EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Car Culture and Global Energy Conflict
This ad (herein condensed) did not make the Super Bowl roster, but Sarah Palin probably likes it:
"My name is Ram and my tank is full. I'm fueled by optimism. Driven by passion and stopped by nothing. I'm a can-do spirit in a get-it-done body. All brawn. All brain. I'm built not to last, but to outlast. Not to achieve, but to overachieve. I'm built to reward the doers who climb behind my wheel every day by working even harder than they do. I carry reputations. I carry livelihoods. I deliver the goods without fail. The road ahead of me is long, but I know my destination. I will not downshift. I will not coast to a stop."
(To see the full text and video, search "My name is Ram" at jalopnik.com.)
Michael Klare, author of "Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet," remarks that plentiful oil spurred the development of an auto culture, which is one of the defining characteristics of U.S. society and an example to other nations. We feel we are entitled to cheap oil and gas-guzzlers.
The risk of violent energy conflicts, however, is growing as more nations compete for diminishing reserves. Nationalism is intensified, making energy conflicts even more intractable.
David Campbell, author of "The Biopolitics of Security," agrees that Americans regard cheap oil as a birthright, but suggests that oil's iconic status cannot be explained merely by its historic abundance. Oil became one of the ways by which we have sought to define ourselves as a people and to validate that definition. Oil is cru-cial to one of the central values of this culture, mobility. Mobility is a consequence of and contributor to another key U.S. value, technological prowess.
These values have been validated by viewing as threatening those who appear to have different values or who have characteristics that can be portrayed as anathema to our core values. Thus in the 17th and 18th centuries Native Americans, perceived as having no concept of private property and no interest in technological bet-terment, were portrayed as shiftless, and aggressive.
Today, environmentalists who have qualms about at least how we achieve mobility are often portrayed as effeminate, soft, etc. These portrayals in turn have often encouraged and been sustained by bellicose nationalism. Critics of rapid natural resource exploitation are viewed as dupes of foreign influence. Recently, nonviolent protesters of energy exploration have been vilified as "environmental terrorists."
Well-guarded geographic borders expressed and reinforced the sense of the mighty and self-sufficient U.S. machine, but today these borders are breaking down. Immigration is widely highlighted, but capital goods, money, diseases, media messages and financial capital all cross geographic borders even more rapidly. Climate change and energy wars, perhaps nuclear, loom as the ultimate cross border challenge. All limit our options and reshape our expectations. We are, as Campbell says, part of complex networks.
In the face of flux, many strive to reseal our geographic borders but others seek to shore up conventional identity through various cultural means. The auto, the way it is advertised and even designed, is an attempt to secure new boundaries. The SUV is portrayed as security in a world of crime, dangerous traffic, a reminder of U.S. military triumph and thus an antidote to the "Vietnam syndrome," and a means to and expression of individuality. Like gated communities, the Ram and the SUV are capsules that appear to seal us off from challenge but actually increase international oil conflict and risks at home.
We can't, however, stop Alaska drilling merely by pointing out that little of our total needs can be derived from there. "Drill baby drill" has a compelling, cheerleader resonance, speaks to a visceral anger toward environmentalists from a squeezed working class experiencing flux. Drilling now bespeaks a take-charge mentality.
Ending this vicious circle requires willingness by environmentalists and social justice advocates to engage the core values and identify anxieties central to car culture. One counter is to ease immediate economic burdens and foster jobs that recognize the talents of displaced workers.
We might also address critics in more respectful ways by acknowledging we too hold core values we can't fully prove. We might tap and-or respond to other interests working class critics themselves may find undervalued in this materialistic culture, such as time with family or enjoying the wilderness rides those SUVs were supposed to enable.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
48 Comments so far
Show AllIt took only a couple decades to build the car-oriented infrastructure that deliberately reqires you to use a car to take kids to school (when they used to walk or take a school bus); shopping (when you used to simply walk a couple block to shopping). In a couple decades, we ccould return to older style traditional commnities that didn't require cars, and children could safely play.
I moved to such an old-fashoned neighborhood from the suburban lifestyle you describe it was an epiphany, and positively liberating to not need a car for routine transportation.
And yes, children play in the streets and parks like I never see them do in suburbia - just like the old 1930's little rascals short-flicks.
The impacts of the automobile go beyond just global warming, and include 35-40,000 dead in the US every year, the destruction of main-street sidewalk culture that supported family-buisness diversity, the sealed self-isolation that has led to a loss of of civic mindedness and neighborhood solidarity, and noise, pollution and degraded livability in the cities, and lastly, the vast amount of public tax resources that must be divereted to road maintenance from more worthwhile things.
Most catastrophically, the sorry US model of rich white suburbia around a poor black dilaped urban core is _directly_ attributed to the automobile.
And the most outrageous thing of it all is that it was all a quite deliberate effort by large business interests - automobile, large-chain retail, and large RE development.
The realistic alternative is for USAns to move to a home that is located where one can walk to routine chores, where children can walk to school, and has viable public transit. To the extent thay can, people should only choose workplaces in similar settings.
Get out of suburbia. No excuses.
I agree, this article does talk in sweeping generalities, although mant of them have merit. There is a great body of cultural machismo and flag-wsving patriotism that surrounds the automobile in the US. It is deliberate too, and is stunningly effective at selling cars. Familiarize yourself with the theories of Edward Bernays.
"Most catastrophically, the sorry US model of rich white suburbia around a poor black dilaped urban core is _directly_ attributed to the automobile."
I would say racism was far more important; the automobile being a facilitator, not the driving reason to move.
Formula One Racism!
· Yr Obd't Servant
We've had many discussions here on CD about the need to transition away from automobile-dependent communities/lifestyles. The general consensus seems to be that the technical/economic hurdles don't exist, that the lifestyle, cultural and political changes needed will greatly benefit our general health/well-being, and that the main barrier is the psych-ops propaganda emitted from TV screens that keeps most USans addicted to the petro-opiates and enslaved to their elite masters.
Well well said Visiting Professor. My thoughts but better expressed. I'd love to bicycle to the store and visit friends but fifteen miles of shoulderless roads over many hills and a bad back makes that impossible (And no room for a bike or walking lane thank you very much, even if the money for such were available.). Also carrying more than a bag of groceries or library books. Walking for me is a short term affair. So I need my car. So do many people. For better or worse we have an enormous investment in roads. Mass transit will NEVER reach many people unless we force them to move, like the Khmer Rouge did in the opposite direction, from rural and suburban areas to the cities.
beside, mobility seems a right to most folks. freedom to go where and when one pleases is a hard thing to give up. And despite some problems, like the ecological cost of batteries, electric and hybrid hydrogen vehicles promise to eliminate much of the pollution factor so people will NOT easily give up their personal vehicles.
>>Realistic alternatives must be provided in order to get people out of their cars.<<
But what if there are not really "realistic alternatives" available to much of the population? The ecological and mass-transit pundits never want to admit that.
Gary
“We willingly pay 30,000 - 40,000 fatalities per year for the advantages of individual transportation by automobile”
-- John von Neumann
I think the preference for suburbs is largely due to no other alternatives exist and people have lived there so long that they cant imagine any other way of living. Like I wrote earlier, it was deliberate.
If your average suburbanite could taste a livestyle where they didn't need a car for local transportation (no shoveling, no scraping in winter, no payments, no repair bills) and could walk or take a short transit ride to more shopping, dining, and cultural activities and parks than what suburbia offers, they would never return to the suburbs again. A truly viable city has all these things, and is often even quieter than a suburban area.
Trouble is, we no longer have too many such places. I recently drove through some small midwestern cities (Marion Ill, Princeton In.) and I was apalled at how the downtown area have been abandoned. Thank goodness most of Pennsylvania isnt so bad.
it wil be interesting to see how things play out...one possible scenario would certainly include migrations back to the farm regions where the food grows...how's that weather? precip patterns? okay so far...?
many factors affect every scenario from here on out, of course...natural factors, human factors, programmed factors...
transportation, like all human inventions, ultimately relies on nature...
stomp the ground and claim your right and kick the car all you want, but if it don't go, it don't...they'll all stop one day...
no more materials, no more energy, no more makers...
imagine the future...adapt...survive...
Having everyone return to the countryside to subsistence farm IS unrealisitc to say the least.
Most poeple who move out to the countryside are even more car-dependent, live in large houses with high heating requirenents, commute long distances to jobs and have far larger carbon footprints than city dwellers.
The reason Europeans have half the carbon footprints of USAns is not any magic technology, but mostly becasue that have so many more opportunities for substantially car-free living than USAns.
I'm a transplanted suburbanite who, after having had a taste of city living, with public transportation nearby, more parks, more theatres, and other stuff, has never, ever wanted to even look back at suburbia. Long commutes, shovelling snow and scraping ice (both of which I've always hated), yard work in general, which I've always hated, plus the hypocrisy of many of the people residing in those towns, made me only too glad to move out of my old hometown and never want to move out to suburbia again. So, for more than 30 years, I've been a city dweller, and I love it. Living in the city and visiting the country on occasion is my cup of tea, now.
Wilbur has to drive a car to pull my horse trailer. We did try to take the bus once and I got stuck in the doorway. When that happened, I became not just a talking horse but a yelling horse.
The famous Mister Ed
An ironiy in 21st century America is that there are more horses in the US today than there were a century ago when horseback and horse-drawn wagons were still the most common means of local transportation and they were still extensively used to skid logs and plow fields. While a few Americans use draft horses to skid logs and plow fields, less than 1% of today's horses are used for utilitarian purposes and their feed is often transported long distances creating a bigger carbon footprint for horses than cars, not to mention the huge trucks Americans buy to pull their horse trailers.
Replies:
The essential features of car-oriented communities, first stage in the 1920's, then the second "Levittown" stage in the 1950's took only a couple decasdes.
As far as noise levels, I can only relate my own experiences. The urban neighborhood of Bloomfield, in Pittsburgh, is quieter than suburban areas I've lived in. The suburban areas seem to always be subject to a near 24 hour a day roar from multi-lane boulevards or high speed freeway which can be loud even when the freeway is a mile away. Then, there is are lawn mowers, early every Saturday morining. And, the neighbors with the Harleys. In contrast, the city neiborhood had narrow streets, low speeds and less car use. The loudest noise was the kids playing. This is my actual experience.
Maybe Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are unique, but both these cities are characterized, not by high rise apartments, but by townhouses ("rowhouses" in Philly) and also plenty of detached homes. And yes, thy stil have small yards for gardens, and small parks and playbgrounds for the kids.
I concur that a City can be quieter then a suburb. It all depends how it laid out and designed. I Find the CITY that is Vancouver quieter in the Downtown then the suburb of Abbotsford.
A city can be designed wherein people can both live and work in the same area walking to work rather then taking a freeway. A large number of people in Downtown Vancouver walk to work. The traffic comes from the SUBURBS where people will drive to Vancouver to work.
Please check out my website's posting from November agreeing with much of what John writes above:
• Where Have All the Green Jobs Gone? Or ‘My Name Is Ram,’ by Steve Homan
• http://dons-review-law-politics-science-philosophy.com/politics
Remember this from Obama’s 2008 campaign?:
“Barack Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.
“Obama will also provide specific tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks are build in the U.S. with American workers.
Instead of Barack Obama using his bully pulpit like FDR to, with memorable, soaring rhetoric, persuade—and strong-arm—Americans and corporations (which are two different things) to create thousands or millions of jobs within his first 100 days or to convert auto- and truck-manufacturing plants into electric, non-oil-product auto-building plants, we see a continuing onslaught of “American Dream” commercials on the Fawning Corporate Media. Car commercials, one after another, all pitching sex, power, machismo, family vacations, joyrides, and so on—if you only buy THIS car--swamp our TV time.
The most egregious, insane and deplorably sick kind of way is the new Ram truck commercial, which began saturation usage Nov. 4.
This is the “Manifesto” TV Script for “Ram” pick-up trucks, which now stand in a separate division from Chrysler-Dodge:
My name is Ram
And my tank is full
I’m fueled by optimism
Driven by passion and stopped by nothing
I’m a can-do spirit in a get-it-done body
All brawn
All brain
I’m built not to last, but to outlast
Not to achieve, but to overachieve
I’m built to reward the doers who climb behind my wheel every day
By working even harder than they do
My tank is full
I carry a full payload
The loyalty of my owners
The accolades of my industry
I carry reputations
I carry livelihoods
I deliver the goods without fail
My tank is full
The road ahead of me is long but I know my destination
I will not yield
I will not downshift
I will not coast to a stop.
My name is Ram and my tank is full.
Chrysler has decided to separate Ram from the Dodge brand, so it’s time for the truck-loving Americans to know this. A few approaches come to mind when trying to ease something like this into people’s minds, and the team in charge of this took the most aggressive path.
Chrysler and their marketing partner came up with a one-minute commercial called “Manifesto.”
According to AdAge, the TV spot ran 190 times on Nov. 4 during prime time, which means there’s a good chance you already know what I’m talking about. The budget for this is unknown, but it has to be huge. For example, it was played twice during the Yankees Game 6 of the World Series.
Even though the Ram trucks are genuinely legendary—I loved driving one during my summer college job for the electric department of Worthington, Minn., in the early 1970s—this ad goes beyond legend (to borrow a phrase from Major League Baseball’s own TV ads during the Series). It’s like the ultimate fighters you see on Spike TV. It oozes male testosterone while waving the American flag in viewers’ faces. If you are a conservative, you likely sit on the edge of your seat, saying, “Yeh, baby. You tell ‘em. We ain’t no wussy liberals in the good ol’ US of A. We can still whup them A-rab backsides!!!”
It denies global warming. It denies the need to decrease American consumption. It taunts other countries with “my tank is full”—meaning America will do anything to win the battle over oil, now being fought primarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. It appeals to the current American-lore schtick, first proposed by Saint Reagan, that Americans are the “city on the hill,” and SHOULD rule the world because we are the only people who can. All others are likely non-white-skinned billionaires and millionaires who have proved they are superior by the big weapons they can flaunt. (Penis envy, anyone?)
It appeals to Americans’ ridiculously convoluted rationale that Christianity and Judaism are in a state of war with Islam, so god is on our side: “I deliver the goods without fail. My tank is full. The road ahead of me is long but I know my destination.” Kind of like Jesus and God are watching over us only, as the Christians would say, and will deliver help without fail. If you follow the rules, you know your destination at the end of the long road of life.
On other levels, it unknowingly, to 99 percent of viewers, dupes their brains that are soaked with John Wayne American folklore: “I’m a can-do spirit in a get-it-done body.” And it throws in family values, too: “I carry reputations. I carry livelihoods.”
In a backdoor way, it carries a message to Americans that SHOULD be carried: We succeeded with the Manhattan Project, building a city-destroying bomb within a few years. I also appeals to FDR’s Americans, who converted the auto industry and other heavy industry from peacetime production to war production in a matter of months. THAT’s what is needed now to save the world and life as we know it.
So, this same one-minute joke of a chest-busting, testosterone-spewing commercial both tells us that President Barack Obama has been impotent so far in creating so-called green jobs to cure unemployment and stop pollution and in getting our corporate warlords to produce “green” transportation, AND that Americans have done just such impossible things in the past and, perhaps, could do so again in the future—if it’s not already too late. It’s way past Obama’s first 100 days. Way past.
Good points.
I am always stunned at the sheer saturation of car ads, mostly SUV ads, on prime time TV, broken only by the occasional pda/cell phone and Verizon FIOS ad.
One would think we all go out and buy a new car every week.
The sheer one-dimensionality of US lifestyle encouraged by these ads is very disturbing.
Sioux Rose
GARLAND: As for the "oozing testosterone" reference, let it be known that Aries, the Zodiac sign actually ruled by MARS is known as the ram. Aries is the first sign and needs to be first, hence all the hoopla around the notion of "being # 1." Mars represents the passions that arise from what the Hindu mystics term the "first chakra." This invisible energy vortex is related to the fight or flight syndrome, and is perhaps the most difficult for the "human animal" to manage. This explains why Mars/Aries represents primal impulses, including those that lead to the many and sundry expressions of aggression. The Biblical adage, "He who conquers himself is greater than he who conquers a city," was devised for those who march to the beat of Mars. This "ram" idea is definitely consistent with that archtype, whether its designers knew of the analogy or otherwise.
Thank you for a very honest post. You definitely understand the mindset that is intended to drive the thing... straight to the edge of extinction, it would seem.
Suburbia, and moving out into the Country is one of the single most destructive things we do to the enviroment. If we want to have true sustainability, Cities must in fact become denser and we have to retreat from the country.
The area once called Sumeria was some of the richest and fertile land on the planet. Human kind used this land, ruined it and then moved onwards to other lands which were then despoiled. This process has continued for thousands of years.
Man saw nature as bountiless and spread outwards across the globe.
We have to change that mentality. We have to look at a given area of land and say "This is all we will ever have how can we best utilize it in the most efficient way possible GIVEN we will have to always LIVE here"?
Only by accepting that meme will we truly set a course to sustainability.
When we say "Once this place ruined or become unlivable, or no longer a safe place to raise Children, I will just move somewhere else" then we will eventually RUIN everywhere else.
I wish to comment on 'Visiting Professor' and 'gdgoodman'
Frankly, you need to take a basic Physics and Chemistry course at your local community college. (if you have one)
Bottom line is: There is NO such thing as a Free Lunch.
Amory Lovins said this a long time ago. What it means is determined by the Laws of Physical Science. Basically, for ANY physical/chemical/nuclear reaction of ANY kind, there is a COST.
Electric cars - My Ass!
How do you think Electricity is made?
In Maine - my home state - and Buell's also, Power is generated by: Maine Yankee Nuclear power plant and various Oil Burning power plants operated by the two 'Energy Companies' Bangor Hydro & Central Maine Power.
All Electric cars do is SHIFT the pumping of Gasoline into your car/truck/tractor to burning Crude Oil - or much worse, enriched Uranium - in a power station!
And, how many more Nuclear/Crude oil Power Stations will be necessary to power all thise 'electric' cars? Tell me - I am waiting...
To be clear, electric vehicles, becasue of their much higher energy efficiency, are much cleaner even if most of electricity comes from dirty sources.
For example, I own an electric motor scooter and have made power consumption measurements. Assuming the typical mid-Atlantic energy mix (50% coal), my electric scooter gets about 400 energy-equivalent miles per gallon, and about 220 CO2-equivalent miles per gallon. This comapres to 80 mpg for an equivalent 50cc scooter.
But I'd rather get away from cars, even electric ones, to the degree that we can. I do rather enjoy riding scooters though - and my electric one is silent.
Having millions of pollution generating devices as opposed to thousands is really the argument. I would opt for the thousands. You can fix that easier than the millions. When you take into account emerging solar technology, it is a no-brainer. Fossil fuel vehicles will always be fossil fuel vehicles. Electric cars can become whatever we can develop in terms of generating clean electricity. Hope this helps.
I grew up in the suburbs. Did not really get it in my head that that is not the Only Way until I lived on the edge of a big city for eight or nine years and began putting only 5,000 miles on my car annually. Quite an awakening. Before that (after the burbs of home) I lived in a few different places that were also totally auto-centric. At this point I find the burbs mostly rather icky, and driving around there just seems stupid. Drive to this red light, then that one. Then the next one. Then that one. Duh. Can be a huge waste of time and fuel. But indeed sometimes you just don't have much of a choice.
Now I live in a residential (mostly green, rather than paved) part of a smaller city. Don't accumulate appreciably more vehicular mileage. On days that I don't have things to address after work, I take one bus a few miles from my corner to another that goes the rest of the way. I try to combine said after-work things into the same day(s) when I can.
Sometimes people ask my why I do my "bus thing." My best answer is usually "Because I can." Generally the response is a cocked head or vague squinting, and I clarify with "Hey, I like having a car. A car's a great thing to have, but who wants to get in it and DRIVE everyplace you go, all the time?" It astounds me how almost no one even gets this.
I know exactly the feeling!
Even with frequent trips to the hang-gliding sites out of the city, the yearly mileage on my 1984 toyota pickup dropped to about 4000 miles per year when I moved to the city.
Most people have no idea how much of a time-consuming, aggravating inconvienience a car is, becasue they have never had the opportunity to live any other way. And then, there is their incesant fearful talk over gasoline prices! I don't use enough of the stuff to even care about the price of it, except that, for the sake of humanity, I hope it goes a lot higher.
Unfortunately, where I work now, I had to move to a close-in suburb, but still walkable to basic shopping, eating and drinking. Unfortunately bus service to the outlying mine-safety research facility where I work consists of just a single special trip - in at 7:30, out at 4:30. So, I got (and considerably re-engineered) an electric motor scooter, later, two of them - his and hers) which serves as my personal transportation for most of 8 months of the year. With a givi trunk and space under the seat, it can carry 5 bags of groceries.
But at work and among the neighbors, they remain clueless as to why I ride the scooter everywhere. Why don't you at least get a "real motorcycle?" They ask. This puts me on the spot, and I have to usually make up a reason. Becsuse in the USA, saying "because "I want to live in environmentally responsible way, and I end up having have a lot of fun doing it" would just get a stare of stupid incomprehension.
I'm not at all convinced by those who claim they just can't live without a car. While there may be a few who, for medical reasons, are incapable of walking or biking long distances most just can't be bothered.
The negative effects of our oil addiction have been apparent for 36 years to anyone who gave a damn. Anyone who chose to live in the suburbs or exurbs during this time has no right to claim hardship as a justification for their predicament. It's pathetic to hear sprawl dwellers claim they're discriminated against because they "happen" to live in suburbs -- like they had nothing to do with it.
It's time to accept responsibility for your choices. If you made bad ones, change them. Don't expect the rest of us to continue subsidizing your bad decisions.
It's time to quit subsidizing oil consumption. It's time to make oil consumers pay for the wars their habit enables. Raise the gas tax by $1/gallon every year until people get the message. Get rid of the tax deduction for business travel that encourages frivolous air travel. If you live in a community with mass transit, use it. If not, demand it. Let your elected representatives know you don't want any tax money spent for new highway construction and will vote accordingly.
Replacing our existing coal-burning electricity generation capacity with renewable energy sources will be difficult enough (to say the least) without people expecting to add 200 million electric cars to the load.
The total domination of the auto in American life has bought us the obesity epidemic to a very large degree. Back in the day when I used to go to National Parks on a regular basis, we referred to the majority of visitors as "Windshield Tourists". This has only increased to this day as the epidemic has exploded.
The domination of automobiles has continued until walking or bike riding is actually dangerous in most areas. Very few drivers ever use turn signals. They don't have to. Cars largely just bounce off each other. It's only those on the outside that are in peril. They don't matter as most drivers would concur- by their actions. Something's got to give soon. The auto culture as it exists is unsustainable in the long run. And this run has been going on for a very long time.
Peak Oil is going to seriously change our lives, like take us back to the level of per capita external energy consumption that exited in, say, 1880.
I used to be one who said: There are no coincidences. Now, I am one who says: There are no accidents.
Since there are no accidents, there are no automobile accidents. How many people are being murdered from this world hourly by drivers using automobiles as murder weapons in order to murder and get away with it? How many of these drivers are disguised as blacked-out drunk?
The intention to kill does kill, eventually.
I own an SUV for carrying my construction and repair tools from place to place and it's great for snowy roads. Quit bitching about SUVs. Most of the alternatives aren't fuel efficient either. Keep the SUV but increase its efficiency and give us switchgrass ethanol to reduce oil intake.
No one is going to bitch about you driving even a Mack Titan tri-axle if it is used for your livlihood.
We are bitching about obscenely inefficient monsterous cars being used by millions purely as a fashion statement or our of a false paranoid feeling of being "safer" (while making the rest of us less safe - particularly as pedstrians or cyclists). There are parts of the US were a mother gets accused of being an "irresponsible" if they transport a child in, say, a Mini or Yaris. And unless you are poor and black, taking a child on the bus would get you nosy suburban neifgbors turning you in for child abuse.
People somehow drove in snow just fine, even in the Pa. Laurel Highlands, before 4 wheel drive was common.
SUV's by virtue of their size and weight, will never be very efficient. 25-30 miles per gallon is not good fuel economy. The ordinary, non-hybrid cars sold by most manufacturers in Europe get over 50 mpg in highway driving. Yet such cars are not even offered for sale in the US. Go to the British Hyndai site to see what I mean:
http://www.hyundai.co.uk/
I'll see if I can find a 4wd equivilant from that site you mentioned. I use it mainly for business purposes but I also buy in bulk at price club stores so the space comes in handy. If SUVs can't get more than 30 mpg, then it's time to switch corn ethanol over to alcohol and switch grass. Get a load of this interesting howto on alcohol fuel: http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com. Here's some info on switchgrass: http://www.naturalnews.com/023423.html.
This is funny, pdj412! How come you're bitching at ME for having a much smaller car that's much more fuel-efficient and that I, too, own and therefore have ready access to when I need to use it? Hmmmm?
what strange contradictions we live
I walk eight miles a day for air and to view
the mountains
In the last week I've driven 600 miles
for fun
For the eight years of bush I intentionally
stayed off gasoline
to spite the gas speculators
Now in spite of 2.75/gal I've gone back on
the road...because I can. I loved it driving
a CRV, I love it more driving a miata.
I am that american who has evolved to travel
not out of necessity but because I can and I will.
Even though I generally avoid american cars because
they are less efficient, they break down and have a
shorter life span, I still appreciate the esoteric
beauty of that 76 sedan de ville I bought for 1200
dollars and drove to arizona. Good car to sleep in
for man and dog.
You should really look for another way to get your kicks...
At the same time as enjoying city living, however, I'm not going to knock having a car, because there are times when a car is beneficial to the point of being necessary for me, also.
Sometimes, if I'm going to be back really late at night after having been out somewhere, it really does help to have a car, as well as for having done a large grocery shopping load. Replacing certain things, such as my acetylene tank for my work, also necessitates a car, as it would be too heavy and too risky to carry it on public transportation. Going out of the city, such as on long-distance bicycling trips, necessitates a car, too.
Also, it may interest everybody here to know that I've also got a very fuel-efficient car; a Honda Civic Hybrid, which I mostly only need to gas up once or twice a month, depending on how much driving I do.
The fuel economy of the civic hybrid would be still only average to below average by European standards. The US could increase the CAFE to 40 mpg tomorrow by simply mandating that European models be made available in the US.
One approach is to eschew owning a car, and either rent one one, or use a zipcar (curb-to-curb shared car program) when you need one.
You can also consider a motor scooter. With a trunk and under seat storage, you can carry a lot of stuff on it.
First of all p;jd412, neither of these:
"One approach is to eschew owning a car, and either rent one one, or use a zipcar (curb-to-curb shared car program) when you need one.
You can also consider a motor scooter. With a trunk and under seat storage, you can carry a lot of stuff on it."
will work worth Jack Squat for me. Renting a car, be it a regular car or a zip/car is actually more expensive, not to mention more awkward and inconvenient than owning a car. Secondly, in order to rent either a regular car or zip car, one has to order it way in advance, and, thirdly, when one rents any kind of car, they never know what the hell they're gonna get. it's too risky, imho, and I'm NOT about to rescind car or homeownership to please you or anybody else. There are things on which I agree with you and lots of other people here on commondreams, but this ain't one of them.
Also, I'm very happy with my car and my house, neither of which are fancy.
Thanks, but no thanks, pdj412! Your suggestions won't work for me!
There's a huge stigma put on adult males (particularly single ones) who don't own cars or drive. I'm glad I have never gotten a license for environmental, economic reasons, but many people act like I'm from another dimension.
One woman I dated could not get over the fact that I didn't drive a car. She wanted me to learn, then go into debt to buy a car so I would be more "acceptable" to her friends and family.
Some people think I have DUI's. They just can't believe I never learned to drive. Blame the Pittsburgh Public Schools. They gave us PAT bus passes.
We're no longer together. Heh. I just think of all the money I saved by not learning to drive or buying a large, dangerous, pollutive vehicle.
I walk, catch buses, and bum rides. It works for me. If people have a problem with it, they can kiss my ass. Besides, I'm not a good driver anyway, and I've probably prevented some accidents. I'm also taking up less space in parking lots. People should thank me for not driving. Instead they act like I'm a sinner of some sort, my sin being that I won't confrom to a typical consumptive, debt-ridden middle-class lifestyle that I cannot understand how most people fund.
"I am always stunned at the sheer saturation of car ads, mostly SUV ads, on prime time TV, broken only by the occasional pda/cell phone and Verizon FIOS ad.
One would think we all go out and buy a new car every week."
pjd-I've been saying that since I was a kid. They act like they're toys that one has to collect.
We need clean, renewable, sustainable alternative fuels, expanded light-rail public transit, and carless cities.
Not that I expect everyone to give up cars. Some people have to drive. I cringe when I see the young adults riding bikes on busy streets as I fear for their safety, but I understand why they have to do it. Busing it isn't always convenient since it takes up more of your day and buses don't always run frequently. If I can get a ride, especially on a crappy day, I take it. Walking's great when you have a desk job. When you do manual labor though, it isn't so much fun. Walking and busing around here go hand in hand.
We need alternatives.
"Most people have no idea how much of a time-consuming, aggravating inconvienience a car is, becasue they have never had the opportunity to live any other way."
I do, but people give me a hard time about it. I think they're jealous of me since I don't own what is essentially a money-eater.
Hey Rocky,
I am sorry to hear you face stigma. You have some serious high ground and you should take it. I personally admire your lifestyle and would hope more Americans follow your lead. I still drive. I have carpooled but my carpooling co-worker was laid off. I was surprised to find few carpooling opportunities on the craigslist in my area. Hopefully I'll find some other people.
Car/SUV ads are bad. I remember when we were swamped with 2nd mortgage ads. Those days are long gone. I wonder why? Auto insurance are through the roof. Given the fact that the government mandates the purchase of private goods and services, these insurance companies are flush with cash. It is unconstitutional but rarely you hear a peep about this outrage. Another up and comer is credit report ads. I guess big brother has a message for all the folks sunk into serious debt. Keep those payments coming in folks and make sure that credit score stays at 666.
Your lack of car is good, solid, financial advice. Stay away from credit cards and you're really striking a serious blow against the corporate fascists.
When I moved to Pittsburgh from living much of my life in what is bascally the southern California of the east - northern Virginia, I encountered many people who never drove or even bothered to get a drivers license. This, and it's older main-street neighborhoods, compared to the rest of the US, led me to think or Pittsburgh, as a "prototype community of tomorrow" - albeit one that is a bit dilapidated.
If you do some traveling through the sun-belt or midwest, you would know what I mean. Corporate chain crap and Wal-Mart, on unwalkable four-lane strips, absolutely everywhere. Downtowns abandoned and boarded up, if they exist at all. Not a mom-and-pop store, restaurant or bar anywhere. And don't think for a minute any of this would have occurred without the automobile. The car is deeply intervoven with the mind-numbing corporate homoginization of US society. One depends on the other.
In the mid-70s the movie, "ZARDOZ", opened with a clip of suited, white, middle class stiffs/families living a desperate existance IN THEIR IMMOBILE STATION WAGONS scattered over the countryside, being hunted by goons armed by an elite living in a plastic bubble making green "bread".
The cars have been censored out of that sequence. Don't know when, but they were.
Starred Sean Connery.
The statement by 'Michael Corleone', chatting in the street with wife, in "Godfather 2" about nations engaging in the same practices as the mob, also censored.
Sad, but true. Tips of the iceberg, and minor points in the face of grahams, cheneys, bushs,etc, but instructive.
Liberty and Justice for All....
CORP IS BORG.
Thanks Lefty. I fell into the credit card trap 6 years ago because I was told I needed to build a "credit history." Heh. I only use a debit card now. Any credit cards I did have have been cut up and cancelled. My credit's actually pretty good. My main focus is now killing my debt, and I am chipping away at it.
Carpooling is a great idea. I was doing that for a while but lost 2 of my rides. One guy moved to another shift, the other guy was a leadfoot who got too many tickets and lost his license. People used to call us the "clown car" since 3 people would be pouring out of one compact. lol. Hey, we save money, they just consume with their big dumb trucks.
How most people can afford a car these days I'll never know.
wow that was quite a riff - seems overwhelming, doesn't it?
I don't think it really is.
We need rapid rails... so these folks that weren't accommodated by urban gentrification, can turn those defunct little logging towns into the new bedroom communities. New York has it right I think (I don't know, never been there).
Nothing ever happens until the right people stand to profit. I remember looking up everything I could on alternative power supplies for automobiles some years back. Lo and behold, there was Dick Cheney's smiling face, on the front page of some electric power train corporation... selling stock in a company, only thinking of making electric engines or hydrogen fuel cells or some such. I'm so crazy, I think MSNBC is "liberal" because nuclear acquired electricity may power the cars of the future. It's really a contest between these power merchants, over who will rule the world, 50 years from now.
I think of the car culture with less sympathy than I do the horse culture of the Sioux. It's a system that needs to die.
I do have my eye on a 72 Eldorado however. I will put bull horns on the hood, and drive it once a week to town, where I will smoke cigars and share bad poems with my friends. We are caricatures of ourselves, in our automobiles. People need water and we fret about gasoline. If I were them, I would despise us.
The oil wars are about war machines, not transportation... they are about global economic and geopolitical dominion in perpetuity... the War on Terror is a war on the very notion of Revolution... so the elites here and abroad, can feel secure in their feather beds.
I've heard that most people in NYC don't drive. They ride the subway, walk, bike, or catch cabs.
I dont know if anyone out there on the web can remember the last name "Lear";I cant remember his first name.He designed and built the Lear jet that was popular with big company executives for their private use.The manufacture of the jet took place only after the big three automobile companies drove him out of business. Why? you may ask. Mr. Lear had built automobiles,trucks and buses powered by steam. He developed his steam engine that could run on almost ANY liquid! The cars were not powered by electricity nor were they Hybrid. The car simply ran on water. The car did'nt need three thousand dollar replacement batteries or two to three dollar a gallon gasoline to function that todays hybrids do. The technology is here and now. As to where the specific plans are,not many people know. But I think you can bet your arse they are on a shelf or in a vault somewhere in Motor city.
One must ask oneself why are'nt the auto companies building steam engines?? Oh and by the way the only exhaust emitted is water.............and the beat goes on.