Bitter bus passengers
This piece by definition does not concern anyone reading this blog but it does raise the question of which candidate is likeliest to be successful at bottom-fishing, as it were, in the voters' pool.
McCain's jokes are wooden and elderly but Obama might look way too smooth for non-prime-time. I can't decide.
A thoughtful piece in the Observer newspaper asks whether the real impact of the fuel crisis is that "in effect, America is becoming larger again".
This is the key point:
"That will lead to a more localised economy. To many environmentalists that is a blessing, not a curse. They point out that cheap fuel for industrial transport has meant the average packaged salad has travelled 1,500 miles before it gets to a supermarket shelf.
"'Distance is now an enemy,' said Professor Bill McKibben, author of the 1989 climate-change classic The End of Nature. 'There's no question that the days of thoughtless driving are done.'
"The worst hit parts of the US are not yet the suburbs or the freeways of southern California, but the small towns that dot the Great Plains, Appalachia and the rural Deep South. Even more than the Inland Empire, people in these isolated and poor areas are reliant on cheap petrol and much less able to afford the new prices at the pump. Stories abound of agricultural workers unable to afford to get to the fields and of rural businesses going bust. "
Whole piece here.
Britons used to being squashed on trains and buses cannot avoid a touch of schadenfreude in their attitude towards the US experience but it certainly is true that an inability to travel will have an effect on the modern American mind.
Back in the UK this week, on a short trip, I am reminded again how spacious America feels, uncrowded, and un-hemmed in.
But if you cannot move from your small town there is a risk that you will become very bitter and turn to religion and guns and public transport. Except that there isn't any public transport.
Only a few years ago I covered the ending of the rural Greyhound bus service in parts of Texas - I wonder if it'll be back?
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I think this is broadly right: the whole idea of mass economies of scale was built around cheap fuel; whilst far too much of US agriculture uses petroleum based fertilisers as well, which will also impact on the cost of food.
The next swing up on the economy may well be led by regional chains that 'think small and local', and the US has to think again about the train networks that now are freight only.
Tulsa, for instance, still has its grand old railway station downtown, but it is no longer used. Instead of trying to put the whole network back together at once, it may help to focus on regional high-speed networks. California has a propisition on the ballot in November; and Obama and the Dems should be thinking about extending the North-East Acela corridor down into Virginia and North Carolina if they want to make those states permanently competitive. There should probably be a Texas high-speed network linking to its neighbouring states, but big oil may disapprove of that unless they can be persuaded there are advantages.
The airlines won't like this either and they will try and promote themselves as the alternative they are not. It is important that Obama resists that temptation and instead focuses on upgrading the present rail infrastructure. McCain, sadly, is anti-Amtrak: the Dems ought to make more of that fact.
Complain about this comment
A hearty AMEN! To you Justin and to you Markfromoxford.
I have lived in the rural south. We had to drive over 100 miles for groceries. We only did this every other month, relying on our garden for fresh produce. I have returned to the Southwest and there are a lot of problems with distance here as well. I do what I can to conserve. I am fortunate to mostly only fill my car once a month.
The rail road must be renewed as a means of transportation. When I was young, people could take trains and buses nearly everywhere.
In my parent's generation there were many people in the US, who in their whole lives, had never been more than 50 miles from the towns that they lived in. I hope we don't have to return to this because it breeds insularity and xenophobia. This kind of thinking has not been good for us.
This country is perfectly capable of sustainability and self sufficiency. Many people are already doing this. My family have also been doing this for years. We try not to waste. We garden organically. Our mantra has always been 'walk softly on the earth.' We try to 'eat locally and think globally'.
I feel very hopeful, not because of any particular political candidate but because we have had to face a serious WAKE UP call in this country and I think that many of us are up to the task.
It is time that we stopped whining and started being grateful for our many blessings. It is time that we harnessed that so called 'American Ingenuity' and started to get the job done. We can't rely on politicians. We have got to do some work, people! I believe we can.
I have already recommended this web site but I will keep doing it until at least one person posts and says they have done it.
GO TO: eattheview.org
Vote to put a vegetable garden on the White House grounds. It's a SYMBOLIC MESSAGE, dear good people.
Are we just consumers or are we producers? This is a beautiful fertile country, in more ways than one. We have the power to change, to learn from our mistakes, to recreate our reality into something that we can all take pride in.
Complain about this comment
I grew up in a small town whose proximity to civilization is measured by hours of driving time to the nearest Walmart.
Sure it's tough for country folk, but we aren't about to give up the independance of driving where and when we want, for the bus and rail schedules of the nearest metropolis.
I have travelled across the United States several times using a variety of methods including driving, flying, riding the rails and the bus, and the way I prefer, despite the cost, is to drive.
Who know if I'll I have the sam attitude when gas is $8 a gallon.
Complain about this comment
Justin, just when I think you are the only reasonable European who does not go around parroting that we Americans are all fat, gun-toting and religious freaks you come and say that the gas prices will turn anyone in a small town into a bible-thumping cowboy.
Many of us in small towns like the feeling of not being crowded, of being by family and many of us are college educated and beyond. The suburbanite who has an hour and a half commute to New York for work has the same problem, will they also morph into this stereotypical beast? Seems to me you are fallen under the Obama mantra of "small-town bitter Americans".
Complain about this comment
Sandra (5), I think Justin's tongue was firmly in his cheek with that comment.
Such a pity, after all the hard work Matt Groening and Jon Stewart have put into debunking the myth that Americans have no sense of humour...
Complain about this comment
Sandrasoto
Small town Americans are the heart of this country. There is a connection and a value system in smaller communities that is more difficult to achieve (but not impossible) in urban environments.
I am weary of this 'bitterness' thing. I think that most of the bitterness comes from our sense of betrayal. Our leaders failed to exhibit even a fractional amount of the integrity held by most Americans. We've been lied to, fear tactics have been utilized to limit our inclination to question the government and speak out.
Complain about this comment
Let me start by saying that as a septuagenarian I find the contrast between John McCain and Obama painful to watch. McCain's persona and ideas represent the past, and in many ways deserve respect as they illustrate the experiences that we gain throughout our lives. Obama exudes the confidence, enthusiasm and energy characteristic of a young person, and while his vision of the future may not address every single issue important to us it is evident that he has a better grasp on what is best for our country in the long run than the short term solutions offered by McCain.
Changes in our lifestyle are a pre-requisite to overcome the energy crisis we are currently enduring. Unfortunately, the size of our country, and its vast open spaces and rural countryside, make it impossible for those living in remote areas to avoid their dependence on vehicles. That should not be the case for people living in cities and towns where public transportation must improve and where people should stop driving to stores two blocks away.
Complain about this comment
It's an urban problem too, especially for cities designed for cars, like LA. I lived there for about 7 years and soon discovered that buses are only used by those who can't afford to buy a a used jalopy for $200 (which I did soon after arriving). At one point, I commuted daily from my flat near the UCLA campus, where I was a student, to a job near the Coliseum on the other side of town. Taking the freeways most of the way, it was a 30-minute drive. I wonder how people with long commutes - especially those with low-paying jobs, including students - are faring in LA these days?
Complain about this comment
Webb raises a fundamental point about the economic/social/psychological change implied by high petrol costs.
Some guidance might be had by reviewing what that situation was in America around 1850 (before petrol).
Were the evangelizing religious the only ones concerned with global matters?
Certainly, there was imperialism.
Perhaps an historian could offer some comment?
Complain about this comment
More funding is needed for Amtrak. I would definitely use it more often between cities if it ran more often. A week or so ago I was reading that Amtrak has received about $30 billion in federal aid in the last thirty+ years for its intercity train service, yet just a few weeks ago Bear Stearns received a bail out of around $30 billion. It doesn't seem right to me.
Complain about this comment
Ref #8
I also lived and worked in California and the Washington DC area and, like you, I had no choice but to drive to work. In the DC area it took me about one hour to commute to and from work, even though the distance between my house and the NASA facility where I worked was just 22 miles. The reason for the long drive was not distance, but traffic congestion. What I find troubling on this issue is why can local governments in London, Paris, Madrid, or Tokyo build such efficient public transportation systems and we can't? Why can the Netherlands build such a magnificent levy system and the best we can do is build pathetic dirt and concrete walls that can not withstand the ravages of nature? Could it be that while we spend $600B a year on defense most countries are focusing on improvements to their infrastructure and the well being of their people? Considering our economic dependence on global markets, abandoning our military stance is unrealistic, but perhaps we should reconsider future crusades and limit our actions to truly
defensive initiatives, while focusing our energies and resources on improving our economy, industrial and technological might, healthcare and education systems, and our crumbling infrastructure. BTW, in my opinion, both Republican and Democratic Administrations share responsibility for most of the problems we are currently having. The biggest difference between the two is mostly in style rather than substance.
Complain about this comment
Just some thoughts:
1. The U.S. -- all of the Americas -- certainly are spacious compared to the UK, especially to anyone in England's southeast. But, I've always thought that a traveler in the UK will see more real changes in fewer milles than in the U.S. Maybe it isn't so apparent to the locals.
2. Viewed by an American, the UK's mass transit system is wonderful. But, an awful lot of cars are still on the roads every day. Where are they going?
3. Urban areas in the U.S. lack effective mass transit systems because voters refuse to pass the measures that would increase their taxes to build and subsidize them. Conservatives, of course, argue that any transit system that can't be entirely private is a sin against Adam Smith.
Complain about this comment
As others have mentioned, driving equals independence in the US. When you're commuting, buses are inconsistent, biking is dangerous (yeah, including motorcycles), walking is impractical, and trains are virtually nonexistent. From an individual perspective, driving is still optimal.
It would be nice to have reliable public transport in this country, but that's not what we're investing in as a society. We've decided that bombing and then reconstructing other countries is more important than maintaining and upgrading our own country. This is American government logic.
Oh, and by the way our roads and bridges are falling apart too and need a major overhaul.
Complain about this comment
Justin, just when I think you are the only reasonable European who does not go around parroting that we Americans are all fat, gun-toting and religious freaks you come and say that the gas prices will turn anyone in a small town into a bible-thumping cowboy.
sorry mate but I think you missed the joke.
Complain about this comment
auqua girl. I did go to the site, as someone concerned with this issue since i started reading about it 25 years ago in economist science pages, i have followed much of the green wave.(or lack of so far)
our garden is a hectic mix of vegies and flowering plants and Lawn is my enemy.
talking to an old timer here yesterday he said when he was a kid they all had a car and a trailer to move stuff around. now they have a pick up to do the same thing , but when not moving stuff around they just waste gas.
electric cars wrok.
ignoreance is not the same as knowledge .
I do not have to prove it to yuo.
Maybe Justin who gets paid to be a journalist could do an expose on GM and how they killed their electric car project.
How that very car could certainly serve the cities for their transport and be providing jobs TODAY in the mid west.
(maybe not you country folk but we'de be saving so much in the city so as to off set the rural areas)
here is the oppertunity.
Go check up on the electric vehicle.
talk of unenvironmentally friendly action, the cars they had leased were all crushed and shredded.
because??
they worked , customers liked them, they saved co2 and left cleaner city air.
"Who killed the electric car."
featured on bill moyers once because he thought it worth our time, just to remind you'll.
Complain about this comment
Most seem to agree that bombing places does not provide the solutions we need. good were, on the way.
Complain about this comment
Born in NYC, raised in Pennsylvania, mid schooled on Long Island, Air Force and Texas, union carpenter in Reno Nevada for ten years to return to Texas thirteen years ago. Point, I have seen more in fifty years of the United States and the world than my Parents did in Eighty. My Step-father never left Pennsylvania or traveled farther than one hundred miles from home prior to his passing at Seventy four. He would tell me the pictures I had of the Sierras were backdrops, same as used in the T.V.show Bonanza. I could write a book about this Pennsylvania farmer, his beliefs, perceptions and yes, his dream to travel that couldn't be obtained due to the lack of money as much as desire.
Gasoline and the Automobile became comonplace in the 1920's in cities, but travel and cargo would stay with the train till the fifties with the construction of the interstate system. At that point trucking became more economical, quicker via direct shipping, and the rail system suffered. Twenty years ago my brother that was a trucker for life said the rail was the future and local shipping would be commonplace. I thought he was crazy.
It won't be the government that starts a bus line or builds the rail line, it will be investors and the marketplace. With ridership up and no end in sight for soaring fuel prices, we can expect rail service to expand, bus service like greyhound once again to service the smaller communities. I wonder though if rural communities with malls and big outlet centers will survive as up to 50% of the budget will be used on travel to and from.
'Cheaper to shop next door at Walgreens rather than travel to Walmart.' Doug
Complain about this comment
'Cheaper to shop next door at Walgreens rather than travel to Walmart.' Doug
I'll second Doug on this motion.
Complain about this comment
Having grown up in one of those small towns in the US, (western Pennsylvania, the northern end of Applachia), I KNOW that they have always been bitter and do indeed turn to religion and guns for comfort. To say otherwise is ignoring the facts to be PC. But even those don't do much to help, considering how many churchs split because "them people" don't believe like "us". I was part of a church that did just that.
The rural folks in the US are hypocrites in that they want the help but not the laws. They think that taxation is the ultimate evil but they complain when their volunteer fire department can't save their barn or the state police takes an hour to respond. And now they'll take a fit over the price of fuel and blame anyone but themselves. To paraphrase Mel Brooks, these people are simple farmers, the common clay, and yes, they are largely willfully ignorant morons.
Complain about this comment
where Did all america's trolly busses go ?
Eugene had one.
GM bought it and turned it into a bus company.
The executives that brought us so many of th great lies of the 20th centuary should be on trial. Same with all past presidents with the exception of Carter ,who actually tried.
But no many still complain abut environmentalists rather than the industry leaders that did not want to change , that had no vision.
That threw away every oppertunity put infront of them.
DC said in an earlier debate that legislation is needed.
now here in front of you all humble pie time.
Your right.
It was legislation that got GM and Ford (and the others) to start the electric car programs and when that was watered down, they stopped, killed the projects.
Went on to Hummers with big Tax breaks.
2000 was a promising time. there was hope. 8 years later we are trying to grab some hope back.
Good luck.
Ride a Bus, grow a garden, and check out the electric car movie. I thought it would be crap. it wasn't it was Quite informative.
Complain about this comment
#10: I agree: special interests and well funded friends get support when they neeed it, Amtrak does not; to your list you can add the bail out of the airlines post 9/2001.
#11. Eight years ago that defence budget was $300B ... I'm sure you can compare the increase against inflation as well as I; cutting it back is going to be the hard part.
#12. Sure no-one wants to pay for mass transport, but one day soon it will be mass transport or no transport for a lot of people: they have to face up to the fact that none of this comes for free, so it is better to start now then never.
#13. The challenge is not simply to make driving less optimal, but to ensure that rail, in particular, serves the public better. I have travelled a lot by rail in the US, mainly up and down the NE corridor and on subways; though I have gone from Charlottesville to Chicago, and from DC to New Orleans (pre-Katrina) and back; and I've used the LA metro. There is much that could be done, swiftly and cheaply. There is no reason, for instance, why Pittsburgh-Philadelphia should not have a regular high speed track with several trains a day. When I investigated whether I could make a quick two day trip, the timetable was absurd and there was only one train. There is no excuse for this: at that distance, it should be faster to go by train than to fly (given the extra time you have to spend getting to and from, or at the airport). Similarly, Charlottesville should be forty, not ninety, minutes by train from DC. What the Dems need to understand is that there is a real benefit to them in making these improvements: deepening the catchment area of DC further south will shift Virginia more firmly their way.
As for improving the roads and bridges, I'm going to sound very English (in fact I'm from NZ) and say that it should be paid for by a further increase in the gas tax. Gas, even at the price it now is, is far too cheap in the US. The trouble with the US is that it wants cars and roads, but is not prepared to pay the true cost involved: the roads are supposed to come free, or be paid for out of other budgets; they should be paid for by those who use them through the fuel they use: that would encourage greater fuel efficiency more quickly than anything else. However, it will be a brave politician who has the courage to do what is right rather then what is convenient.
Complain about this comment
I think cycling is very efficient to move around the city, but as people have mentioned, it's not safe. Certainly, there should be more incentives and protections to cycle, take this case for example, a cyclist was killed by a driver downloading a ring tone to her phone. The punishment (for killing the cyclist)? Six months probation without reporting to an officer, $1,000 fine and traffic safety school.
http://chicagoist.com/2006/12/05/for_whom_the_ring_tones.php
Complain about this comment
What is wrong with guns and religion? While I am not religious I do like the right to own firearms.
Complain about this comment
Some forty-five years ago, having just returned from my first visit to New York, I was introduced to a member of the Board of the world's largest oil company. We discussed the price of petrol, that in the US being so very much cheaper than in the UK. He told me that since Britons could afford it, then Americans would be able to do so as well. The same probably holds true today - British fuel is far more costly than that in the US. Even so, great numbers of (UK) commuters eschew public transportation. I have an acquaintance who occasionally has to go to London, a forty-five mile journey, but who will not use the train and prefers to drive because she is not jostled or bothered by other passengers. There is still a certain novelty about being independent in Britain since America has had general private transportation far longer. Henry Ford made it possible for "everyone" to have an automobile. The postwar years cemented the relationship between man and machine at a time when Britons were still dealing with rationing and national bankruptcy. Admittedly the 'land yachts' of yesteryear have vanished in the wake of the oil embargo in 1973-74 but Americans cling to their old habits. Detroit is not about to collapse but will, of necessity, introduce vehicles which are either far more economical or do not use any oil-based fuel. It was California which led the way in demanding high emissions standards and catalytic converters and will likely do the same with fuel-efficient vehicles. Meanwhile, they will - as do the British - dig deeper into their pockets in order to retain their vehicular independence.
Complain about this comment
We here in the US have been taught and encouraged to use as much fossil fuel as possible. Even today, the US government's answer to the energy crisis is "find more oil", not conservation and change. The passenger rail system here is nothing short of third world, having been suppressed and virtually destroyed 50 years ago by the automobile/oil giants.
Unbridled consumption has become part of our culture, and I believe that will take a generation to change. I find it fascinating that everyone is suddenly talking "green" now that the well is running dry.
Complain about this comment
>>"... driving equals independence in the US..."
That's silly. There's much more to personal independence than jumping in a car and going somewhere.
We are, in fact, slaves to our cars. We work to pay off car loans, buy gas, and pay insurance. We waste hours every week in traffic congestion. Find a way to live without a car and you'll have a lot more money and tmie.
Complain about this comment
jcjnyc (#25):
The well isn't running dry for oil and the supply run out won't for at least 200 more years even if you take into account the rising consumption of oil in India and China.
The price of fuel has been artificially raised by Dubya and Darth Cheney's cronies in the oil refinery business.
Complain about this comment
I've been 'talking green' for over 50 years!
Complain about this comment
My goodness this conversation gives me hope. It's remarkable how much less depressing it is to directly address a problem and seek solutions.
Trains are the way to go. Awhile back due to a long distance relationship I frequently commuted between Boston and New Jersey. I started with the bus (the least expensive), then used a car, the train and planes. Ended up using the train without question the least tiring most productive way to travel. The more rural communities could more easily be serviced by trains as it would be a lot easier to lay tracks than in large sprawling suburbs. If we could only get some of the weapons manufactorers to develop an interest in mass transit instead of military hardware...
I know this is not true for everyone but despite affluence, my quality of life is not superior to that of my grandparents who lived in a simpler time but had rich lives.
Complain about this comment
Wow! We're actually discussing an important
issue, as opposed to political appearances!
While I do believe that we have reached a
tipping point with regard to public attitudes
towards mass transit, and hope to see some
high speed rail occur, I don't think that our
love affair with the automobile and personal
mobility is over just yet.
It's not just a matter of geography. Personal
mobility is too integral a piece of the American
psyche to be thrown out.
During the 1970's, we had an even more dire
situation, where our oil was cut off, not just
made expensive, and 55mph speed limits were
introduced. At first, these were said to be
"temporary" emergency measures. But then,
the Democrats made them permanent,
even after the emergency was over, over
safety grounds. They even went as far as
to ban the convertible on the same grounds.
These and other excesses resulted in the
Reagan revolution in 1980.
We're a little bit different than Europeans,
in that we are logical positivists. The average
person in the street will not know what this
means, and, rigorously, it is not even
correct. But, that doesn't really matter very
much. Basically, deep down, we believe that
we can solve any technological problem.
While I know that this may sound horribly
naive to Europeans reading this, it happens
to be one of our core beliefs.
Americans are by nature technological optimists.
If we have to reinvent the automobile so
that it runs on electricity generated by solar
power or windmills, we'll do it. If we have
to invent fusion reactors, or beam power
down from orbit, we'll do it. If we have to
invent a room-temperature superconductor
or pump a lot of water around to distribute
power, we'll do it.
We don't believe in limits, except those
posed by lack of human imagination
and poor choices.
So, we have a choice. We can continue to
spend all of the money on the planet building
aircraft carriers, or we can invest in the
technology and infrastructure that we need
to get out of the age of oil.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which
Obama and McCain differ on how to provide
energy independence. I'll bet that they are
both smart enough not to want to go back to
the past; the question is, which one can
provide a vision that gets us across the threshold
to the future?
Complain about this comment
By the way, I love the "low-info" piece. Now,
we know why Bush won over Gore. It wasn't
over a few hanging punch-card chads in
Florida. It was a little old retired lady in
curlers, sitting in front of her tv on her plastic-
covered couch, eating some unhealthy food,
who didn't like Al Gore because he reminded
her of her 8th grade science teacher.
Complain about this comment
Even in those areas of the US with slightly better mass transit (I'm from Seattle), we still need a lot of work. I hope we can come together to build a mass transit system that not only services each state and local group adequately, but can also serve for cross-country trips. It is long past time to retire the individual automobile and the attitudes that accompany it and remember what it means to work together for the common good.
Complain about this comment
For coping mechanisms, Americans can watch and learn from those fellow Americans who do not have cars and have learned to live without . Follow a low-income worker in a large city as he waits to squeeze into a friend's auto that already has 6 people in it - in order to be dropped off near a job site; or watch a mother and daughter who live "way out" in the country try to get to a doctor's appointment in the nearby city - 30 miles away - by waking up at 4AM - catching a friend's carride and then looking for a place in the city to stay overnight because there is no ride until the next day - watch and learn -
Complain about this comment
America's love affair with the car is not an obsession with the vehicle itself, but what it represents: freedom of mobility. If the combustion engine had never been built we'd be talking about America's love affair with the horse (Those amnish folks love there buggies...)
Complain about this comment
A significant amount of our defense budget could be diverted to domestic programs, such as mass transit and improvements to our infrastructure, that would not only improve our quality of life but would create badly needed employment opportunities. Savings on defense could be realized, without detriment to our security, by prioritizing expenditures to areas where they are truly needed, instead of spending huge amounts of money on items that are no longer needed simply to keep our arms industry alive. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Russia's and China's decision to focus on industrial and technological development and the well being of their citizens, the USA is the indisputable military superpower with enough weaponry to destroy much of the planet. If the warnings made by the Bush Administration are true and the most pressing threat comes from Islamic militants, our focus should be on intelligence and rapid deployment commando forces trained and equipped to confront that threat, rather than armies designed for conventional warfare.
On the issue of investment in mass transit and infrastructure, while it is easy to blame politicians for their lack of focus on domestic needs and their failure to come up with an effective energy policy, let's not forget that their policies reflect our refusal to pay higher taxes to finance badly needed improvements in infrastructure and services. Even a hint of raising taxes is a death sentence for any politician in the US. Ironically, we don't bat an eye when those politicians decide to pay for the services that we purportedly need by borrowing from foreigners and mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. One of our top priorities when deciding who to vote for in November should be fiscal responsibility; unfortunately, that's not a priority for the "me" generation.
Complain about this comment
#30Gunsandreligion
WOW! is right. You said it all and very well, as usual. That optimistic core belief may be what saves us. That and taking individual responsibility and initiative for making changes in our own lifestyles. We can't wait for the politicians.
It will be interesting to see how our candidates address these issues or even if the are willing to take a stand.
Complain about this comment
#35Dominickvila
Well stated. I agree and have said in prior posts that a 50 cent or more raise in federal gas taxes(I would gladly pay) would serve to pay for improving infrastructure. Would we rather enrich the coffers of oil companies or invest in a better future?
There is no free lunch, folks! The hard truth is that we will have to pay higher taxes to get us out of this quagmire. I agree that politicians are very shy about this subject because 'we the people' scream loudly every time the 'T' word is raised. Sometimes I wish we would scream a little louder at other things our leaders do.
Complain about this comment
Economics will drive the solution. It is true that "the days of thoughtless driving are done." People are driving less, and buying fewer gas-guzzling vehicles. High petroleum costs will lead to increased devlopment of alcohol fuels, which will be used mainly in the farm belt. Urban drivers will switch to fuel cells and all-electric cars. More electric light rail systems, which have been coming back in the U.S. over the past twenty years or so, will be built. Eventually, the U.S. will return to nuclear power generation. That's just my prediction.
These changes won't happen quickly, but we'll get there. The key is economics, not technology. For example, you can buy a Tesla electric sports car today for $100,000 (US). A sedan is on the way for only $60,000. The technology is there, but the price is still much too high. As the price comes down, and the price of petroleum goes up, the market will increasingly favor alternatives to petroleum fuels.
Complain about this comment
#35Dominickvila, #37 Aquagirl,
Sometimes we tend to forget that all of the
infrastructure in this country which was built
prior to about 1930 was funded by private
capital. It would be hard to tell, given
its current state of disrepair, but at one
time we had the most extensive railroad
system in the world.
We had many amusing booms and busts,
but it was private capital that built America.
I'm not proposing that we could go this purely
private route again, but there really is no
need for every piece of infrastructure to be
federally funded. For example, we could
get things built with public/private partnerships.
Here in California, we have a high speed rail
coming on the ballot in November. The problem
is that we have no money with the collapse in
the housing market. Instead of trying to fund
the whole system publicly, we should be
looking at ways that California, the private sector,
and the federal government could work together
to get the job done.
One way would be for the federal government
to guarantee loans made to privately funded
infrastructure projects. This would reduce the
risk of these projects to private investment.
Risk, not cost, is the primary impediment to
infrastructure development.
Complain about this comment
It's hard to imagine a cruder reminder of sneering "elitist" media snottiness than aspersions about "bottom fishing" in the voters' pool or inexplicable disclaimers about it somehow "by definition" not concerning anyone stumbling across this blog. No it "concerns" the proles again, who are always an uneasy source of concern to the elites and their media poodles. In order not to arouse them from their political slumber, the proles must be patronised with denuncitions of "elitists" by those same elitists and their lieges. And they must be pacified and deceived with mass opiates like talk TV and radio and other trashy info-tainment. No, distance is not "the enemy", 'elitist' economic and political policies that create and maintain a sharply class-divided society in America (and the UK) are "the enemy. Obama and McCain who personify these policies are the enemy. The elites will never run out of fuel or be hard pressed to travel any distance, they will always be comfortably provided for. Privations will not be equitably shared throughtout society. But in modern, ultra-sophisticated political PR, you have to make your enemies seem like your friends, so Obama Copacabana and McCharacter have to be "likeable" enough to vote for, even if their politics aren't. So what better place for a pair of low-lifes like Obama and McCain to go "bottom fishing" than on trash TV. But if you cannot move from your small town and you don't want to become too bitter and turn to religion and guns (who else after all would ever take any interest in either) then you can always turn to highbrow souces of enlightenment like the BBC.
Complain about this comment
This blog has some similarities to one on Mark Easton's UK, Basics of Britain. We too are howling that a car, or even two cars, is/are a necessity for many, despite the relatively smaller distances. And yes, we are already paying a lot more for fuel, and it hurts many families struggling with all the other increasing costs, just like Americans.
It isn't only the US which has wide open spaces with no public transport. Rural Scotland and the islands (and I'm sure other areas of the UK) are also starved of links.
Although fortunate to be quite close to the mainland, I still ration myself to quarterly shops with my car because the ferry is expensive, then stock up the freezer.
On the other hand, because it's a small town I can walk to work, the library, the doctor, the dentist, local shops, the farmers' market, so there are benefits I didn't have when I lived in rich, well-served Sussex with a 70-mile commute each way.
But it's easy for me - I don't have to take two or three kids under five to the supermarket and then haul them as well as the shopping up the long steep hills here.
Geography doesn't have to be big to be a problem.
Complain about this comment
#41, Argy, your point is well-taken. And, of
course, this is not just an American problem.
One of the things that we are likely to see
is an increase in telecommuting via the
Internet. It obviously can't be applied in
every line of work, but the trend will surely
accelerate.
Complain about this comment
I live in a town with a pretty good mass transit system that is continually on the brink of bankruptcy due to low ridership. I live one block from a trolley and two from a bus stop, which enables me to enjoy my daily commute with the aid of a good book and/or iPod.
Despite this, most of my and my wife's co-workers think we are insane for only having one car and using it as little as possible. We in turn think they are insane for devoting such large portions of their pay to fueling gas-guzzling behemoths. I have friends in the country who need trucks and SUVs for their farms of course, but they make little sense in a traffic-choked city.
Complain about this comment
Both octogenarians, my wife and I agree that we lived in the best of times, when people were not so materialistic, when just about everything was not made in China, when the Greyhound bus was a familiar sight on the highways, and when railways were in their heyday.
Oh happy days!
Complain about this comment
Ref #39
Our railroad system was, indeed, built with private capital, but our Interstate Highway System was built mostly during the Eisenhower Administration in the mid 1950s with Federal funds. Since private industry does not seem to be too interested in investing in energy efficient cars and mass transit systems it is up to our Federal government to provide leadership and investment, if necessary.
Complain about this comment
For purposes of scale, I note that this week, 92 octane (premium) in my Seattle suburb is exactly at the cost of the same product four years ago in Ireland. I knew it was coming; just not exactly when. Americans are whinging, but honestly, most western countries have higher prices. Our taxes are MUCH lower. We just have to quit driving for fun. Gone are the days of the aimless "Sunday Drive" with no particular destination in mind. That is a relic of my youth. Fortunately, I live where I can get an express bus to work. I've been doing that for the past 15 years.
Complain about this comment
Going for a walk in the UK (say, for an hour and barring a town centre) one is unlikely to pass more than a few people but a thousand cars will whizz by one. Obviously if one takes public transport it will by its very nature be crowded - the service wouldn't exist otherwise. Competition/capitalism/ rules of the game.
Complain about this comment
Gunsandreligion and Domnickvila
I agree with both of you. Private funding will not do it all nor can we count on the government alone to fix our infrastructure. It will have to be a partnership. What about asking everyone in the US to contribute one dollar to get the ball rolling? Just a thought.
Nobelfloridian
Me too! I loved riding the train.
Complain about this comment
Combines, harvesters and tractors are expensive to operate. I have read that farmers in many areas are pooling resources to buy fuel in bulk for a better price. They are also sharing equipment and working together to get the crops in.
This was the way it was done on our farm when I was a child. People shared labor and worked together. We need to get out of agribiz. I think we need to, not just preserve our remaining family farms, but encourage an expansion in this area.
Complain about this comment
Gasoline prices in Europe may be much higher than those in the U.S. because of additional taxes for government services which we lack, such as public health care. Is this the case? If so, what is the comparison when normalized for taxes?
Complain about this comment
#50
If only the taxes went towards public services. Or roads. Or renewable energy.
If only!
Complain about this comment
#50Garyahill
Good question!
Complain about this comment
The discussion above about General Motors killing the electric car is not wrong, but irrelevant. This is ancient history by technological standards, and the people involved are long gone.
In an era of cheap and plentiful petroleum, petroleum-based transportation made sense. It was, as the saying goes, good for the country and for General Motors. Now hybrid and all-electric cars are coming back because the economics and technology are beginning to favor them (we're not there yet, however). I expect that GM will be a significant participant in whatever technologies replace the gasoline engine.
Complain about this comment
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have already been tried for funding for updating London transport systems, by the way, as well as other national services.
Any Londoners want to volunteer info on how it works for you?
Complain about this comment
Telecommuting: #52 g'n'r
Well, yes, it's bound to increase, but it won't help those in manufacturing industries.
And it has other limitations: those who work in their own homes can become isolated, while local hubs have been tried here but weren't very successful. Maybe it will be tried again with more success now there is a greater incentive.
If it's your own business, you are very dependent on phone lines - no lines, no money - and if it's a company you work for, ditto.
Plus lone workers tend to lose out on other things like health benefits, holidays . . . spoiled, aren't we?
Complain about this comment
#55, Argy, I believe that the greatest impediment
to its adoption is fear by management that they
are "losing control," even in industries, such
as software where the product is an intangible
thing.
There is always a problem with that kind of thing,
and it won't work in every kind of job or with
every organization. I'm just saying that the
incentives to try it out are greater now than
they have been for some time.
Complain about this comment
aquarizonagal wrote:
Gunsandreligion and Domnickvila
I agree with both of you. Private funding will not do it all nor can we count on the government alone to fix our infrastructure. It will have to be a partnership. What about asking everyone in the US to contribute one dollar to get the ball rolling? Just a thought.
Nobelfloridian
Tou are assuming the govt can be responsible in it's use.
Unfourntaly giving the govt (state or local) more money is like giving an acholic a bottle or schoch every day
Complain about this comment
#57, MagicKirin, I agree, there has to be
accountability. What would happen if
we hanged executives and politicians that
ran off with other people's money, instead
of giving them "golden parachutes?"
Better yet, let's rewrite the bankruptcy bill
that this congress enacted which exempts
rich people.
I know that this might be an objectionable
sentiment to some, that no thief imagines
that they are going to get caught, and that
this will not deter capital theft.
But, just imagine the look on their eyes when
they do get caught!
Complain about this comment
#39 gunsandreligion
"For example, we could
get things built with public/private partnerships."
Here in the UK we have been using this method of 'financing' for schools and hospitals amongst other things . It is just now that the enormity of the mistake of this method is becoming apparent . The bottom line is you get a lot less for a lot more cost - and your local authority may never get to own it . In particular regarding the NHS the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are eschewing this method of financing. We have a few toll bridges and only one toll road - the M6 Toll - which is empty most of the time . No British driver can see the point in paying twice for the road . We all pay a Vehicle Excise Licence to enable us to put our cars etc. on the road - this was originally supposed to pay for the roads - new and old so why pay twice ?. We have witnessed the disintegration of a once cheap and integrated transport system on the altar of making it pay - i.e. someone makes a profit . The whole essence of a public transport system is that it is a public service and not a cash cow for a few. So if you want decent transport systems ( transit ) then the public purse must be used and subsidies utilised.
Complain about this comment
#56 g'n'r
Point taken. Basically I'm in agreement, just that there are no easy answers and every option has its own set of new issues.
Complain about this comment
Although I was a firm 'Yank-o-phile' before my Brother married and moved to the US, certain characteristics apparent in the nation as a whole do grate.
I finally found one word which seems to sum up America quite well: 'Extravagant'.
It applies in their use of natural resources precious in many other countries, and definitely in the future; their use of space; their hospitality; their provision of food; their vehicles; their use of Force - I could go on.
This is definitely a case of a British pot calling the US kettle 'black' (after all, we provided the lead historically), but America takes extravagance to new levels.
Complain about this comment
#57 What about asking everyone in the US to contribute one dollar to get the ball rolling? Just a thought
OK, this is just about London transport. One city's transport system: already quite well served, but badly in need of upgrading. This is the National Audit Office report on the PPPs so far; check pages 6-7 on figures and accountability.
www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/0304644.pdf
Complain about this comment
You know, there is a candidate that would address most of the concerns expressed in this blog: need to repair infrastructure, revive the rails, develop alternative energy, reduce dependence on oil, discourage corporate corruption, etc. etc. You probably know which candidate it is, and you probably won't vote for him anyways.
Complain about this comment
Someone (I can't remember their name) wanted comments from London, well I'm 200 miles north.
Our diesel price is £1.31 per litre which is $5.59 per gallon, petrol (gas) is cheaper by 15p (30cents).
Housing - for a 3 bedroom semi-detatched (2 houses joined together) between £150,000 ($300,000) and £300,00 ($600,000). In the south house prices are very much higher especially the closer you get to London.
Our train service has had billions and billions of pounds poured into it over some 10-15 years. It has improved marginally for all this investment. More and more peope use the service and now it cannot cope, it needs new everything, new routes, stations and especially carriages, some date back to 1947 but have been revamped on the old chassis. The coach service (to me) does not seem to have changed much, still there - cheaper than the train, obviously takes longer but consistant.
We have a minimum wage which increases yearly £5.52 ($11.00).
We don't have any local shops nowadays, the supermarkets have driven them out of business, butchers, fruiterers, green grocers, hardware, grocers are very rarely found. For the most part the quality of the supermarket instore bakery and butchers is poor. Now our pubs (bars) are closing not helped by cheap beer sold in the supermarkets - do I hate supermarkets- I'm getting there.
Complain about this comment
NOTE: I'm splitting up this post because it's being rejected for profanity. There is none, but perhaps I can determine what is setting the BBC's automatic filter off.
re: #57
I don't believe the government will be the source for any solutions.
The Fed gov't and the states already get a small fortune in gas taxes (all required by law to go to transportation infrastructure and the like) - the feds and most states simply roll the gas tax money into the general funds and then cry that there's no money available for transportation infrastructure. And you want to raise the gas tax? Ha!
The gov't is a major part of the problem. For example, anyone with an iota of common sense realizes that nuke subs with the newest MIRV warhead missiles don't help very much in battling the "terrorist threat" (called by many to be the defining threat to the US in a generation), yet Congress spends billions annually to build more nuke subs in order to keep the defense industries in the states of powerful Congressmen happy. (In the case of the subs, it's Lieberman and Connecticut, but it's the same all over.)
Complain about this comment
part 2
It's not just Congress, but the state legislatures, as well, and government employees at all levels. For example, not too long ago, while California was going through (another) budget crisis, the judges threatened to bring the court system to a halt if new court buildings did not include real walnut paneling in their chambers instead of "fake" walnut which would have been an order of magnitude cheaper. They said "fake" walnut did not demonstrate sufficient respect for them and demeaned the dignity of the judiciary.
Complain about this comment
part 3
In LA county, the supervisors vote themselves office redecoration allowances of 75 thousand (or more) a year, yet the county cannot afford to pay for "critical" services. Of course, the supervisors complain when the public refuses to approve tax increases.
Nickels and dimes, certainly, but they add up. Government thinks of itself as the masters, and they demand to be treated as such - the interests of the people are only a tertiary or lower consideration.
Any American who honestly believes the government can be counted on to actually improve things for the benefit of the people, rather than for the benefit of the gov't, isn't living on the same planet as the rest of us. Any amelioration or solution to the problems this country faces will come in spite of, not because of, the government. Government will hop on board whatever bandwagon will result in perpetuation of their power and privileges.
Complain about this comment
It's quite ironic, that people who urge "acting locally" on transportation issues, often want to rely on the federal government build and maintain transportation networks. Relying on federal taxation and largesse to support "local" needs is a self defeating contradiction.
Much of reason for the demise of US passenger rail for short and intermediate distance travel, was due to federal government financial support for the interstate highway system, and to laws and regulations that hobbled exiting rail network operations in favor of the automobile.
Long distance passenger rail was of course put out of business by air travel. But short and intermediate distance rail can come back, if travelers are forced to pay the true (non taxpayer subsidized) cost of highway travel (e.g. via toll roads), and if laws obstructing the development and operation of passenger rail (e.g. the Amtrak monopoly) are repealed.
Complain about this comment
#62Argylljenny
Thanks for that site. I will check it out. It is really good to get so many different perspectives.
Complain about this comment
#45: I believe that many railroads in the U.S. were given rights to several miles of land either side of the track, thereby providing a large and very effective subsidy.
Complain about this comment
John in Yorkshire - you might like to know that in 1950 we paid 1,038 pounds for our 3-bedroom semi-detached in Birmingham. In searching the real estate prices in the same road we find that that house fetches around 140,000 pounds today! How ridiculous is that?
Oh for the good old days, eh?
Complain about this comment
#68: Very good reasons exist to doubt that passenger railroad service can be profitable.
Complain about this comment
re: #72 justcorbly
You're missing the whole point.
At one dollar per gallon gas prices, they're not. At 100 dollar per gallon gas prices, they will almost certainly make a worthwhile profit.
Somewhere between those gas price values is a break-even point at which the change-over makes sense. I don't know what that price point is, but you may be quite certain that people in the railroad industry are already doing analyses to figure it out and are preparing to act once it makes sense for them.
Complain about this comment
I see no reason why small town America need suffer from high gas or food prices - the very fact that people know each other and are comfortable socializing together makes it easier for them to set up car-sharing, ride-sharing, biodiesel coops, local transit services, DIY electric car conversion clubs, and Victory Gardens.
This is what America is GOOD at - improvising, making do, and being positive in the face of a challenge.
It's the more impersonal suburbs where there are weak social links that people may have trouble adapting, simply because they don't know their neighbors.
There are a host of solutions to these problems; all we need to do is declare open season on on whining, blaming, and complaining, and switch to a more positive attitude.
America's first settlers would never have left Europe if they had used their energy to complain about things, instead of deciding to do something.
Complain about this comment
?But if you cannot move from your small town there is a risk that you will become very bitter and turn to religion and guns and public transport. Except that there isn't any public transport.?
My God Justin!! What?s happened to you!! Your past two entries have contained some of the most offensive, steriotipical, presumptive commentary I?ve read!!! I used to think that you were one of the few remaining foreigners whom when it came to observing and commenting on America/Americans, was fair minded, respectful and objective-and who?s commentary I respected greatly, and agreed with 95% of the time!! I used to think that when you criticized this country/its people, that the criticism was correct, fair, based on fact, and justly deserved!! But now I?m beginning to rethink my position; which I find very sad indeed!!! It seems that one of the last few fair minded respectful Europeans (on this cite at least!!!) has sucome to the noise of so many of the negative stereotypical, unkind, hate filled, insulting, hurtful foreigners?s thoughts of America/Americans!!! I expected this sort of thing from others (as stated above) but you? This is shocking beyond words!! I used to be a faithful reader of this blog, but I may have to cut back on it somewhat, for fear of what I might read next!!
Obama, when he made the ?guns and religion? statement, didn?t mean what you appear to have ment when you wrote what you wrote, and I think you know that!!! I think he merely ment that people who become disalusioned with their government often turn to more reliable things/people/beliefs! It is a fact that in many small towns in America a lot of people do own guns and/or are religious, so naturally if this theory holds true they are going to turn to such things/beliefs!!! In short it just ment that many people have lost faith in government, not that people who must grapple with poor public transportation become bitter and get guns to threaten and kill!!! Besides, public transport is good!!! Why would one turning to it make them ?bitter? anyway!? Isn?t that what we?re all striveing for? Isn?t that what everyone around the world (especially politicions) wants their public/families to use more often as a method of commuting? If your theory is correct, if small town Americans, unable to pay for gas/petrol, are forced to turn to public transport, isn?t that welcome? And so there isn?t any public transport now (ashaimidly), because as we (the world, not just America!) always have a habid of doing, back when cars were taking off as the preferred method of commuting, people simply planned for right then and not for the future and didn?t think about the possible problems and pitfalls which future generations may face!!! But that?s not to say people aren?t waking up now, realizing that they made a mistake all those years ago, and franticly trying to fix it, is it? My God Justin! You never used to be this pesimistic!! And for your information, yes the British are better at public transport, but that is I think largely due to the fact that the UK is geographically much smaller than the US, and so it therefore forces people to in affect make painful decisions and sacrifices that they wouldn?t be forced to make otherwise. Now this isn?t to say that the UK, should it have possessed the luxury of the US?s geographical size would?ve acted in much the same way in which the US has-quite the contrary I think not!! I think one would be hard pressed to find people in this world who are more wasteful, selfish, and not thinking and planning for the future than those in the US!! And frankly we?ll never know. But I?m just saying that should the roles have been reversed, I think UK politicions would find it very difficult indeed to get both public transport efficient, and the public to sacrifise and go along with it. And while perhaps they would be undoubtidly better than US politicions at planning ahead and changing with the times, I doubt they would do as well and be as affective as they are today, with a smaller geographical area to work with.
Complain about this comment
Dominick Vila (#11): Could not agree more (well put!!) However how are both parties responsible for focusing on wars instead of problems at home? Could you explain? Of course many Democrats weren't nearly as strong as they should have been in my opinion in demanding answers over Iraq and in not supporting the invation, but aside from that, what do you mean by both parties are just as guilty for not paying attention to, and neglecting our nations crumbling infrastructure?
justcorbley (#12): Thank you! How reassuring! Its nice to know that not one nation has completely solved the public transportation problem, even if some are light years ahead of others in doing so!!
Ralphma (#13): Here here!!!! That's all I can say!! A thousand times here here!
Complain about this comment
peterm99 (#65), regarding submarines, the fact is that the Seawolf class submarine, the U.S. premier cold war attack submarine, was reduced to only three vessels as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union, and ballistic missile submarines have similarly been cut back. The U. S. Navy is transitioning to the new threat environment.
Complain about this comment
Justin, can I bring my guns onto the
(nonexistent) bus, and practice my religion?
Seriously, you should head back to Montana
or some other beautiful spot before you
give up on the States.
Complain about this comment
There's an old saying in politics in the USA that has it that Americans vote their pocketbooks. You'd think the economy in general and gas prices in particular would be front and center with both parties, all candidates but I've had he feeling that among the three of them and the President, none of them has a clue of what to do about it. Very sad. Of the three candidates, the best chance for a good outcome would have been IMO Hillary Clinton because she could have reassembled the team that her husband used to bring prosperity to the US during his administration. But she's out. During the Bush administraton, both the President and Congress were mediocre, in fact poor. How do I know? The DJI and the NASDAQ went nowhere. It seems to me we are in for a very rough ride ahead.
There's another saying that has it that when the US catches cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia. Last time in 2000 when the US economy was facing what turned out to be a minor downturn and short shallow recession, European economists said Europe would be unaffected by the US economy. Well let me tell you except for the UK (thanks to Margaret Thatcher whom so many Brits foolishly hate) Europe's economy tanked and didn't recover until the recession was ancient history in the US. This time I think it will be much worse. The US accounts for 28% of the world's GDP and two thirds of that is consumer spending. Just think of it, one fifth of the world's total economic output is consumed by only 5% of the world's population and when they divert their spending from discretionary imported junk and toys to bread and butter items like food, housing, fuel, utility bills, etc. the rest of the world suffers terribly. That's because the marginal loss of sales to this market is the difference for them between making profits and losing money, often lots of it. And this comes at a time when the price of food and fuel is going up.
I knew the tax rebate wouldn't work. And Obama is right, the tax moratorium on gas won't work either. The US faces a choice, a deep long recession or a big round of inflation. Since the great depression when the US has gotten into this fix (about once every generation or two) it chooses inflation. This marks down all fixed debts drastically and puts money in people's pockets quickly and easily. It would also result in higher interest rates, more exports, fewer imports. All and all a good way to pay for the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, the sub prime mortgage losses to banks, and reduce the value of foreign debt and foreign holdings in US currency and Treasury obligations. It will also attract foreign capital away from foreign markets. It would be a very satisfactory solution....for the US in the long run considering how dire the situation seems to be (at least to me.) The only Ameicans who would get hurt would be those on fixed incomes. Something would have to be done about that. Now what do you suppose this would do to other economies?
Complain about this comment
re: #77 Gary_A_Hill
The Seawolf is an old generation sub (that still outclasses by far anything anyone in the world has available). The current top-of-the-line attack sub is the Virginia-class.
Currently, the US Navy is authorized a production schedule of Virginia-class subs of one per year for the foreseeable future. It is currently planned that the production rate will increase to two per year in CY 2010, although final funding has not yet been formally authorized.
Complain about this comment
How about something election-related and not future-book-BBC-cachet-cash-in-related, Justin? We the licence-fee payers demand it!
Complain about this comment
peterm99 (#80), no, the Seawolf is a relatively new attack submarine introduced at the end of the cold war. The newer Virginia class submarines were introduced to avoid building the expensive Seawolf (beyond three). Your assertion that the Congress is throwing money at cold-war naval hardware unsuitable for today's terrorist threats is contradicted by the change in submarine procurements after the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Congress and the Navy are adapting.
Connecticut will get submarine contracts anyway, because there are only two submarine shipyards. We are not going to stop having submarines, and we should not.
Complain about this comment
Although it is true that European gas prices are higher than here in America, we are more depend on cars because travel options are fewer and the distances we traverse are greater.
The Boston to Washington train service is good, but in many parts of the country there are no convenient trains. Traveling long distances by bus is more than disagreeable and, in any case, not suitable for business people. For the most part, the choice is between flying and driving.
In England and on the continent I could go anywhere by train, and I did.
Complain about this comment
mediamofo, could you elaborate?
I can't think of anything more relevant
to the election than the issues that Justin
is bringing up.
Complain about this comment
When you hvae a public that has a thirst for large cars and feeling safe, and car makers feeding that desire and adding to it in small doses of paranoia, the result is lots and lots of very large cars with very large engines. The persception of being in a large SUV is linked to safety and so the driver is safer, for a myriad of reasons.
Yet the US is the only country that has these "issues". Since these cars are rarely sold outside of the US. Japanese car makers mimick/copy the more successful ones, but still their main market is the US. The larger japanese style SUV types are "trendy" rather than a car to feel safer in.
The rest of the world has looked at more fuel effiecnt ways of getting around, this involves research and a commitment. US car companies clearly do not like the idea of making 'smaller' cars as they would then have to compete directly with japanese and european cars which they cannot. So they are desparte to maintain their small niche market, ie SUVs etc
It is also sadly sold as being 'supporting american jobs', by buying american cars. This si also rubbish, it just delays the inevitable.
Go anywheer in the world and the percetange of japanese and european cars is significantly higher than ameican cars. American cars are seen as a novelty and nothing else. No one in their right mind would buy an american car outside of the US, because it is poorly made, doesn't go around corners, uses way way way too much fuel and is not reliable.
Compare this aginst a Toyota/Honda/Audi/VW etc etc, you can't.
I have just returned from a business trip to Iran. Oil price is 10c per litre, yet what do they drive, KIAs, Peuogots, Citroens, and their own made. All small cars...in a country where oil at the pump is less than cheap local bottled water in the supermarket.
As for high speed rail links. Look at France and Japan, these modes of transport are perfect. They compete with airlines and provide a very effecient service in comfort and not queing and waiting in the airport lounge either. The shinkansen, the bullet train, in Jpan has the heighest service speed in the world, some 330km/hr. In France the TGV has the fast top speed of 515km/hr. Not to mention the maglev.
But the US has no high-speed train technology. It would takes years to develope, unless it "buys" it from France or Japan. The US would never do this, this would be seen as "non-american" and sending jobs overseas.
Well, we have seen where this attitude has taken the US car industry...
The US cannot think in a secular mannar any longer, the US is the best, the US is fastest, the US has proven technology etc. There is a whole lot more and better outside of the US.
It would take a very gusty president/politician to say ok, lets import this 'stuff' and chnage attitudes and save the ecomony for the general public, as it is better than home grown. It creates wealth and jobs; jobs are just moved from one sector to another. But shutting down failing industries is not allowed, it looses votes!
Complain about this comment
#79. MarcusAureliusII At least we agree on something: "the best chance for a good outcome would have been IMO Hillary Clinton because she could have reassembled the team that her husband used to bring prosperity to the US during his administration."
With regard to "Margaret Thatcher whom so many Brits foolishly hate" the reason is more complicated than it appears. The British are generally a tolerant nation but, although a breath of fresh air when first entering Downing Street, Mrs Thatcher became increasingly autocratic. Her affected manner of speaking and air of superiority did not sit well with many and it is within the realms of possibility that had she not sent troops to recapture the Falklands, her party might have lost the following General Election. She ushered in an era of conspicuous consumption and pitted the haves against the have-nots, saying 'there is no such thing as Society." She made it possible for many tenants on council estates (subsidised housing) to purchase their dwelling at knock down prices, a "cascade of wealth" as she put it, but simultaneously passed legislation which enabled local authorities to place mortgages on the very same property when the owners later required long-term care in a nursing home. She was astute enough not to attempt the dismantling of the National Health Service but nevertheless seriously damaged it. Her acts of privatisation were not all successful, the British rail system being a case in point. She put great sums of taxpayers' money into the establishment of the De Lorean automobile, all of which was lost. That she raised the profile of the British and dragged the economy into a semblance of normality was laudable, but at a cost to the average person. Her morality was that of Victorian England, notably in the promotion of the notorious Section 28, subsequently repealed by the incoming Labour administration. Mrs Thatcher became a liability to the Conservative Party and was removed as its Leader. Her problem was that she believed in her own infallibility.
Complain about this comment
Seawolf, started in 1989, was limited to a line of three, the last of which was delivered for service in 2005. The Virginia class, initiated in 1998, is smaller and more efficient and has special ops and SEAL delivery systems which are being used as one justification for continuation of current, and expanded future, procurement policies.
To be on topic in this blog: the crux of the issue is the justification of spending significantly more on military expenditures today than we ever spent during the height of the Cold War. You and I apparently disagree.
I believe the justification for continuation of submarine, and other high tech military hardware, procurements at current levels is more related to satisfying the desires of the defense industry than to national security needs. It is incontrovertible that the current status of our nuke subs, most surface ships, strategic bombers, fighters, and most of our ground military vehicles, to include the avionics and armaments associated with each, are at least one generation, probably closer to two or three, more advanced than those of any of our potential adversaries. It makes doubtful security and financial sense to continue such hardware developments and procurements at levels significantly higher than they ever were during the Cold War given the state of the world today, and any state it is likely to achieve in the next few decades.
The justifications used by the military to convince Congress to fund new programs appear more often than not to be "we need newer and better toys" rather than definition of _objectively_ identifiable needs. The rationale of "keeping production facilities active" is used to justify both keeping current programs active and to create follow-on programs. I find that whatever publicly available cost-benefit assessments that have been made for many of these programs, or for maintaining continuously active production lines versus shutting them down and re-starting them when real needs are identified to be far from credible.
Complain about this comment
Wow -- great discussion. The readers of this blog rock, when we feel like it. :) Believe me, justcorbly and others, I wish I could live car-free. I've tried commuting by bus and bike and, impracticalities aside, it was fun! It did save a little money too and was better for me physically and socially. But I lost time, and when you're on the clock that more than wipes out any financial advantage from not using gas in my micro-Japanese vehicle. I wish alternatives to driving were more practical, but even at 4 bucks a gallon I'm afraid driving pays for me at least.
Complain about this comment
#85, kecsmar, I appreciate some of your comments, but there are probably a few
things that you might think about.
1. US companies do produce a lot of
small cars, but not in the US. If you see
a Ford or Opel in Europe, those are
produced by American-based companies.
If we want to buy small cars here, we
generally have to buy Japanese ones,
such as the Prius, which is a big seller here.
2. There definitely is a future for high-speed
rail in the US, but probably only for regional
travel, such as within California, Texas,
or the Northeast. It will take decades to
expand beyond that, because the country
is simply too big. I don't know where you
are based, but let's assume that you fly
out of London. The air distance between
London and Tehran, according to the following
link: http://uae2dubai.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/flight-times-and-distances/ is 2730 miles.
That sounds like a lot, but did you take a
train there?
I have to fly to the east coast from California
this weekend. I will be spending some time
there on business, and then I will be visiting
some relatives in Florida before returning
to California. The air distance from northern
California to Philadelphia on this leg is 2,523
miles, almost as much as your trip to Tehran.
All told, my mileage on this trip will probably
be a little longer than the one you took.
The difference is, this is all within the
continental US. Air travel is not a luxury
for us, it is a necessity. Nobody in their
right mind would travel coach class inside
the US unless they absolutely had to.
I'm sure that Justin looks forward to his
transatlantic flights, as they are probably
quite luxurious compared to domestic
US travel.
3. The fact that we currently don't have
any high-speed rail equipment makers
is really a plus, because there are no
domestic manufacturers to put out of
business. We wouldn't lose a single job
from high-speed rail.
Complain about this comment
Oh, Gnr, so wise and yet so ignorant. Coach in internal US flights is a luxury. Short and roomy. Fly from the west coast to London in coach and you will understand. Once you recover the use of your legs and catch up on your sleep, that is.
Complain about this comment
At the beginning of the 60's JFK set the USA a challenge to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. No other country on Earth could have met that challenge.
Will Obama set the USA a new challenge- to make itself independent of oil imports by the end of the next decade? Impossible ? Why is it impossible? If any country can - it's the USA.
Every day huge amounts of solar energy fall on the vast open spaces of the USA. Instead of harvesting that energy to generate electricity and hydrogen the USA still burns oil to cool down its offices and homes. Crazy economics.
Come on America - you used to have the ability to innovate - and make money while you were doing so - have you lost all your spirit? You can make capturing solar energy cheap and efficient and by manufuacturing in volume you can bring the price down - as Henry Ford did with the motor car.
Once the USA starts doing it in quantity then the technology will be affordable for Southern Europe, North Africa, Namibia - even the Middle East !
And for the USA ? A new boom in jobs and technology, plus independence from foreign dictators and theocracies.
Complain about this comment
Train service to suburbia does need to be improved and there are now plans to do that. There are more bicycles (including my folder for the ten miler each way to the nearest train station or local travel) and people are planning their car trips more efficiently. Boats are sitting idle in their slips at the shore or up for sale along with 4x4s and pickups. None of these things are necessarily bad, just unexpected.
Complain about this comment
A general comment: Most Rest-of-the-Worldians aren't all that interested in the extensive intricacies of the US election campaign. But we do have an opinion as to who we'd like to see next in the hot seat. I recently came across the "if the world could vote" site (http://iftheworldcouldvote.com) and I think it might interest many people around the world.
Cheers, Viktor in Switzerland
Complain about this comment
It seems a lot of these posts have started going way off track, but as a bit advice to #90, if you are flying LA-London, fly Air NZ: more legroom (ten fewer rows), no charge for wine (and good NZ pinot which they will also supply after the meal has ended), 40 films and 80CDs to choose from at your whim not theirs, and the same fare. Your mistake is flying a US airline who long ago forgot about quality and service: there are better alternatives.
Now back to the main point, and that is that there are better alternatives to dependency on oil. High priced oil is here to stay, so an agenda needs to be set that will address the problems in a coherent and sensible way. Part of the answer must be increasing fuel efficiency on cars: a matter where the US is way behind Europe, which is why the recent legislation ought to be brought forward from 2020 to 2015. Part of the answer must be to carbon tax all seats on airline flights, not just those that are occupied, to force airlines to cut back where the extra flights are unnecessary. And part of the answer must be a federal supported (at least in part) improvement to rail transport with specific plans for rejuvenation in parts of the network that will have the greatest immediate impact. If that means fixing the legislation to enable Amtrak to work alongside the private sector, then so be it: inertia is not a satisfactory answer.
However, it's not just about oil, it's about food, distance and community: far too much oil is used growing and moving food: from petroleum based fertilisers, to distribution points 1500 miles from the supermarket: no lettuce need travel that far. That means giving the tax breaks to businesses that are artisan, or that use local produce (which will enhance the self-worth of the more remote agricultural regions); and it means returning to more organic forms of fertiliser. The benefit is there in better food, less use of oil, and greater social cohesion. Who knows: with the right encouragement, the US might even manage an artisan cheese industry, rather than the rubberised substance that is sold at present.
Complain about this comment
I am all for high spped rail, but many of the posters are unaware of what needs to be done.
There is an express train from Boston to NY (though far slower than European or Japan) but it can't go at full speed because of the rail conditions.
So it's not only the train but the track needs to be modernized to handle the trains.
It shold be done but don't minimize time and expense.
We have to take long view which is why the ridicoulous claim on not to drill becuase of time should be ignored as well
Complain about this comment
#89 Guns...
your point 1). I do know that such smaller cars are built by Ford etc. In fact the small ford focus has a very decent 1.4 deisel engine that is the same power as a petrol but with higehr fuel consumption.
This is just one part of the US owned car mker.
So, it begs the question, with 'some' aspects of US owned companies producing technology for Europeans for better fuel economy (as they ahve a plethorea to choose from,) why do they not sell in their own country???
QED
Also US companies are slow to take this 'challenge' on too. Fule effecient cars have been sold for decades in Europe and Japan, but not the US. These are seen as novelty cars or celeb-cars, by the A-list of hollywood. But no longer!!
2) No country is too big if there is a will. You assumption of where i live is incorrect. I live in Japan.
The infrastructure required a total investmenet into high-speed rail. Th existing rail lines could not be used, so a whole new network was made from scratch.
It is all about the will and the commitment. Japan invested heavily, cost billions sure, but it works and it is wonderful. Jpan is not as large as the US, but a trip from southern japan to the north tip, is not far off...
I also concur with #90. You obviously havent, or recently, flown economy class long haul. Try sitting in a small seating picth for 14 hours from singapore to the UK or to NY.
Complain about this comment
#73 Peterme99:
I think you'll find that many, perhaps most, of the world's rail systems receive government funds in some form.
The market system will not deliver a product if it cannot make a profit. That means that, for some desired services, society must kick in some cash. The U.S. would be very foolish indeed to believe that anything the market chooses not to provide is not worth having.
Besides, the U.S. is currently awash in transportation taxes and subsidies. The highway system -- one very huge subsidy to the freight industry -- is subsidized by taxes on gasoline. The airline industry receives a huge subsidy in the form of the FAA, the air traffic control system, and, don't forget, airports.
How many highways would disappear if they were privately held and expected to turn a profit? How many airports would not exist in small- and medium-size cities if they were only built by airlines looking for a profit?
The U.S. is a huge country. No single approach will solve this problem. We need an affordable and sustainable replacement for the internal combustion engine. We need innovative thinking about transport in large urban and suburban areas. (I.e., something that works in LA and Phoenix.) We need a replacement -- not an alternative -- for airlines on many short- and medium-length routes. We need tax and housing policies that will encourage and support the changes in housing patterns, just as tax and housing policies have encouraged urban sprawl for the last half-century.
What we do not need are ideologues and political hacks blocking progress toward all that.
Complain about this comment
Go Greenies.
and nay sayers (including EV slammers) try to research the options people tell you of before dismissing them.
2001 technology is not that old really. Hardly antiquated,we are driving in vehicles with older tech than that.
and if it would work all them 7 years age it would probably work, now.
As for the lizard towns in the deserts. they should be stopped.
they are by deffinitoin un sustainable.
the colorado aquifir is drying up.
Go local
Visit your local blacksmith.
Complain about this comment
where possible are canals a better choice, those europeans have double width canals (from british point of view) and they are still used.
Complain about this comment
Gary Hill.
the tesla is more of a sports car, sold as , and meant to be.
ford did an all electric pick up, where is it now?
Ask more about the MG vehicle. for once they were on the right path.
My point being they had a solution, and did thier best to stop the US peopel finding out because they make less money on them,
the all electric cars use conciderably less resources to make.
It is an economic problem, but the GM EV( and by the way I'm not GM fan,and hate to say they got anything right) was only as expensive as it was because they were hand built. never in production in an automated factory.
I am no expert on all electric vehicles, but have seen evidence which leads me to believe that taking into account energy production embodied energy and all other factors that the electric vehicle programs were killed deliberately, by ignorant bosses, with a criminal lack of responsibility.
CRIMINAL.
we do not need to drill anwar, we need to relook at these options that were killed by industry, and it's criminal leaders.
tobacco was investigated.
Detroit management should be investigated.
When a US company buys battery technology that could provide real solutions, and extend the range of electric vehicles ,And hides it ,
that is the problem. the techie will come up with the solution, just give them the dosh.
But it will be no good if the Bosses, the CEO's the polititians and the people all say nay without looking.
they should go to Jail.Do not pass go.
Complain about this comment
#96 kecsmar, I think your comment about
American companies illustrates more about
their stupidity than that of the consumer.
It's true that many Americans used to drive
huge SUV's, but that era has passed. It's
going to take the car companies years to
retool their production.
All of the car companies that are big sellers
here (including Toyota) pushed these big
vehicles because they made more money
on them than on small cars.
As for myself, I drive a 25 year old BMW that
gets 25-30mpg. I'll probably buy a plug-in
hybrid when that becomes available.
Japan invested heavily, but it has the population
density to make high speed rail work. After
the system is built, it takes revenue to keep
it working, as Londoners posting to this blog
have pointed out. We only have a few areas
in the US where our population density is
high enough to keep a high speed rail
system funded.
However, we do have many cities where
commuter rail is practical, and I would
expect to see a shift in that direction.
As for posters who have pointed out the
cramped conditions of international travel,
it is true that I have not flown internationally
since 2003. I propose that we run a contest
to find the worst airline in the world as far
as passenger comfort. I don't know if domestic
US carriers would win, but I'm sure they would
place highly in the list.
Complain about this comment
#98, jacksforge, we should be using windpower
generated on the plains to pump water from
the Mississippi (which periodically floods)
to the headwaters of the Colorado.
We could recharge the aquifer, and generate
power as the water flows down through
dams on the Colorado. It would be cheaper
than transmitting the power through wires.
Complain about this comment
Ref #76
The Vietnam War was unnecessary and its execution was a total disaster, Grenada was a travesty, and the decision to attack and invade Iraq was, as a minimum, a sham. If the intent was to exact revenge for 9/11 we should have focused on Osama bin Laden and his gang, who thanks to our greed and lack of vision is still alive and leading an organization that is stronger and more dangerous than ever.
Instead of focusing on warfare we should try to understand, and address when necessary, the grievances of our enemies. Much of the anti-American feelings in the Islamic world are fueled by our unconditional support to Israel and by our military presence near Mecca and Medina. Do we need bases so close to religious sites? Is it wise to offend the sensibilities of other nations or cultures when other options are available to us? There are enough nations willing to host American bases, and we have formidable NAVY fleets capable of maintaining a US presence in every country of the world without resorting to bribes to corrupt regimes to build and maintain bases where we are not wanted.
Complain about this comment
jacksforge (#100), when electric cars were discontinued in the 1920's (mostly), they cost twice as much as gasoline automobiles. They were put out of business by economics, and the technology was primitive compared to today's electric cars. The electric car is coming back, but it won't be in significant numbers until the economics are in its favor.
Complain about this comment
DominickVila wrote:
Ref #76
The Vietnam War was unnecessary and its execution was a total disaster, Grenada was a travesty, and the decision to attack and invade Iraq was, as a minimum, a sham. If the intent was to exact revenge for 9/11 we should have focused on Osama bin Laden and his gang, who thanks to our greed and lack of vision is still alive and leading an organization that is stronger and more dangerous than ever.
Instead of focusing on warfare we should try to understand, and address when necessary, the grievances of our enemies. Much of the anti-American feelings in the Islamic world are fueled by our unconditional support to Israel and by our military presence near Mecca and Medina. Do we need bases so close to religious sites? Is it wise to offend the sensibilities of other nations or cultures when other options are available to us? There are enough nations willing to host American bases, and we have formidable NAVY fleets capable of maintaining a US presence in every country of the world without resorting to bribes to corrupt regimes to build and maintain bases where we are not wanted.
There is merit to much of what you say except the part of the grievences. That is a smoksscreen from Islamic facists and terrorists. We are on the right side with Israel and is the other side who needs to adjust thier thinking. Saudis should have made peace with Israel a generation ago. As far as Mecca and Medina how many other religous sights are closed to non believes.
As a jew I can go into vatican city why should I be barred from Mecca?
Complain about this comment
#93Greyowl7
I visited the site you recommended. It was very interesting to see how the voting was dispersed among the countries. Some were a bit surprising. Some were not. Thanks and cheers to you as well!
#94Markfromoxford
We do have artisan cheese makers in the US but most are small, locally distributed and relatively unknown even in their own areas. Wisconsin used to have some great cheese makers but alas many went down as the producers of plastic cheese products took over. Sadly, many Americans have no idea what 'real' cheese tastes like.
Complain about this comment
#94Markfromoxford, #106 Aquagal,
This is all very depressing. Perhaps we could
get some Europeans to come over to California
and show us how to make decent cheese,
like they did with wine.
There was a columnist in the San Francisco
Chronicle named Herb Caen, who, before
he passed away, proclaimed Fresno to be the
"Velveeta Capital" of the world. At least we have
discernment in some quarters.
What would the world be like without
"food products?" Half of America would
probably starve to death, but then it's getting
too crowded here anyway.
Complain about this comment
#98Jacksforge
I am from that 'lizard state' that you have mentioned and I agree with you about the danger of urban sprawl here. The desert can be harsh and unforgiving but it has its own beauty. The desert is a fragile ecosystem which many do not realize. Some just see barren land ripe for development but they are destroying native plants that have adapted to our cycles of wet and dry. These plants support wildlife which in turn supports the life cycle of our vegetation.
We were once very sustainable. When I was a child, small farms, ranches and citrus groves were everywhere. The air was sweet every spring with the smell of citrus blossoms. Now, these are dying one by one.
I guess I am getting really old to look back and see better times. Some things are a lot better now. Vaccines protect our children from a variety of diseases that were taken for granted when I was young. I love some of our technology, especially the internet which allows me a contact with the world undreamed of by my parents. But somewhere along the way to 'progress' we have abandoned some things that were really important to our future.
By the way, I love lizards! They are always welcome in my garden because they eat a lot of bugs that would chew on my veggies.
Also, my local blacksmith and farrier is a nice guy. He made me a beautiful table for my patio.
Keep Hope!
Complain about this comment
#107Gunsandreligion
Overly processed food is not only a detriment to health it is also a terrible waste of resources. Go to your local grocery store. Price the cost of potatoes in the produce section compared to buying processed varieties as frozen or even the 'fresh' in the deli section.
Any individual could do a lot to help themselves, the economy, the environment and the fuel crunch if they avoided processed foods, ate locally and in season as much as possible. It's seems a small thing but it adds up.
We don't need France to tell us how to make cheese. We already have and have had some excellent cheese makers right here in the USA!
Complain about this comment
Gunsandreligion
I have read that California wines are recognized as some of the best in the world. Wherever the vintners learned their craft is unimportant, knowledge grows, moves on, achieves.
Good cheese, wine and fresh crusty bread. I am getting hungry!
Complain about this comment
Mr. Webb:
Regarding the "bottom fishing" in the original blog: That is a price that must be paid for having democratic elections.
The inherent weakness of the system is that the ill-informed, the weak-thinkers, and the intelligence-challenged have, on an individual basis, exactly the same influence on electoral outcomes as the highly-informed, critical thinkers, and highly intelligent voters. Given that it is absolute number of votes, not the quality of the decision making process of each voter, that determines the winner in a democratic election, it is difficult to fault either party for this approach.
This is nothing new. Perhaps an even more egregious example of "bottom fishing", reported several election cycles ago, is the recruitment of voters in nursing homes. Both parties have been attempting to register and then to direct the votes of people who often cannot recognize their own children to the candidates of their parties. Though distasteful in my view, there is nothing illegal about it.
Is there a solution to this situation short of abandoning the principles of democratic elections? I can't think of any that wouldn't be subject to even greater possibility of abuse.
Complain about this comment
I haven't been to Fresno in many years but that area used to be one of our most prolific 'garden baskets.' What is happening now? I know that they are still producing some citrus but what about grapes and other crops?
Complain about this comment
Peterm99
Unfortunately, no one asks if a voter is non compos mentis when he or she enters a voting booth. We only ask that after the election if the person we supported looses.
Complain about this comment
aquarigal, the central valley is still there.
They grow a lot of grapes, which are turned
into one heck of a lot of wine and raisins.
You can actually get a fairly decent $2 bottle
of wine from grapes grown there. (Charles Shaw).
I'm not saying that it's a great wine, and it
doesn't age well, but it'll get you by.
There was a lot of real estate development
in the area in the last boom, but that seems
to have faded for now; Bakersfield, which used
to be a meth lab haven now has some upscale
parts. Merced has a University going in.
Fresno has gotten so big that to escape it,
people there have bought little chalets in
the Sierras around Shaver Lake.
Yes, the grapes are still there.
Complain about this comment
Re: #104 GaryHill is absolutely correct that it is the economics that is the ultimate driver for the adoption of ICE replacement. There is also what I believe to be a bigger issue that much of the discussion on this blog seems to have tiptoed around: reliance on petroleum versus other energy _sources_.
The economics of electric vehicles (EVs) today are still not often discussed in an "end-to-end" fashion. A dozen or more years ago, there were studies published that demonstrated that EVs were less efficient than ICE powered vehicles from a total dollar cost and energy budget point of view. (These studies were both lauded and attacked, but, to the best of my knowledge, have not been refuted.) When the costs of 1. energy conversion to electricity in power plants, 2. electricity storage/transport costs, 3. the energy conversion, transport, and storage inefficiencies, 4. the infrastructure costs of additional power plants and electric power distribution facilities, 5. the costs of distribution to the consumer, etc., etc. were considered, the total costs of an ICE-based transportation system were much lower than for an EV-based system. Similar studies were made about hydrogen fueled vehicles, and the results were similar, i.e., oil-based ICE power is more efficient.
Given the increases in the dollar costs of oil, it may be that the old cost analyses are now invalid, at least in a dollar sense. However, I have not yet seen an analysis that demonstrates that efficiency improvements in power generation technologies, distribution systems, and EV technologies themselves would make an EV-based system more energy efficient overall using standard technologies. It is thus not unlikely that, in an overall sense and absent other major changes, we would be consuming even more petroleum to generate the electricity necessary to power EVs than we use to power ICE-based vehicles.
It is not simply a matter of gov't subsidies, or manufacturing more EVs rather than ICE vehicles, or other "knee-jerk" reactions that are necessary to make a difference. The fundamental steps necessary to switch to EVs on a national scale and still actually reduce oil consumption are long and some can only be done in a serial fashion. Changing habits is one of the easier ones to accomplish, although, if they are to result in significant change, they will have to be extensive and/or drastic, probably both, over anything other than the short-term.
Foremost, we need to change the energy sources used in power generation. Right now, non-oil and non-coal power generation facilities represent only a fraction of our national needs. Nuclear (fission and fusion), solar (includes photoelectric, wind, tidal, hydroelectric, etc.), geothermal, and/or other sources need to be developed and brought on line to augment and then to actually displace the oil and coal based sources. (Note that some of these also have deleterious environmental effects; the ones from hydroelectric plants are too often ignored). Right now, the economics still don't favor accelerated development of most of these, but they will so long as oil prices remain high and rising. They can be helped along with subsidies, but, given our recent experience with ethanol-related subsidies, I have no confidence that the gov't is able to make reasonably intelligent choices (as I've written earlier, the gov't will most often do what is in their own self-interest, not in the interests of the nation as a whole).
The distribution infrastructure needs to be expanded to accommodate the extra requirements - a chicken and egg situation, as until there is a large demand for "charging stations", it is not economically worthwhile to construct them. Again, I doubt if subsidies will work very effectively.
The bottom line is that, in the long term, the issue is about alternate energy _sources_, and less about alternate methods of energy _consumption_. It will be a process of many decades to change over, and there are likely to be several painful episodes in the interim: the pain of high gas prices is likely to be minor in comparison.
Complain about this comment
Also: "but it certainly is true that an inability to travel will have an effect on the modern American mind."
As an inability to travel will have a negative effect on the modern.....world citizen's mind as well! It doesn't matter where one is from, if they can't get from A to B, they are obviously I would venture not going to be too happy about it! But obviously America, the richest nation on earth, lacks severely behind all other major developed countries on public transportation availability-this is what nearly every poster on this blog has agreed with you on!! The challenge is, how do we modernise and improve our public transport to fit our vast geographical size and keep enough people using it, and paying for it, so that it can stay modern, affective and around? I know one place where we can start, we can look at how the Japaneese, French, British, and Germans did it and copy them!!!
The planet and national security depend on it!!
Complain about this comment
Ref #105
As a jew I can go into vatican city why should I be barred from Mecca?
Let me start by saying that I abhor all forms of religious and cultural intolerance. However, in my opinion, governments should be sensitive of cultural prejudices, traditions, and beliefs when they decide to establish facilities or do business in other nations, regardless of how absurd their prejudices may be. Our policy, to that regard, has exacerbated tensions unnecessarily on an issue that we could have avoided with minimal risk to our security by deploying forces in friendly nations and using existing military resources.
Complain about this comment
Much of the discussion of local vs. distant agriculture seems to ignore some important issues.
These include (among many others):
1. Arable land distribution - Some metropolitan areas have insufficient arable land within "reasonable" distances to support their populations. Unless they are allowed to shrink by factors of 10 or more, there will be a requirement to transport foodstuffs over large distances to meet their needs.
2. Climatic factors - Some crops are not suited to local conditions. For example, unless we don't allow the central/northern latitude populations to drink orange juice we are stuck with large distance transport requirements.
3. Scale efficiencies - While a small local farm can generally produce a variety of products to feed the farmer and his family and often several other families, the efficiencies associated with miles and miles of corn fields or wheat fields or apple orchards or . . . allow for production that is capable of supporting many more people on a per arable acre basis.
4. It is not clear that it is more energy efficient to have hundreds/thousands of small farmers driving their pickup trucks to farmers' markets in a city than to have a well-developed transport system to deliver these products in bulk.
While the "grow local" phenomenon has many positive attributes, taking it too far strikes me as not much different from desires to return to a pastoral/agrarian economy/society. That might be a positive lifestyle change for the tens of millions of Americans that it could support, but the other 75 per cent (probably more) of the population would likely be unhappy about starving to death.
Aside to Mr. Webb: The "carrying capacity" of the US (and the world) under various scenarios might be a worthwhile future blog discussion topic here, although the "political correctness" of such a topic might be questioned.
Complain about this comment
ArgyllJenny (#41): Thanks for that reassuring information! Can you tell me how the UK is dealing with its problem of country public transport?
UKTroll (#61): "Yank-O-File?" I'm not familiar with this term. Will you please define it? And also, I agree with you that as a whole we are ixtravigant, although your statement that "This is definitely a case of a British pot calling the US kettle 'black' (after all, we provided the lead historically)" I think is somewhat untrue, considering that you, and people all around the world to some extent, are still ixtravigant (it just depends on how one chooses to live their lives), but I do agree that we, in general as a whole, as a culture, have entirely re-defined the term! And the things that you pointed out that we are ixtravigant in, of those 6 things, I thought 1 of them reflected well upon us and am thankful that you think it about us; our hospitality. But the rest are encredibly horible trates of ours, and ones which we must correct immediately in my opinion!!!
Complain about this comment
Dominick Vila: No. You misunderstood my question in post #76. What I merely ment to ask, was surely you can agree that Republicans have done less to improve our nation's crumbleing infrustructure than Democrats, right? Of course this is not to say that the Democrats are by any account squeecky clean on this issue!! But the impression I got from your post at #11 was that both parties have acted exactly the same toward infrustructure, as if we are a one party system of government. Is that what you ment? And if so, why?
Complain about this comment
On cheese:
Many fine artisanal cheeses are available in the U.S. But, pretty much by definition, however, you aren't going to find them shrinkwrapped on the shelves of the local supermarket.
Sadly, their cost has skyrocketed recently, in keeping with the rising price of milk.
Complain about this comment
#111 from Peterme99:
The premise of democracy is that people are usually clever enough to make choices that they believe are in their best interests. Not, note carefully, choices that are, in fact, in their best interests.
Sometimes we all get things wrong, even if we've decided we're smarter than most other folks, eh?
It's also about exercising the right to make those choices, not about deferring to people who claim to be better.
Complain about this comment
re: #12 justcorbly
Very well stated.
Although I may not like the results some of the time, all of the alternative methods I've ever heard proposed are extremely slippery slopes toward a "ruling elite", which is completely antithetical to our philosophy.
Just as a clarification of remarks made in earlier posts, your phrase ". . . not about deferring to people who claim to be better." illustrates my point of view.
My intense suspicion of "solutions" to problems by government edicts/mandates etc. stems from my observations that people at all levels of government (elected officials as well as employees) consider themselves to be a "ruling elite", and not servants of the people.
Complain about this comment
However how are both parties responsible for focusing on wars instead of problems at home? Could you explain?
Blaming Bush for every ill that afflicts our society may be fun, but it obscures reality. Contrary to the efforts by the GOP to depict Democrats as appeasers and weak on defense, some of the bloodiest conflicts we have been engaged in were started by Democratic Presidents with the support of Democratic Congresses. In fact, I don't remember too many objections from the Democrats when President Bush decided to attack and invade Iraq. Alas, even Hillary became a champion of that fateful quagmire.
Even the current candidates avoid talking about roads in a state of disrepair, falling bridges, and levies that resemble those in third world countries. The reason, I think, is not that they don't see the need to improve our infrastructure but that they know any suggestion of higher taxes, regardless of how critical the improvements are for our future, would doom their candidacies. I plan to vote for Obama only because I think he is marginally better than McCain, but in my opinion both are wimps and lack the courage and conviction to tell the electorate the truth about our current circumstances.
Complain about this comment
Ref. #120
Republicans have, indeed, done much less that the Democrats to improve our infrastructure and quality of life, but Democrats have not been too aggressive in pressing for necessary changes. A major disappointment for me was the way Dems gave up on the minimum wage increase as soon as Bush threatened to veto that bill. They should have pressed on and expose him for what, in my opinion, was neglect for those that need help the most. I understand that the so called Democratic majority in Congress is tenuous, to put it mildly, but they need to be more assertive.
Complain about this comment
Dominick Vila #123/124: I agree with you on all your points!! Accept, that is, with the one that none of the candidates have spoken/are speeking about fixing our crumbling infrustructure problem. Obama has, and I hope will continue to speek on this issue, although I agree not nearly enough!! But rather I don't think that this is due to the fear of the public suddenly realising that they'll have to pay higher taxes. Its known around the world, after all, that Liberal equals higher taxes for better public services! I know you're disalusioned with the knoledge of the public, but come now! You have to give the some credit for knowing this don't you? Its basic knoledge after all!! I mean where does the public think the money will come from to pay to fix the infrustructure? Trees? No, rather I think it is due, in part at least, to the fact that Obama has to talk about all the problems he intends to fix every day until November-not an easy task if you ask me! Health care, education, poverty, foreign policy etc. So perhaps the infrustructure problem just gets lost in the shuffle sometimes-but that is not an excuse for how bad it is now, nor is it a reason the infrustructure should continue to be ignored!!!
PS: I agree with you on the wars comment-Vietnam was an entirely Democratic planned and exicuted war!! But my point is, yes Democrats have participated in, and even started wrong unnecessary wars, but its not as if Republicans ever aposed any!! Too few Democrats aposed the Iraq war yes that's true, but I garontee you, if a Democratic president had decided to go in, there wouldn't be one Republican voice of opposition!!! I know its a bad way to phrase this, but at least Democrats start less wars than Republicans!! In the last 50 years, aside from Vietnam, what other wars have Democrats started? And I also think that part of the reason why so many were willing to back the Iraq war was because they were somewhat mislead. For example, every diplomatic avinue was promised to be exployted and exausted before going into Iraq, and barely 6 months had passed after the authorisation of the war before the bombs started falling.
Complain about this comment
Very entertaining comments, yet even after having lived in the UK I can never get over how parochial you can sometimes be (an adjective more often applied to Americans than Europeans). The most common thing I noticed both among Brits and Europeans is that most of you intellectually understand how large the US is, but don't really comprehend how large the US is. That and the constant... Oh, you're from Philadelphia...do you know so-and-so? Any my always kind and somewhat sarcastic remark that, no, unfortunately, I don't know all five and a half million inhabitants of the Philadelphia metropolitan area (Maybe it's just perspective, but do you ask Londoners if they know your friends in London?). The other thing I experienced was "What do you mean you've never been to the "insert common tourist destination here"... it's in your country! My reply was usually something like "ever been to Prague?... why not, it's only 650 miles away, the Grand Canyon is three times further away for me.
While I would love and agree that a high speed rail system would be a good thing to have, you don't quite fathom the economies of scale involved, considering that the US is just a wee bit smaller than the entire continent of Europe. That 13 of our states are larger than Great Britain, and that is just one-sixth of them . The distance say from Seattle to Miami is about the same as that from NY to London. High speed rail would not be effective inter-city transport outside of the northeast corridor, and perhaps the LA-San Francisco route. TGV has 1056 miles of track...not enough to connect say NY and Miami (1093). The Japanese Shinkansen system has only 1528 miles of track, not enough to connect NY to Denver (1629). This isn't to say we shouldn't strive to achieve a high speed rail network, only that comparing French or German achievements in high-speed rail to the US is comparing apples and oranges. The American distances cited are also straight line distances... actual rail line accomodating grade and curve requirements would be significantly longer. The radius of curve on the TGV is currently 2 miles and is forecast to expand to 4.2.
Your national economies of scale are 'state'-like, whereas our national economy of scale is continental. Americans, as our common history will teach you, would also rebel at tax rates similar to Europe... it just won't happen. The average American tax spread across quintiles is 14.64%, ranging from 23.8 for the highest quintile to 5.2 percent for the lowest quintile earners. Whereas the Western European democracies average between forty and fifty percent income tax AND your approximately 20 percent VAT. Americans would lynch any politician that tried to get anywhere near those numbers. Personally, I average about a twenty percent income tax and only have to pay a three percent sales tax.
What works in France, Germany, or the UK, won't necessarily work in the US, at least not within the same timescale, although it may be an admirable thing to strive towards. Americans are much less tolerant, sometimes to our own detriment, to federal government subsidies of what the public perceives as 'not governments business'. Many Americans (those with decent health care) dread a national health care system because they know that once nationalized businesses will stop providing health care to their employees and the quality of their care will go down. Which is why many Americans seem to prefer voucher type plans as opposed nationalized care, preferring to leave health care privatized while aiding those without. Free market economics improving quality through competition as opposed to a one system-no competition type system. Call me a capitalist, or worse... but as much as I like the UK and Europe, I would prefer to keep an improved US system rather than adopting yours.
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
@Finntann
I agree 100% of your assessment of the US health care situation. I am one of those people with good health insurance and absolutely love the care provided to me. I would like to see this system extended be it through taxes or whatever to provide for those that are in lower income brackets. I do NOT want a nationalized health-care system.
Complain about this comment
#127. Finntann: "having lived in the UK I can never get over how parochial you can sometimes be" - come, come! Americans do just the same to Britons and other European. Sarcasm is not the best way to educate anyone - and many Americans have no idea how small the United Kingdom is.
Your reference to 'quintiles' is puzzling since a quintile is a fifth of something; why divide income brackets into five? VAT in the UK is for the most part 17.5% and sales tax in the Los Angeles area 8.25%.
There has previously been a discussion about health care and it is not true that American's "dread a national health care system". Some forty-seven million Americans are without any form of health insurance - and they can vote! It is debatable whether or not "Free market economics (improve) quality" which echoes the trickle-down theory of Reaganomics - it just ain't so! The profit motive is what makes it attractive rather than health care as a right. Basic education is mandatory and paid for by taxation, why not health care?
Complain about this comment
#127 Finntann:
I'll repeat that the free market will not, indeed cannot, provide a good or a service that is unprofitable. If the public wants that good or service, then someone or something will beed to provide a subsidy.
Health care and health careinsurance in the U.S. are at that point. Profitability is maintained only by constant increase of already exorbitant prices. In effect, health insurance has been subsidizing health care for decades, because without insurance few of us would obtain mecdical care. As prices rise to maintain profits, the number of people without insurance increases proportionally, as does the number of people who no longer seek medical care.
So, by routinely raising prices to sustain profit, the free market U.S. medical care system is effectively shrinking its own customer base. The trend is for fewer and fewer people to cover the costs via higher and higher medical prices. Insurance costs are driven up due both to rising medical costs and the shrinking size of the pool of insureds.
No health care system, including the current one, can be perfect. But, those who suggest that the existing free market scheme merits survival need to explain how useful and practical health insurance can be made affordable for all Americans or how they can ethically justify giving their political beliefs priority over the lives and healths of their neighbors.
Complain about this comment
Back to the gist of the blog.....
People will always find a way to get out of small-town-usa. They have bikes if nothing else will do. Simple economics will supply a means.
That isn't a long term concern, a more interesting point is how this will eventually work into international trade.
Globalisation will become too expensive and grind to a halt.
Complain about this comment
104. At 4:15pm on 08 Jul 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
jacksforge (#100), when electric cars were discontinued in the 1920's (mostly), they cost twice as much as gasoline automobiles. They were put out of business by economics, and the technology was primitive compared to today's electric cars. The electric car is coming back, but it won't be in significant numbers until the economics are in its favor.
2001 read my type. that was when the succesfully working program was stopped. not 1920's.
Stop knoking what you have no idea of. I have a cheese fuller.
most american smiths would not know a cheese fuller from a set hammer, but there is a difference.
Watch that informative movie then come back.and say there is no electric car program that works.
same to peter seriously.
the analysis has been done by others to show something other than what you believe.
Funny how many peple think Big tabacco lied but refuse to think maybe big auto and big oil lie.
Complain about this comment
oh and global warming is not happening either , right?
If all you base your ideas on is Naysayers you will find NOTHING.
Complain about this comment
@119 NRD
er, well, we don't actually do too much about country transport for the public.
Here in Scotland there are heavily subsidised bus services, and freebie deals for seniors, which I understand will be rolled out to England and Wales fairly soon. Don't know about NI.
Rural services in Scotland and England vary a lot. There are buses and they're mostly OK but infrequent, so a shopping expedition can leave you with a choice of, say, 45 mins to do all your shopping, or waiting for hours.
The best options tend to be locally run Dial a Bus - call up, ask to be picked up and tell them when you'd like it, and roughly what time you want to go back. Great for seniors and disabled, or mums with small kids who don't want to be waiting at a cold bus stop for ages.
My fondest memory is a Post Bus - the postman takes a minibus round his route, picks up and drops off while collecting and delivering. Took 90mins to do the 3 miles into town but because the roads are narrow and dangerous, it was worth it.
Complain about this comment
#134-Jenny:
Here in the States many people consider riding a bus a mark of lower class status, i.e., buses are only for people who can't afford cars.
The town where I live -- population 130,000 -- used to maintain a city-run dial-a-bus service. Not free, but still subsidized. One of my neighbors is an elderly woman without a car and she used it often. Last year, however, citing costs and low ridership, the city dropped the dial-a-bus aspect and converted the system to a traditional scheduled service.
Meanwhile... four local transit systems (six if you count universities) provide bus service in my local region. Their combined ridership increased by 30 percent last month. Seems that even if they're snobs, people will ride the bus when they can't afford to buy gas.
Complain about this comment
#129 Don't take my teasing too seriously, most Americans don't know how small, say, Vermont is and probably couldn't find it on a map anyway. I work with people with graduate (Master) degrees who couldn't construct or parse a sentence to save their lives. As to quintiles, I have no idea why the data I was looking at was structured that way...it certainly doesn't reflect our tax structure which is much more complicated.
As to buses, when I lived on the east coast public transportation was fairly convenient. While owning a car, I would walk two blocks and catch a bus which cost me $1.25 and dropped me off within feet of my job. The fare is now up to $2.00, which is still extremely reasonable. One could get virtually anywhere in the Philadelphia Metropolitan area via SEPTA, the public transportation provided. What made it convenient was not the savings in the cost of gas, but the convenience of not having to find a place to park. Same goes for NY, where public transportation or a cab is way more convenient than an automobile. My sister lives there and only rents a car when she leaves the city, main reason being the cost of parking is about 1 1/2 times the cost of the car itself.
I currently live out west in the rocky mountains. I drive forty miles to work, parking is not an issue, I spend about $16 a day in gas, whereas the only available bus would cost me $18 one-way, so there is a significant cost savings in driving myself. One can not live here without a car. It is 5 1/2 miles to the nearest convenience store and about 15 to the nearest fully stocked grocery store. Even if I did take a bus to work, the public transportation service in the city is mediocre at best and my job requires that I occasionally travel around town to meet with clients, public transportation is not an option.
I lived in Korea for awhile and they had a top-notch public transportation system that was extremely cheap and you could get virtually anywhere in the country if you knew what you were doing. My experience is that the only people on it were people who couldn't afford cars, as the buses were mostly empty and the highways full, yet a large diesel bus rolled past my home about every five minutes 24 hours a day. I had a car but would often take the bus as it was faster (the buses didn't really pay attention to any of the traffic rules, including red lights, which they would roll straight through from the righthand turn lane). Come to think of it, it was kind of like an amusment park thrill ride.
Many of the 'newer' American cities are not conducive to pedestrian traffic outside of the downtown areas, and I have been in many that didn't even have sidewalks for pedestrians to use. Americans are not loathe to give up their cars necessarily out of a sense of freedom, but out of a lack of accomodation. The city I work in now (Colorado Springs) accomodates pedestrians in the downtown, yet outside of there you can't get from point A to point B on foot in many areas, unless you walk on the edge of the thoroughfare in the dirt. Drivers are so aggressive you can pretty much forget trying to cross a major intersection, they are six to eight lanes wide and crossing is somewhat akin to Russian Roulette.
I lived outside of Swindon in the UK, and have to admit, once outside of the downtown area your accomodation of pedestrians didn't seem to be very much different than here in the US, with most roads not having sidewalks. My lack of familiarity with the area might have contributed to my difficulty in getting around on foot. Of course, I wasn't convinced all that much of your accomodation of vehicles either, as I seem to recall a two-way bridge in Fairford that was only one and a half cars wide, and that most fun of attractions... the magic roundabout in Swindon. We found it quite entertaining and were still trying to figure out all the possible permutations through it when we heard on the BBC that it was the most dangerous roundabout in the entire country.
Honestly though, if you instituted a world-class public transportation system here, where I live I would be surprised if it attained even a 20 percent ridership. It's not so much the freedom a car provides, or the convenience or lack thereof in transiting major distances, but the simple difficulty of crossing a six lane boulevard to get from one store to another, or from the bus stop to your job at your destination. You would certainly not be able to do two-weeks of grocery shopping and go home on the bus, and unlike many places in Europe, we don't have that shop for dinner on the way home mentality. The older east coast cities can accomodate public transportation, and most of them have it. Philadelphia had buses, trolleys, light rail, medium rail, an elevated and underground, high-speed (at least in our sense) commuter rail, but grew up and out with it. The modern American cities, those that grew since WWII, were built around the automobile not around people. The right of ways required for rail service would be astronomical, even with eminent domain. Buses are growing in ridership and routes, even over the past five years, and there is talk of instituting a light rail system, but it is the convenience of not having to deal with traffic that is driving it, not some sense of environmental impact and/or preservation, or the cost of gas.
Complain about this comment
A NOW interview ,with Who killed the electric car.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/index.html#here
Complain about this comment
this is a test post.
Complain about this comment
> Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have already been tried for funding for updating London transport systems, by the way, as well as other national services.
Not by choice of the then mayor. It was forced on him by central government.
>Any Londoners want to volunteer info on how it works for you?
I'm not one, but I use it. The transport system works, although crowded. PPI not so much. Cynics argue that the main advantage is to get public debt off the books, so that the Treasury can claim a lower level of government borrowing than is actually the case. It is supposed to spread the financial risk, as the private sector takes responsibility for running the system, but this doesn't really hold up, as the government is still ultimately responsible when it all goes a bit wrong, as it did in London. The new mayor of London is currently faced with a multi-billion hole in his budget , where Metronet used to be. Transport for London had to step in after the PPP contractor went bust last year.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, the problem posed by ever-increasing gas prices is that for the past two generations all aspects of life have been predicated on cheap fuel. Suburban sprawl and strip developments are only viable because people can get to and from them economically. Just as important, centralised production and national distribution depend on cheap transport, so the price of just about everything is going to rise.
This is going to hurt.
Complain about this comment
"A new way capturing the energy from the Sun could increase the power generated by solar panels tenfold, a team of American scientists has shown.
The new technique involves coating glass with a specific mixture of transparent dyes which redirect light to photovoltaic cells in the frame.
The technology, outlined in the journal Science, could be used to convert glass buildings into vast energy plants.
The technology could be in production within three years, the team said."
This is the first paragraph of a BBC report on the front page.
WOW who'd have thunk it.
if you try to find alternatives, you might find some.
Or we could just go for the same polluting stuff as before.
though not finished,I am sure it is cheaper than a nuke.
A red hearing of a solution.
Complain about this comment
In the early part of the century the Oil Companies aided by the trucking companies purchased the railroad tracks and let them fall into neglect so that the only useful transportation was by road or air.
In this so-called fuel emergency Bush has not yet suggested public transportation or a 55 mph speed limit. Nor has he suggest to raise the temperature of the AC so that so much fuel will not be wasted on people wear sweaters to keep warm in freezing rooms.
This has led me to believe that all this talk about oil shortage is Bullocks. Everytime the price of oil drops talks comes out about the Clash between Iran and Isreal, then it jumps at least over the price margin line. There are no speculators, only Bush and his hardliners.
The War on Terror is a War to terrorize US into believing a lot of lies.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS