PDA

View Full Version : Bicyclers Unite - Ban Automobiles


Robert
February 7th 04, 01:26 AM
The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
going?

T. Brady Bunch
February 7th 04, 05:17 AM
"Robert" > wrote in message
m...
: The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
: are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
: bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
: impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
: this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
: Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
: major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
: prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
: don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
: Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
: Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
: start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
: going?

Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
we learn to produce food locally.

Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
pedestrian override those of the motorist. see http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y

T. Brady Bunch
February 7th 04, 05:42 AM
"Robert" > wrote in message
m...
: The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
: are trucks to deliver goods.

If we were a truly rational species, we would. Here's George Monbiot's
concise version of our near future.

http://www.monbiot.com
The Bottom of the Barrel

Oil is running out, but no one wants to talk about it.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 2nd December 2003


The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved the
development of the biggest deposit discovered in British territory for
at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this is a "huge" find,
which dispels the idea that North Sea oil is in terminal decline. You
begin to recognise how serious the human predicament has become when you
discover that this "huge" new field will supply the world with oil for
five and a quarter days.1


Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the resource
upon which our lives have been built is running out. We don't talk about
it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.


Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming
ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked
in the 1960s.2 Every year, we use four times as much oil as we find.3
All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago: the 400 million
barrels in the new North Sea field would have been considered piffling
in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new
deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with
expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil
will peak before long.


The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the
ones produced by the US Department of Energy, which claims that this
will not take place until 2037.4 But the US energy information agency
has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has
based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand,5
perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets. Other
analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell
calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010.6 In August the
geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99 per
cent confident" that the date of maximum global production will be
2004.7 Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the oil
barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.


The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today we
will burn 76 million barrels;8 by 2020 we will be using 112 million
barrels a day, after which projected demand accelarates.9 If supply
declines and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the
people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar: shortage.
The price of oil will go through the roof.


As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly dependent
on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will be forced to
contract. Given that climate change caused by burning oil is cooking the
planet, this might appear to be a good thing. The problem is that our
lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs
are impossible to service without cars. High oil prices mean high food
prices: much of the world's growing population will go hungry. These
problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price
of oil and the rate of unemployment.10 The last five recessions in the
US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.11


Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run. There
are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is likely to be
anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum can be extracted
from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases the process uses almost
as much energy as it liberates, while creating great mountains and lakes
of toxic waste. Natural gas is a better option, but switching from oil
to gas propulsion would require a vast and staggeringly expensive new
fuel infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same constraints
as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about 50 years' supply,12
but if gas were to take the place of oil its life would be much shorter.


Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which is
produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity which
produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars
in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national
grid.13 Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal.
Running the world's cars from wind or solar power would require a
greater investment than any civilisation has ever made before. New
studies suggest that leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and
exacerbate global warming.14


Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in terms of
recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which food is now
grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that running the United
Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require an area of arable fields
the size of England.15


There is one possible solution which no one writing about the
impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with which the
British and Australian governments are currently experimenting, called
underground coal gasification.16 This is a fancy term for setting light
to coal seams which are too deep or too expensive to mine, and catching
the gas which emerges. It's a hideous prospect, as it means that several
trillion tonnes of carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit
becomes available, with the likely result that global warming will
eliminate life on earth.


We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on
every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet
and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and civilisation collapses.


The only rational response to both the impending end of the Oil Age
and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming
and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive political
pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity.
People take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less.
Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival
of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.


In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to
do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked Iraq (which appears
to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other
nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a
nuclear weapons programme and boasting of its intentions to blow
everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In
one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day
when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other
nations.


I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting
disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are
collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning
to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.


The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles can be
found at www.monbiot.com

References:

1. The Buzzard field is believed to contain 400 million barrels of
recoverable oil. The US Energy Information Administration estimates
global daily oil demand at 76 million barrels (see below).

2. Richard Heinberg, 2003. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of
Industrial Societies, p.36. New Society Publishers, Canada.

3. Bob Holmes and Nicola Jones, 2nd August 2003. Brace yourself for
the end of cheap oil. New Scientist, vol 179, issue 2406.

4. ibid.

5. US EIA, 1998. Annual Energy Outlook, cited in Richard Heinberg,
ibid, p.115. The extract reads as follows: "these adjustments to the
USGS and MMR estimates are based on non-technical considerations that
support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected
demand levels".

6. Colin J. Campbell, 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi-Science
Publishing Co. Ltd, Brentwood, Essex.

7. Bob Holmes and Nicola Jones, ibid.

8. US Energy Information Administration, 2003. Annual Energy Outlook
2003 With Projections to 2025. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

9. ibid.

10. Alan Carruth, Mark Hooker, and Andrew Oswald, 1998. Unemployment
Equilibria and Input Prices: Theory and Evidence from the United States.
Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 621-28.

11. James C. Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, 10th January 2003. Will the
Economy Skid on Oil? Business Week Online.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2003/nf20030110_5883.htm

12. Richard Heinberg, ibid. p. 126.

13. Hugh Williams, 6th September 2003. Hydrogen hype. Letter to New
Scientist, vol 179, issue 2411.

14. Cited in Anil Ananthaswamy, 15th November 2003. Reality Bites for
the Dream of a Hydrogen Economy. New Scientist, vol 180, issue 2421.

15. This is back-of-the-envelope, and depends on two unchecked
assumptions: a. that the average mpg is 30, b. that the average annual
mileage is 5000. This gives an annual fuel use of 167 gallons/car/year.
One acre of rapeseed yields 115 gallons of biodiesel. There are 22.7m
cars in the UK, which means 33m acres, or 13.3m ha. England's surface
area is 13.4m ha.

16. Fred Pearce, 1st June 2002. Fire Down Below. New Scientist, vol
174, issue 2345.





2nd December 2003

Tom Keats
February 7th 04, 08:03 AM
In article >,
"T. Brady Bunch" > writes:

> 'Course the downside of the
> impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
> we learn to produce food locally.

Isn't that what we used to do?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

oOze
February 7th 04, 10:17 AM
(Robert) wrote in message >...
> this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
> Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
> major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
> prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
> don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
> Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
> Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
> start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> going?

Most citizens?? Granted, the Netherlands might be the country with the
most bikes per per person, stealing them is a national sport there,
but many more people still use cars. Many western Europeans (like many
USians) have 2 or more cars, it's not as if they buy them for
decorating the driveway.

T. Brady Bunch
February 7th 04, 04:16 PM
"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...
: In article >,
: "T. Brady Bunch" > writes:
:
: > 'Course the downside of the
: > impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation
unless
: > we learn to produce food locally.
:
: Isn't that what we used to do?
:
Not with a world population exceeding 6 *billion* people. Cheap energy
has allowed huge unsustainable national populations. See the chart at
http://www.dieoff.org/ . It's obvious that a dramatic population
increase has been made possible by the availability of abundant "cheap"
fossil fuel. Providing food without fertilizer (produced from
petroleum) and mechanization (using the concentrated energy of
petroleum) will be problematic at best.

http://www.dieoff.org/index.htm#foodpop
Africa is beginning of a full-on Malthusian dieoff. See "Worldwatch
Briefing: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem" at
http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/pr98924.html and "Life on Earth is
Killing Us" press release at
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/1998/10/100298/killingus.asp and
study itself is here.

To put this in context, you must remember that estimates of the
long-term carrying capacity of Earth with relatively optimistic
assumptions about consumption, technologies, and equity (A x T), are in
the vicinity of two billion people. Today's population cannot be
sustained on the 'interest' generated by natural ecosystems, but is
consuming its vast supply of natural capital -- especially deep, rich
agricultural soils, 'fossil' groundwater, and biodiversity --
accumulated over centuries to eons. In some places soils, which are
generated on a time scale of centimeters per century are disappearing at
rates of centimeters per year. Some aquifers are being depleted at
dozens of times their recharge rates, and we have embarked on the
greatest extinction episode in 65 million years. -- Paul Ehrlich (Sept.
25, 1998)

Robert Haston
February 7th 04, 09:26 PM
Wait for the world's oil supply to end?

Oh wait, the magical hydrogen genie will arrive by then, letting us drive
fuel cell powered Hummers. Honest, I saw the report on TV, sandwiched
between two car commercials.

"Robert" > wrote in message
m...
Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> going?

T. Brady Bunch
February 7th 04, 09:37 PM
"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
link.net...
: Wait for the world's oil supply to end?
:
: Oh wait, the magical hydrogen genie will arrive by then, letting us
drive
: fuel cell powered Hummers. Honest, I saw the report on TV, sandwiched
: between two car commercials.
:
The California governator aka Der Gropenfuhrer is counting on it. I've
mentioned the impending oil crash to people and get the reply that
"they" will come up with a solution by then. After all, the Titanic is
only listing the least tiny little bit ... not to worry.

Just zis Guy, you know?
February 7th 04, 10:36 PM
On 7 Feb 2004 02:17:54 -0800, (oOze) wrote
in message >:

>Many western Europeans (like many
>USians) have 2 or more cars, it's not as if they buy them for
>decorating the driveway.

No indeed. During the day they decorate the side of the road near the
office (an average of 25 minutes' ride or 40 minutes' drive away).

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Robert
February 7th 04, 11:29 PM
"T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> m...
> : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
> : are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
> : bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
> : impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
> : this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
> : Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
> : major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
> : prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
> : don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
> : Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
> : Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
> : start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> : going?
>
> Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
> long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
> impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
> we learn to produce food locally.

Sorry, this is bull****.
>
> Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
> pedestrian override those of the motorist. see http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y

T. Brady Bunch
February 8th 04, 01:12 AM
"Robert" > wrote in message
m...
: "T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message
>...
: > "Robert" > wrote in message
: > m...
: > : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the
US
: > : are trucks to deliver goods.
<snip>
: > Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
: > long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
: > impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation
unless
: > we learn to produce food locally.
:
: Sorry, this is bull****.

Are you referring to my comments regarding the end of oil or the rights
of pedestrians and bicyclists?

: >
: > Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
: > pedestrian override those of the motorist. see
http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y

Robert
February 9th 04, 02:17 AM
"T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> m...
> : "T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message
> >...
> : > "Robert" > wrote in message
> : > m...
> : > : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the
> US
> : > : are trucks to deliver goods.
> <snip>
> : > Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
> : > long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
> : > impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation
> unless
> : > we learn to produce food locally.
> :
> : Sorry, this is bull****.
>
> Are you referring to my comments regarding the end of oil or the rights
> of pedestrians and bicyclists?
>
> : >
> : > Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
> : > pedestrian override those of the motorist. see
> http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y

I was only referring to the end oil link. Don't believe that bull****.

DDB
February 9th 04, 04:57 AM
The sky is falling!!!!!!! the sky is falling!!!!!



"T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> m...
> : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
> : are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
> : bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
> : impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
> : this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
> : Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
> : major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
> : prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
> : don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
> : Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
> : Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
> : start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> : going?
>
> Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
> long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
> impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
> we learn to produce food locally.
>
> Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
> pedestrian override those of the motorist. see http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y
>
>

Robert Haston
February 10th 04, 01:40 AM
No, we will drop very far, but land in a relatively comfortable position,
considering good health care and lots of other niceties don't take much
energy.


"DDB" > wrote in message
news:drEVb.445525$X%[email protected]
> The sky is falling!!!!!!! the sky is falling!!!!!
>
>
>
> "T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >

> >
> > Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
> > long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
> > impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
> > we learn to produce food locally.
> >
> > Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
> > pedestrian override those of the motorist. see http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y
> >
> >
>
>

Mitch Haley
February 11th 04, 04:13 AM
Robert Haston wrote:
>
> No, we will drop very far, but land in a relatively comfortable position,
> considering good health care and lots of other niceties don't take much
> energy.

If we have to give up tractors and petroleum based fertilizers, we'll be
dropping farther than you might think.
Mitch.

Robert Haston
February 12th 04, 03:18 AM
Non-petrol agriculture is a really interesting topic to me. If you cut out
grain fed meat and processed, and grow a big garden, that is most of our
agriculture. Also I think farming is an ideal application for alternative
energy. I'm thinking some kind of center-pivot system fed by electricity.
I think the best hobby that could sweep America would be aerobic gardening.
I envision a single-row human powered tiller.

Then there is the sustainable bio-fueled farm machine that even manufactures
its replacement and manufactures fertilizer - the horse. It worked for my
dad.

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Haston wrote:
> >
> > No, we will drop very far, but land in a relatively comfortable
position,
> > considering good health care and lots of other niceties don't take much
> > energy.
>
> If we have to give up tractors and petroleum based fertilizers, we'll be
> dropping farther than you might think.
> Mitch.

Doug Haxton
February 12th 04, 05:16 AM
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:37:53 -0700, "T. Brady Bunch" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
link.net...
>: Wait for the world's oil supply to end?
>:
>: Oh wait, the magical hydrogen genie will arrive by then, letting us
>drive
>: fuel cell powered Hummers. Honest, I saw the report on TV, sandwiched
>: between two car commercials.
>:
>The California governator aka Der Gropenfuhrer is counting on it. I've
>mentioned the impending oil crash to people and get the reply that
>"they" will come up with a solution by then. After all, the Titanic is
>only listing the least tiny little bit ... not to worry.
>
So...what you're telling me is that I can only enjoy driving my
Corvette for the next 30 years or so?

Doug

Doug Haxton
February 12th 04, 03:36 PM
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:28:16 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:16:07 GMT, Doug Haxton > from EarthLink Inc.
>-- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>
>>So...what you're telling me is that I can only enjoy driving my
>>Corvette for the next 30 years or so?
>
>Sorry about your penis.

Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil, you know....do you also think
that people who collect firearms are in need of psycoanalysis?

Doug

Doug Haxton
February 12th 04, 03:37 PM
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:19:03 -0800, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:28:16 -0600,
>, Kevan Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:16:07 GMT, Doug Haxton > from EarthLink Inc.
>>-- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>>
>>>So...what you're telling me is that I can only enjoy driving my
>>>Corvette for the next 30 years or so?
>>
>>Sorry about your penis.
>
>Yeah, especially when it gets recalled by the factory.

My phallic substitute is safe; I drive a '96 Corvette, and the recall
starts with the '97s.

Doug

Doug Haxton
February 12th 04, 04:20 PM
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:36:00 GMT, Doug Haxton > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:28:16 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:16:07 GMT, Doug Haxton > from EarthLink Inc.
>>-- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>>
>>>So...what you're telling me is that I can only enjoy driving my
>>>Corvette for the next 30 years or so?
>>
>>Sorry about your penis.
>
>Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil, you know....do you also think
>that people who collect firearms are in need of psycoanalysis?

Um, make that "psychoanalysis". That'll teach me the folly of not
spellchecking even short replies.

Doug

Doug Haxton
February 13th 04, 01:25 AM
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:48:02 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:36:00 GMT, Doug Haxton > from EarthLink Inc.
>-- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:28:16 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:16:07 GMT, Doug Haxton > from EarthLink Inc.
>>>-- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>So...what you're telling me is that I can only enjoy driving my
>>>>Corvette for the next 30 years or so?
>>>
>>>Sorry about your penis.
>>
>>Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil, you know....do you also think
>>that people who collect firearms are in need of psycoanalysis?
>
>It probably would help them get over their phallic fixation.

Fascinating! what other objects show a phallic fixation via their
ownership, pray tell?

Baseball clubs? Fountain pens? Enquiring minds want to know!

Doug

DDB
February 13th 04, 05:47 AM
ummmm bicycles for sure...especially high end italian racers.


"Doug Haxton" > wrote in message
...
> Fascinating! what other objects show a phallic fixation via their
> ownership, pray tell?
>
> Baseball clubs? Fountain pens? Enquiring minds want to know!
>
> Doug

Doug Haxton
February 13th 04, 03:18 PM
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:01:49 -0600, Kevan Smith
> wrote:

>>>>Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil, you know....do you also think
>>>>that people who collect firearms are in need of psycoanalysis?
>>>
>>>It probably would help them get over their phallic fixation.
>>
>>Fascinating! what other objects show a phallic fixation via their
>>ownership, pray tell?
>>
>>Baseball clubs? Fountain pens? Enquiring minds want to know!
>
>Baseball clubs? You mean like the whole team?
>
>Anyway, any object can be fetishized. Some are fetishized more than others.

Agreed, any object *can* be fetishized.

What makes you think that a typical gun or Corvette owner has a fetish
regarding their possesions?

Doug

February 13th 04, 11:51 PM
Have you tried the Anarchist Cookbook?
"Robert" > wrote in message
m...
> The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
> are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
> bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
> impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
> this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
> Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
> major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
> prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
> don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
> Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
> Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
> start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> going?

Bill Meredith
February 16th 04, 05:04 PM
"T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> m...
> : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
> : are trucks to deliver goods. Everyone else will either have to ride a
> : bicycle (preferred) or take mass transportation. I know it's nearly
> : impossible to implement such a scheme in the short term but over time
> : this can become a reality. Look at The Netherlands, parts of Denmark,
> : Switzerland and Flemish Belgium. Most citizens use bicycle for their
> : major source of transportation. The economies are modern and
> : prosperous and in some ways more advanced then here in the US. Plus I
> : don't remember ever seeing an overweight person in these countries.
> : Yes the infrastructure and population density is much different in
> : Europe but still it can be done in the US. So get rid of your cars and
> : start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> : going?
>
> Apparently the wait for the demise of the private auto won't be too
> long. see http://www.dieoff.org/ . 'Course the downside of the
> impending oil crash is that we'll probably all die of starvation unless
> we learn to produce food locally.

Sorry but the US is siting on enough coal to power the world for the
next thousand years and coal can be turn into oil, see any good
history of ww2
for details of how the German did so, with 1940's technology.

Private cars now and private cars forever.

Bill Meredith



>
> Constitutionally (in America), the rights of the bicyclist and
> pedestrian override those of the motorist. see http://tinyurl.com/2sf6y

Bill Meredith
February 16th 04, 05:10 PM
"T. Brady Bunch" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> m...
> : The only automobiles that should be allowed on the streets in the US
> : are trucks to deliver goods.
>
> If we were a truly rational species, we would. Here's George Monbiot's
> concise version of our near future.
>
> http://www.monbiot.com
> The Bottom of the Barrel
>
> Oil is running out, but no one wants to talk about it.
> By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 2nd December 2003
>
>
> The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved the
> development of the biggest deposit discovered in British territory for
> at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this is a "huge" find,
> which dispels the idea that North Sea oil is in terminal decline. You
> begin to recognise how serious the human predicament has become when you
> discover that this "huge" new field will supply the world with oil for
> five and a quarter days.1
>
>
> Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the resource
> upon which our lives have been built is running out. We don't talk about
> it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.
>
>
> Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming
> ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked
> in the 1960s.2 Every year, we use four times as much oil as we find.3
> All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago: the 400 million
> barrels in the new North Sea field would have been considered piffling
> in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new
> deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with
> expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil
> will peak before long.
>
>
> The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the
> ones produced by the US Department of Energy, which claims that this
> will not take place until 2037.4 But the US energy information agency
> has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has
> based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand,5
> perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets. Other
> analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell
> calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010.6 In August the
> geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99 per
> cent confident" that the date of maximum global production will be
> 2004.7 Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the oil
> barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.
>
>
> The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today we
> will burn 76 million barrels;8 by 2020 we will be using 112 million
> barrels a day, after which projected demand accelarates.9 If supply
> declines and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the
> people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar: shortage.
> The price of oil will go through the roof.
>
>
> As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly dependent
> on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will be forced to
> contract. Given that climate change caused by burning oil is cooking the
> planet, this might appear to be a good thing. The problem is that our
> lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs
> are impossible to service without cars. High oil prices mean high food
> prices: much of the world's growing population will go hungry. These
> problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price
> of oil and the rate of unemployment.10 The last five recessions in the
> US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.11
>
>
> Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run. There
> are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is likely to be
> anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum can be extracted
> from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases the process uses almost
> as much energy as it liberates, while creating great mountains and lakes
> of toxic waste. Natural gas is a better option, but switching from oil
> to gas propulsion would require a vast and staggeringly expensive new
> fuel infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same constraints
> as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about 50 years' supply,12
> but if gas were to take the place of oil its life would be much shorter.

Who care if it take 100 BTU of coal to produce 10 btu of oil as long
as you have a few thousand year suppy of coal?

The oil produce from coal will be higher then current oil prices, but
not a great deal higher.

Sorry but we are in zero danger of running out of fuel for our
wonderful cars.

Bill Meredith



>
>
> Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which is
> produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity which
> produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars
> in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national
> grid.13 Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal.
> Running the world's cars from wind or solar power would require a
> greater investment than any civilisation has ever made before. New
> studies suggest that leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and
> exacerbate global warming.14
>
>
> Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in terms of
> recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which food is now
> grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that running the United
> Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require an area of arable fields
> the size of England.15
>
>
> There is one possible solution which no one writing about the
> impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with which the
> British and Australian governments are currently experimenting, called
> underground coal gasification.16 This is a fancy term for setting light
> to coal seams which are too deep or too expensive to mine, and catching
> the gas which emerges. It's a hideous prospect, as it means that several
> trillion tonnes of carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit
> becomes available, with the likely result that global warming will
> eliminate life on earth.
>
>
> We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on
> every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet
> and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and civilisation collapses.
>
>
> The only rational response to both the impending end of the Oil Age
> and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming
> and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive political
> pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity.
> People take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less.
> Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival
> of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.
>
>
> In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to
> do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked Iraq (which appears
> to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other
> nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a
> nuclear weapons programme and boasting of its intentions to blow
> everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In
> one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day
> when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other
> nations.
>
>
> I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting
> disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are
> collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning
> to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.
>
>
> The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles can be
> found at www.monbiot.com
>
> References:
>
> 1. The Buzzard field is believed to contain 400 million barrels of
> recoverable oil. The US Energy Information Administration estimates
> global daily oil demand at 76 million barrels (see below).
>
> 2. Richard Heinberg, 2003. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of
> Industrial Societies, p.36. New Society Publishers, Canada.
>
> 3. Bob Holmes and Nicola Jones, 2nd August 2003. Brace yourself for
> the end of cheap oil. New Scientist, vol 179, issue 2406.
>
> 4. ibid.
>
> 5. US EIA, 1998. Annual Energy Outlook, cited in Richard Heinberg,
> ibid, p.115. The extract reads as follows: "these adjustments to the
> USGS and MMR estimates are based on non-technical considerations that
> support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected
> demand levels".
>
> 6. Colin J. Campbell, 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi-Science
> Publishing Co. Ltd, Brentwood, Essex.
>
> 7. Bob Holmes and Nicola Jones, ibid.
>
> 8. US Energy Information Administration, 2003. Annual Energy Outlook
> 2003 With Projections to 2025. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
>
> 9. ibid.
>
> 10. Alan Carruth, Mark Hooker, and Andrew Oswald, 1998. Unemployment
> Equilibria and Input Prices: Theory and Evidence from the United States.
> Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 621-28.
>
> 11. James C. Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, 10th January 2003. Will the
> Economy Skid on Oil? Business Week Online.
> http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2003/nf20030110_5883.htm
>
> 12. Richard Heinberg, ibid. p. 126.
>
> 13. Hugh Williams, 6th September 2003. Hydrogen hype. Letter to New
> Scientist, vol 179, issue 2411.
>
> 14. Cited in Anil Ananthaswamy, 15th November 2003. Reality Bites for
> the Dream of a Hydrogen Economy. New Scientist, vol 180, issue 2421.
>
> 15. This is back-of-the-envelope, and depends on two unchecked
> assumptions: a. that the average mpg is 30, b. that the average annual
> mileage is 5000. This gives an annual fuel use of 167 gallons/car/year.
> One acre of rapeseed yields 115 gallons of biodiesel. There are 22.7m
> cars in the UK, which means 33m acres, or 13.3m ha. England's surface
> area is 13.4m ha.
>
> 16. Fred Pearce, 1st June 2002. Fire Down Below. New Scientist, vol
> 174, issue 2345.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2nd December 2003

Robert Haston
February 17th 04, 03:05 AM
True. If we would only realize how slow cars really are. When you factor
in the cost of ownership, our massive subsidies, and how jamming cars in to
a city requires doubling trip distance, solo urban driving (over half of our
miles) returns less than ten miles per every hour dedicated.

Compare this to getting on your exercise machine for 20 minutes, and get off
at work like I have for 15 years now. Voila! Instant and free
transportation.

As to energy, we fail to add in the energy required to make and service cars
and build and repair roads, which together is about as much as the cars
themselves burn.

As to the supposed "thousand years of coal" this is closer to 100, and those
who quote this figure use present consumption, not the quadrupling of coal
burning required to run everything off of it. Maybe we could harness the
energy of the oceans boiling off from 300 million years of CO2 being
released. Our grandkids will be so proud.


"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Feb 2004 09:04:07 -0800, (Bill Meredith) from
> http://groups.google.com wrote:
>
> >Private cars now and private cars forever.
>
> Yuck.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cascades.
> 88

Bill Meredith
February 17th 04, 05:03 PM
"Robert Haston" > wrote in message et>...
> True. If we would only realize how slow cars really are. When you factor
> in the cost of ownership, our massive subsidies, and how jamming cars in to
> a city requires doubling trip distance, solo urban driving (over half of our
> miles) returns less than ten miles per every hour dedicated.
>
> Compare this to getting on your exercise machine for 20 minutes, and get off
> at work like I have for 15 years now. Voila! Instant and free
> transportation.
>
> As to energy, we fail to add in the energy required to make and service cars
> and build and repair roads, which together is about as much as the cars
> themselves burn.

A few things come to mind, first you need to maintian roads for the
bikes and the truck traffic in any case, so ther would be little
saving there.



>
> As to the supposed "thousand years of coal" this is closer to 100, and those
> who quote this figure use present consumption, not the quadrupling of coal
> burning required to run everything off of it. Maybe we could harness the
> energy of the oceans boiling off from 300 million years of CO2 being
> released. Our grandkids will be so proud.
>

There is no problem with energy limit even at our current level of
technology, we still can fall back on the atom and the coal supply in
the US is still a thousand year one not a hundred as you wish to
claim.

Sorry we are not running out of energy for the next thousand years or
so.

Bill Meredith




>
> "Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 16 Feb 2004 09:04:07 -0800, (Bill Meredith) from
> > http://groups.google.com wrote:
> >
> > >Private cars now and private cars forever.
> >
> > Yuck.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Cascades.
> > 88

Curtis L. Russell
February 17th 04, 06:32 PM
On 17 Feb 2004 09:03:39 -0800, (Bill Meredith) wrote:

>> As to energy, we fail to add in the energy required to make and service cars
>> and build and repair roads, which together is about as much as the cars
>> themselves burn.
>
>A few things come to mind, first you need to maintian roads for the
>bikes and the truck traffic in any case, so ther would be little
>saving there.

Since one loaded truck causes more damage than many automobiles - I
read somewhere that automobiles were effectively not impacting the
road repair process much at all - banning cars and keeping delivery
trucks would produce few savings.

If no trucks used the road, evidently weather has a bigger impact than
that of the small users, like cars and bikes.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Daniel Ballagh
February 18th 04, 12:16 AM
> So get rid of your cars and
> start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> going?

The biggest problem is urban sprawl. With commuting distances growing
farther every year we are creating a society that will be unable to bike
commute realisticly unless your willing to ride 50 to 100 miles a day
spending 2 to 4 hours to get to work and back. We need better city planning
to make bike commuting feasible.

Dan.

Robert Haston
February 18th 04, 12:56 AM
Absolutely. I ride a recumbent which means my head is about 2-3 feet closer
to tailpipe level. It seems every winter after getting a cold I develop
bronchitis, and can't ride to work for weeks, because the exhaust
(especially diesels) sets it off.

Just another deferred cost others pay for drivers. Just start adding it
up - how much property value is lost because of proximity to noisy roads?
How much did they pay urban dwellers when they sliced their cities up with
walled off interstates. No wonder we fled the cities - urban freeways were
the #1 reason cities became less livable.



"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:05:17 GMT, "Robert Haston" >
from
> EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:

>
> I don't like them because they cost so much, yes, but I really don't like
them
> because they smell horrible when they pass me belching crap from their
exhaust.
>
>
>
> --
>
> What mistakes did you make last time?
> 91

Robert Haston
February 18th 04, 12:58 AM
It is wear as much as tear freeze/thaw cycles, rusting rebar, etc. Although
your point is important, the amount trucks pay versus the damage they do is
far apart. Look at an old unused runway - it falls apart all on its own.

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Feb 2004 09:03:39 -0800, (Bill Meredith) wrote:
>
> >> As to energy, we fail to add in the energy required to make and service
cars
> >> and build and repair roads, which together is about as much as the cars
> >> themselves burn.
> >
> >A few things come to mind, first you need to maintian roads for the
> >bikes and the truck traffic in any case, so ther would be little
> >saving there.
>
> Since one loaded truck causes more damage than many automobiles - I
> read somewhere that automobiles were effectively not impacting the
> road repair process much at all - banning cars and keeping delivery
> trucks would produce few savings.
>
> If no trucks used the road, evidently weather has a bigger impact than
> that of the small users, like cars and bikes.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Haston
February 18th 04, 01:05 AM
"Bill Meredith" > wrote in message
om...
>
> There is no problem with energy limit even at our current level of
> technology, we still can fall back on the atom and the coal supply in
> the US is still a thousand year one not a hundred as you wish to
> claim.

HA! - Prove it

The accepted figure is 200 250 years. If you used it to replace oil, this
cuts that figure by over half. That doesn't include the costs of converting
it to usable forms, to replace petrochemicals such as asphalt and coal oil;
which eats up much of the energy content. If it becomes evident that we
can't afford releasing the massive amount of carbon (that's why coal is hard
and black) this would take an even bigger chunk.

Robert Haston
February 18th 04, 01:09 AM
Wrong. Our cities evolved in a society where we pay people up to a 100%
subsidy to drive. For example, what if taxes paid for school (education)
but not bussing (transportation) People would pay more to avoid paying a few
bucks a day to bus kids. They would live where city bus excess capacity
could carry schoolkids (like East Albuquerque). They would demand connected
neighborhoods and safe streets. Most kids would grow up riding a bike as
transportation, not as a toy. The seeds and fertilizer are subsidies, the
mature plant is sprawl.

Besides, it is just stupid to fight bad laws with otherwise unnecessary
urban planning laws.

"Daniel Ballagh" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > So get rid of your cars and
> > start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> > going?
>
> The biggest problem is urban sprawl. With commuting distances growing
> farther every year we are creating a society that will be unable to bike
> commute realisticly unless your willing to ride 50 to 100 miles a day
> spending 2 to 4 hours to get to work and back. We need better city
planning
> to make bike commuting feasible.
>
> Dan.
>
>

Bill Meredith
February 18th 04, 05:11 PM
"Robert Haston" > wrote in message et>...
> "Bill Meredith" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > There is no problem with energy limit even at our current level of
> > technology, we still can fall back on the atom and the coal supply in
> > the US is still a thousand year one not a hundred as you wish to
> > claim.
>
> HA! - Prove it
>
> The accepted figure is 200 250 years. If you used it to replace oil, this
> cuts that figure by over half. That doesn't include the costs of converting
> it to usable forms, to replace petrochemicals such as asphalt and coal oil;
> which eats up much of the energy content. If it becomes evident that we
> can't afford releasing the massive amount of carbon (that's why coal is hard
> and black) this would take an even bigger chunk.

Lord you do have to laugh, a hundred years ago would have been 1904
and you would have been yelling that we was about to run out of whale
oil<grin>. I can just see you stating that in only a few decades we
would need to give up our lamps, as we ran out of whales and therfore
should start now to go to bed early<grin>.

Two hundred years, ok I will go along with your nonsense that would
mean that we would need to worry in the year 2204 about giving up our
cars!

Somehow given the rate of technology advance, a two hundred year time
frame to come up with other energy sources seem to imply that we don't
have a problem for now or in two hundred years.

Of course looking for non-problems seem to be a disease for some of
us, such as the y2k problem.

Hmm I wonder if I do a google search I would find your name on
postings dealing with the end of our culture duue to all the computers
shutting down on Jan 1, 2000.

Come on nonsense is nonsense and there is no lack of energy now or in
the future.

Bill Meredith

Robert Haston
February 19th 04, 01:08 AM
I really don't get why people are so willing to buy houses so close together
you can practically lean out your windows and shake hands - as long as your
houses don't touch.

I guess part of the problem is there are really no American examples of
"hi-low" development, where the worthless side yards, etc. you save by
living in a row house get returned as a nice playground, pond, etc. Europe
has lots more of this. Watching the Tour de France I was paying more
attention to how you would see miles of country side, then houses all
clustered together before more countryside. I saw the same thing in Sicily
coming back from Iraq.

"Kevan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:16:46 GMT, "Daniel Ballagh" >
from
> EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net wrote:
>
> >> So get rid of your cars and
> >> start riding your bike. Does anyone know how to get this revolution
> >> going?
> >
> >The biggest problem is urban sprawl. With commuting distances growing
> >farther every year we are creating a society that will be unable to bike
> >commute realisticly unless your willing to ride 50 to 100 miles a day
> >spending 2 to 4 hours to get to work and back. We need better city
planning
> >to make bike commuting feasible.
>
> Or people willing to live closer to work even if that means no lawn and no
> single family dwelling.
>
>
> --
>
> Water.
> 45

Daniel Ballagh
February 20th 04, 11:58 AM
> Wrong. Our cities evolved in a society where we pay people up to a 100%
> subsidy to drive. For example, what if taxes paid for school (education)
> but not bussing (transportation) People would pay more to avoid paying a
few
> bucks a day to bus kids. They would live where city bus excess capacity
> could carry schoolkids (like East Albuquerque). They would demand
connected
> neighborhoods and safe streets. Most kids would grow up riding a bike as
> transportation, not as a toy. The seeds and fertilizer are subsidies, the
> mature plant is sprawl.
>
> Besides, it is just stupid to fight bad laws with otherwise unnecessary
> urban planning laws.
>

What I was trying to say was that our cities are growing so spread out that
a typical commute for many major cities is often 25+ miles one way. That
make it very time consuming to cycle to work and prevents most people from
doing it.

Today many cities are trying to re-vitalize themselves by getting people to
live closer to the downtown areas. This of course helps the downtown areas
economically but it also reduces traffic since people are able to walk or
even use public transportation rather than drive. Of course this concept is
not new, the older cities like New York have been doing this for years but
when the automobile became popular the urban sprawl began. This has caused
longer commute distances and traffic jams. Unless we re-visit our city
planning/public transportation we are only going to make matter worse.

Dan.

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home