Want to Prevent Oil Spill Disasters? Stop Driving

[tinrobot]

Read the whole article, but these paragraphs make a lot of sense:


We need oil to make the "shift" to other energy paths. Yet the vast majority of oil that Americans consume is squandered for short drive-thru trips. We are seeking to expand drilling offshore and in remote areas to keep this system of automobility afloat. At the same time we as a nation expect to make a great leap to new energy systems but that will require lots of oil to build them. We cannot do both.

To any rational thinking person this should be an alarming state of affairs. But to people who identify themselves as political progressives and yet continue to own and drive cars on a routine basis, this should be an embarrassment. Any progressive-leftist-liberal-"green"-environmentalist cannot, with a clear conscience, drive his or her children to school and expect those children to find a planet they'll thrive on. He or she cannot smugly shrug that the transit system does not go where he or she wants to go, or that the distances are too far to ride a bicycle. Any able-bodied progressive who regularly exclaims "But I need to drive!" is in need of some deep reflection on his or her values and especially the idea of a green car.

The "green car" movement has been around since the rise in environmental awareness and recognition of resource scarcity. It reflects how American progressives have held a great discomfort in trying to balance the convenient automobile lifestyle enabled by oil against the messy work of extracting and refining oil. The Prius will not cut it. Engaging in some sort of medieval offset-indulgence scheme won't either. You are driving an oil-consuming machine made from polymers derived from oil and designed to carry you under 30 miles a day in an urban configuration.

Some progressives do this, admittedly, because they are lazy. Others feel "special" and thus entitled to live in scattered sprawl, drive across town to work in less than 20 minutes and then to a dentist on another side of town in another 20 minutes. Many progressive Americans, particularly in coastal "blue" states, expect to be able to drive to the beach and NOT see any signs of oil extraction. That is not progressive. That is imperialism. Those cars are fueled and built with oil from Nigeria, Iraq, Louisiana and Alaska -- places laid to waste by unfettered oil extraction.

lots more :

http://www.alternet.org/environment/146694/want_to_prevent_oil_spill_disasters_stop_driving?page=entire

[William Z. Foster]

1. people drive because they have to

Most people have no choice about driving in most places.

Public policy should never be replaced by personal choice ideas.

Blaming the working people for the growing global catastrophe is politically reactionary.

The wealthy few have destroyed everything. Now the chorus begins that it is all the fault of the everyday people. We must fight back against that wherever and however it appears.

[Scuba]

6. Agreed. This is a lame attempt to "blame the victim" ...

... and make us all feel for guilty for driving. Hey, I didn't tell them to drill in an unsafe manner. They could do this safely and either jack up their prices or cut their profits. But it't not the fault of everyday Americans who buy gas at the pump.

[William Z. Foster]

10. pervasive and global

The investor class has collapsed and destroyed human society everywhere. Now, to keep their game going they are getting desperate to extract yet more from the working class people. So we have privatization, regressive taxes, bail outs for the wealthy, "austerity measures" for the rest of us, a collapsing infrastructure everywhere, and our survival is threatened as never before.

On every single political issue, we are seeing these diatribes against the everyday people - blaming them for everything. Are those coming directly from the right wing think tanks, or have many liberals and progressives so internalized the libertarian privatization propaganda that they are thinking this stuff up on their own?

Yes, life would be good and there would be no social or political problems were it not for those stupid working class people - if they weren't smoking, if they were buying organic, if they were not shopping at Walmart, if they weren't driving so much, if they would buy health insurance so they were not a burden on "us," if they hadn't bought homes that were priced beyond their means, and on and on.

[Scuba]

31. Well said. Thanks. They should remember Lincoln's words....

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. "

[wtmusic]

9. You are one of the wealthy few

and the rest of the world is looking at you (and me) saying we've destroyed everything.

Funny how that works.

[William Z. Foster]

17. no, strangely enough they are not

People overseas know something we don't - that is is the ruling class here, the wealthy few who are to blame. They aren't blaming the everyday people here. Just our own intellectuals are.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

12. Folk legend around Motown

Henry Ford was "considering" electric power for the "Model T" -- Mrs. preferred it. But, his target market was rural, and rural America did not electricity. Old Henry was "close" with Edison -- and Edison was advocating electric cars.

[tinrobot]

15. Wealthy few? Anyone who owns a car is "wealthy"

There are about 800 million motor vehicles on the Earth, and about 7 billion people. So, if you own a car, you're at least near the top 10%.

You forget that most places on earth are not US cities, and most people who work for a living make a few dollars a day. These "working people" also don't drive much.

Comparatively, we are the wealthy, and hold greater responsibility.

[William Z. Foster]

16. no

No, I am not forgetting that.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that poor people have it good here, when compared to other places and so should quit their whining?

[tinrobot]

20. Not exactly...

I'm saying that we tend to take cars for granted, and in the grand scheme, we need them a lot less than we think we do.

[William Z. Foster]

23. no choice

Plants are moved far away from residential neighborhoods so corporations can get tax breaks and cheap land. Public transportation is largely non-existent, much of it crushed by private interests that profited form moving everyone to automobiles. Endless sprawl makes driving inevitable and unavoidable.

People were forced into cars. It is a lie, promoted by all of the various commercial interests who have profited wildly from it, that we have a "love affair with the automobile" and are "addicted to oil" and that they are merely catering to our silly whims. There was an ongoing and massive well-orchestrated and well-financed operation for decades by private industry to get favorable legislation and zoning for automobiles, to crush and eradicate public transportation, and to force people away from public transportation and out of human scale communities and neighborhoods.

Strange how apologists for the system, and those who attack and blame the everyday people will tell us that a profit-driven life is "human nature" but then will deny that the profit motive of the few has had any influence on society or on public policy.

[tinrobot]

25. We weren't forced, we were seduced.

Cheap oil, cheap housing, and fast cars can be quite seductive. People bought into the whole suburban lifestyle because it was cheap, easy, and fun.

[William Z. Foster]

26. a little of both

Yes, people were "seduced" - lied to.

But also, people should not choose to NOT be "seduced" - they were forced to comply if they failed to make the "right choice."

Yes, a few, had the luxury to see this all as "cheap, easy, and fun" and the marketers presented it that way. But those people. the relatively upscale suburbanites who forced all of this on the rest of us, are now the ones lecturing us that we must change.

[tinrobot]

28. But you agree we need to move away from cars?

I see you as being upset about being "forced" to drive and live in a suburb by the "ruling class." That's already happened. We can only change our current situation by changing direction. So, what direction would you like to go? Away from cars or not?

If you had a choice, would you choose a suburb where cars are required? Or would you choose a place where cars weren't required and you could walk, bike or use mass transit with ease?

[William Z. Foster]

29. yes

Of course.

But as a matter of public policy, not personal choice.

I grew up when you still could go everywhere walking - there were still neighborhoods - or by using public transportation - there were streetcars, trolleys, trains and buses to everywhere.

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. Great theory

and utterly impractical. And, no, I don't feel guilty because I cannot stop driving.

Perhaps you should invent another environmental friendly mode of personal transportation for those of us who find that foot, bicycle, horse and public transportation are not realistic alternatives for daily transportation requirements.

[wtmusic]

5. Or maybe we'll need to redefine what "required" driving really is. nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. Ummmm......

I'm going to keep driving and I'm not going to be made to feel guilty about it. If you don't care for my choice then offer a meaningful viable alternative. And I will be the one to determine if or when I am required to drive.

[wtmusic]

8. Fine.

I don't give a crap what you do.

Social consciousness ain't for everyone. :eyes:

[William Z. Foster]

11. that is true

"Social consciousness," as you define it, "ain't for everyone." Most people can't afford it, do not have the choices the better-off people do.

[Coyote_Bandit]

13. Oh, please

"Social consciousness" doesn't have shit to do with what simply is not a practical alternative for millions of Americans.

Some don't have access to any kind of public transit. Most can't bike or walk 20 or more miles to work/school everyday. And another 20 or more miles back home. Weather and other traffic can make such endeavors dangerous.

I used to live in one of our nation's largest metropolitan areas. Public transit there was great. You could go anywhere cheaply 24/7 365 days a year. Now I live in an area where public traqnsit is largely non-existent. So are bike paths. And sidewalks.

Save your outrage for folks who do have alternatives.

I don't have any viable alternatives to driving. And I will not be bullied into feeling guilty because of those cirsumstances.

[wtmusic]

14. Social consciousness has everything to do with it.

Notice I'm not being specific, and I'm not "outraged", and I'm not playing the "holier than thou" card because I could definitely do better myself.

I would bet my bottom dollar you do in fact have alternatives to some of your driving. It might be a very small amount, but social consciousness has to do with admitting that some of your own requirements are not requirements at all, but conveniences.

I know people who insist, with equal vehemence, they're too busy to vote. It's all about priorities, and if we all close our minds to alternatives, where they exist, we're just fucked.

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Ummmm......

Social consciousness is irrelevant when there isn't any fucking bus (or other form of public transit) available, the commute is well in excess of 30 miles daily, and no one else sharing your schedule and destination lives within a 10 mile radius. In those circumstances, "don't drive" is completely and utterly worthless advice. And it doesn't play well. It isn't a convenience to drive instead of hiking or biking a 30+ mile daily commute. It's a necessity.

I used to live in one of our nation's largest metropolitian areas. Public transit there was cheap and readily available. 24/7. 365 days a year. I loved it and used it extensively.

I now live in a place that doesn't have those resources available. A place that has few sidewalks and bike trails to insure the safety of pedestrian and bike commuters.

FWIW, even though I live in an area that does not have a meaningful public transit system (very limited hours and routes) over the past 6 years I have averaged less than 6,750 miles in annual driving. That's an average of about 100 miles per month. That includes several trips each year out of state to help care for aging family members and a yet to be completed school year that requires a daily (M-F) commute in excess of 30 miles.

You can insist all you want but I already limit my driving to what is necessary. It is pretty arrogant to assume otherwise - especially given the fact that you don't know shit about me or the alternatives available to me.

One of my priorities is standing up for myself when someone tries to bully, manipulate or guilt trip me. You may not intend to be holier than thou but that is exactly the attitude you convey. If I don't feel guilty because I drive then maybe I should feel guilty because my choice to drive indicates I am lacking in social consciousness or I have misplaced priorities. I call bullshit on that line of thought. It is completely ignorant of my day to day reality and the transportation alternatives available to me.

[wtmusic]

33. There is no one in the world who owns a car

who can't, in some way, do without some of their driving. Your use of the phrase "my choice to drive" proves that at least some of yours is indeed a choice and not a necessity. Completely stopping all driving would be very difficult for most of us, although IMO the author was using a logical extreme to make the point that without demand there is no offshore drilling. And if you read the article you may have noticed the author has never owned a car, so he's walking the walk.

No bullying or manipulating, because there's no incentive - I have nothing to gain besides making a point.

Regarding using "guilt trip" as a verb: we both know the only person who can make you feel guilty, who can decide whether your priorities are misplaced, is you. I'm just making the observation and it's an accurate one, that if we all were to adopt your way of thinking - that all of our own driving is necessary - then as a society we're fucked.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. You seem determined

to judge me. Go right ahead. I could care less what you think of me and my choices. You seem far more interested in winning and prevailing in this discusion than in actuality considering the totality of my circumstances. How progressive is that?

Yeah, you're right. Sometimes I choose to drive. Sometimes I choose to frickin go out for dinner on the weekend. But guess what? There is no public transit service available here evenings, overnight or weekends and what public transit is available during weekdays is extremely limited.

I don't feel the least bit guilty about my driving habits and I affirmatively resent your condemnation. Unlike most drivers I have kept receipts and mileage logs - something my insurance company and tax guy can verify. I can account fairly well for the miles I have driven in the last 74 months. I promise you that employment challenged folks like me with restricted incomes are very aware of our driving habits and the financial costs the carry. My driving is purposeful with few wasted travel miles and without public transit alternatives. Yeah, I know that you don't fucking believe that. Oh, well. Yawn.

You're right, as a society and a naiton we're fucked. But not for the reasons you rail about. We're fucked because we're not a community. We're fucked because we want to win and dominate often without any awareness of the cost of doing so - even if that cost is honesty and integrity. We're fucked because we fail to realize that pain depends on point of view. We're fucked because we value wealth creation and consumption more than productivity - and because we largely think that dirty work is beneath us. And we're fucked because we have to have somebody to look down on.

[tinrobot]

19. It's as practical as we want to make it.

The environmental friendly form of transportation is foot, bicycle, and public transit. It's already been invented and is incredibly practical if the infrastructure is there. I would suggest that the organization of cities into car-centric suburbs is what's 'utterly impractical'.

I suspect you have to drive because your place of residence probably does not work without automobiles. You need them to shorten the distances. It's the case with most suburbs. But forcing people to burn gas just to get some groceries or a meal seems pretty impractical. Profitable to companies like BP and Exxon, perhaps, but ultimately impractical.

My suggestion, don't invent a new form of transportation, invent a new form of city.

[guardian]

3. careful...

you are starting to sound like me. We all know that pointing out differences between peoples' green rhetoric and personal lifestyle is not well received in this forum. We wouldn't want you to become the target of invective for pointing out hypocrisy.

Don't you know is okay to drive/fly all you want

* if you had your home remodeled
* or you buy carbon credits
* or you use less gasoline than the CEO of Exxon
* or you give lots of speeches
* or your celebrity overrules the needs of the planet
* or you say you 'care' more than the next person
* or you donate $50/year to Greenpeace or Sierra Club

[NNadir]

4. Don't be ridiculous. Everyone could just buy a hydrogen HYPErcar that's been in showrooms since...

2005.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html">Hydrogen Cars May Hit Showrooms by 2005.

Governor Hydrogen Hummer drives a hydrogen car, why not you?

Give up driving?

Why we can do without air, without water, without food, but we cannot do without driving.

[kestrel91316]

21. 9 months car-free and counting. And yes, I miss the convenience.

But I like myself more this way.

We have very useful mass transit here, and I use it, and my feet and bicycle.

[tinrobot]

22. I bet you're also healthier and weigh less.

[kestrel91316]

24. 18 lb less, as a matter of fact. The last time I saw my Dr. for a complete physical,

all my lab tests were great, lifestyle great, the only recommendation he had was GET MORE EXERCISE. It took the theft of my car last summer, but I finally took his words to heart.

[wtmusic]

34. You are an example to which I aspire

(not being facetious)

:thumbsup: :applause:

[tinrobot]

27. Here's another snippet from the article

This seems to encapsulate a lot of the comments made here, and also offers some possible solutions

----

Many of you "progressive" motorists are probably seething in defensive, self-righteous posture if you managed to read this far. You drive a Prius, so you're doing your part. Or you don't drive much. Or your groceries are too heavy -- you need a car. In the Bay Area and many parts of California, a common refrain is that there are too many hills, so "I have to drive." Populists will shout that the working poor need their cars to get to work on time and that child care and household chores all but require a car.

But comrades, seriously, consider how you could make modest changes toward a lifestyle centered on walking, bicycling and transit. Imagine if we used less oil, and used it more wisely. Even in the lowest density suburbs in America, 40 percent of car trips are under five miles, within a comfortable spatial range of bicycling. Grocery shopping does not require a car. One can simply walk, bike or take transit, and either come up with creative ways to carry the load, or have a jitney service take care of the delivery. Consider the physical activity and health benefits for your children from walking and bicycling. And consider how un-progressive it is to use oil to make short trips, or to waste billions of barrels to make disposable plastic bags or other throwaway commodities, when we need to save it.

Imagine if we used less, and used it more wisely. We could set most oil aside for the switch to other energy sources, which will require a huge infrastructure program -- high speed rail, transmission systems, urban infill projects, new bicycle networks, light rail systems, new electric or hybrid buses, and new ways of organizing work and shopping spaces.

Those progressives who are still unwilling to give up driving should at least give up complaining and obstructing change. You need to accept that in American cities we need to make it more difficult to drive everywhere, for everything, all of the time. It needs to be far less convenient for the affluent to drive down from their exclusive enclaves to have a meal and see an opera. We need change like ending "free parking" in cities. We charge the poor to ride transit, but progressives expect free parking. The sense of entitlement to speed across the city needs to be restricted. Most importantly, progressive motorists need to slow down so those of us willing to make the change can do so safely.

[Nihil]

30. K & R for yet another inconvenient truth ...

:toast:

Shame that there isn't a "Defensive American Driver" bingo card like the
vegans produced for the "Defensive Omnivore" as we could have ticked off
quite a lot of the regular responses already.

Ah, the bleating of the sheep is so sweet in the morning ...

:popcorn:

[hunter]

32. Most suburbs could be restructured to discourage driving.

This would include less road area designated for cars, more bicycle trails and footpaths, increased population density, and conversion of some existing homes to commercial use.

Many of these changes will probably occur by necessity. Some suburbs and areas of lower density population will be abandoned outright.

[tinrobot]

35. They should be restructured...

Right now, it costs a lot of money to ride public transit while roads and parking are "free"

Wouldn't it be nice to turn that on it's head?