great economy by investing in the development of such things as solar cells etc. ...

and

Or using solar power reflected by mirrors (quite a feat I must admit).

I'm sorry. Just do the math. Sunlight is a very dilute form of energy, about 1000 W/m2 so if this is incident on a solar panel of 10% efficiency then only 100W is produced per square meter of panel. Calculate just what you would use, and then the cost of the contraption to capture and store the energy to be available when you need it.

Solar Power has been a boondoggle trumpeted by the technically illiterate for over 30 years as the savior of our energy woes. The only boon in Solar Power has been for those people who have been feeding at the government trough of grants, rebates, and salaries. Solar power is too dilute to be practical in solving any major energy need. This is why you don't see a rush to cover the deserts of the USA with solar panels. As for home use, again, the energy and material costs to produce the panels are too expensive compared to buying electricity from a power plant. Those consumers gullible enough to put a $12,000 to $20,000 unit on their roofs (with the 20 year payback if the units are 100% reliable) have hardly been so impressed as to herald them as the solution for the rest of us.

Sources of Electric Power

So, the power plants will continue to burn fossil fuels filling the atmosphere with those unwanted green house gases. The supposed "Greens" will continue point at the unfounded fantasy of cheap, abundant, clean, solar power and other solar related "soft energies" as the prim rosed trail.

[Doc]

Solar power isn't all bad. Sure, it is not perfect. Yes, it is expensive. Or it can be. But it has some good spot applications.

Solar powered water heaters, solar powered engines that turn fans and water pumps, little applications like those have made my solarium a very, very nice place. And heat the water in my home. Passive solar heating, which heats up water very quickly in the day light hours and circulates it through pipes in the tile floor keeps temps stable in the winter.

I live completely off the grid now. I have a variety of devices to generate power. Several windmill type things sit down in the gully where the wind always seems to be blowing. I have hydro-electric power by harnessing the creeks that run through my property. Solar. And I have been tinkering with a genny that runs on moonshine. I'd really hate for that to catch fire though, cause you would never actually see the flames.

All of my graywater gets multiple uses, and my blackwater is recycled and treated here on property. Nothing is wasted.

The way most people run their homes, with all of their fancy shmancy electric appliances and what not, no, solar and alternative energy isn't going to cut it. People and all their got damned creature comforts. People believe they are delicate little hothouse flowers and they simply must have this and that, and all this rampant consumerism, and the power to run their miserable pathetic lives defined by the junk they buy and spend their lives slaving away to have enough money to buy more junk and pay the electric bills to power it.

I got my self off to a good start by throwing out most of my electric appliances. Microwave? That annoying wheezing beeping pain in my ass monstrosity, it had to go. The big tv? It went. Lots of things got downsized... Other things, well, I have long used wood burning stoves for cooking. Trees are a renewable resource, and I have plenty. Dishwasher? What do you think they make wives and little kids for? :P

Lots of things went, even my really nice stereo equipment. I am going to miss that. I have even ditched a lot of my computer equipment.

Now, I use far less electricity than I make. Sustainable living. I am even thinking about knocking the house down and building an earthship or a geodesic dome maybe.

Now, if I could just figure out how to turn kudzu in to a fuel source, I'd be set.

Sustainable living is possible, and solar has some applications. But it is not the answer.