<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Why can’t we change our oil-sucking land-use preferences?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ben http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/ Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:13:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/1 These were left out

Simple energy policy can curb our oil demand somewhat:

The biggest point that wasn't really emphasized strongly enough: Price energy at what it's really worth - which has to include the negative externalities of using oil

Get into people's heads that public transportation is better than driving cars (maybe by making parking much more expensive or by taxing drivers the way London does)

Some other things recommended by the IEA:
Support telecommuting
Support flexible work schedules
Support odd/even day driving bans


]]> These were left out

Simple energy policy can curb our oil demand somewhat:

The biggest point that wasn't really emphasized strongly enough: Price energy at what it's really worth - which has to include the negative externalities of using oil

Get into people's heads that public transportation is better than driving cars (maybe by making parking much more expensive or by taxing drivers the way London does)

Some other things recommended by the IEA:
Support telecommuting
Support flexible work schedules
Support odd/even day driving bans


]]> Comment #2 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/ Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:05:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/2 Ben's Got It

If drivers had to pay for just the environmental costs of their driving that could be quantified (life is priceless, so the ecological destruction of building roads and destroying open space can't be quantified) and driving was no longer subsidized, gasoline would be at least $15/gallon.  That would certainly change most people's choices about where and how they live!

]]> Ben's Got It

If drivers had to pay for just the environmental costs of their driving that could be quantified (life is priceless, so the ecological destruction of building roads and destroying open space can't be quantified) and driving was no longer subsidized, gasoline would be at least $15/gallon.  That would certainly change most people's choices about where and how they live!

]]> Comment #3 by mtneuman http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/ Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:19:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/3 Conservation is Key

Yes it would.  And there would be widespread revolt and anarchy.  People would be siphoning gas from each other's tanks like was common place in the early 1970s when there was a shortage of gasoline.  But it would still work.
I love this statement by Dave Roberts:  "Modern-day American exurbians are living in a way that's making them obese, diabetic, asthmatic, and disconnected from communal support, not to mention dead from heart disease and auto accidents."  It says it all.  We are victims of our own success.  The dominant land-use paradigm in this country is most definitely oil-sucking, as Roberts says.   And it's got to change.  It's just go to....

But it won't change by itself.  Positive lifestyle changes don't just happen by themselves, they have to be prodded somehow. The negative ones might, but not the positive ones.   So we have to find a positive way to do that, one that doesn't create the kind of anarchy nobody wants in this country.

The government has to have a role; it's up to the people who created the government to tell it what is needed, because the government in this country has gone adrift, off into never land, and has taken us all there with it.  Mostly because of those three little letters:  o-i-l.

I propose we tell the government we want our taxes to go to the right kinds of things, not the things like oil that will destroy us and the planet along with us.   We need to do that now, with a sense of urgency, because we don't have much time left anymore.  We have waited too long to act on this already.  We have to act now.  

What it all comes down to is people need to be rewarded for saving energy.  So that if they choose not to buy so much fuel, to not drive so much, to not fly, to use less energy in their home (per capita), they get financially rewarded at the end of the year with energy rebates for conserving energy.  That's the basis concept.  It's foreign to our economic system, so government has to be behind it.  But they would be behind it unless people tell them it is necessary for them to hold on to their jobs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229


]]> Conservation is Key

Yes it would.  And there would be widespread revolt and anarchy.  People would be siphoning gas from each other's tanks like was common place in the early 1970s when there was a shortage of gasoline.  But it would still work.
I love this statement by Dave Roberts:  "Modern-day American exurbians are living in a way that's making them obese, diabetic, asthmatic, and disconnected from communal support, not to mention dead from heart disease and auto accidents."  It says it all.  We are victims of our own success.  The dominant land-use paradigm in this country is most definitely oil-sucking, as Roberts says.   And it's got to change.  It's just go to....

But it won't change by itself.  Positive lifestyle changes don't just happen by themselves, they have to be prodded somehow. The negative ones might, but not the positive ones.   So we have to find a positive way to do that, one that doesn't create the kind of anarchy nobody wants in this country.

The government has to have a role; it's up to the people who created the government to tell it what is needed, because the government in this country has gone adrift, off into never land, and has taken us all there with it.  Mostly because of those three little letters:  o-i-l.

I propose we tell the government we want our taxes to go to the right kinds of things, not the things like oil that will destroy us and the planet along with us.   We need to do that now, with a sense of urgency, because we don't have much time left anymore.  We have waited too long to act on this already.  We have to act now.  

What it all comes down to is people need to be rewarded for saving energy.  So that if they choose not to buy so much fuel, to not drive so much, to not fly, to use less energy in their home (per capita), they get financially rewarded at the end of the year with energy rebates for conserving energy.  That's the basis concept.  It's foreign to our economic system, so government has to be behind it.  But they would be behind it unless people tell them it is necessary for them to hold on to their jobs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229


]]> Comment #4 by birdboy http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/ Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:17:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/4 still figurin' on bigger'in

Sounds great, and it might have worked if we had started using positive reinforcement for lowered impact lifestyles 50 years ago, but it's too late now. People are already showing the 'get it while you can' attitude, and few Americans will even consider a lower standard of living (healthier or not). We need strong negative reinforcement too- some industries must be outright outlawed, others made to pay steep prices for their actions. People should have to pay big-time for unsustainable choices. If our leaders and the media were taking the crisis seriously and convincing people of the need for change, it might go smoothly.

But I just can't see it happening in America without the revolt and anarchy. Our government tells us over and over that our economy must be forever growing bigger, converting more and more of the earth's resources into bigger and bigger piles of crap, or (presumably), our economy will simply collapse. If we stopped sucking oil and buying junk, our jobs would disappear. Our government, propped up by all that money and power, would crumble. The air would clear up; it would get really quiet, and people would smile and sit down together and plan a garden and share what they have and...

oops, sorry, I lost it there.

 Doom, bloody, inevitable doom.

a liberal in redsville

]]> still figurin' on bigger'in

Sounds great, and it might have worked if we had started using positive reinforcement for lowered impact lifestyles 50 years ago, but it's too late now. People are already showing the 'get it while you can' attitude, and few Americans will even consider a lower standard of living (healthier or not). We need strong negative reinforcement too- some industries must be outright outlawed, others made to pay steep prices for their actions. People should have to pay big-time for unsustainable choices. If our leaders and the media were taking the crisis seriously and convincing people of the need for change, it might go smoothly.

But I just can't see it happening in America without the revolt and anarchy. Our government tells us over and over that our economy must be forever growing bigger, converting more and more of the earth's resources into bigger and bigger piles of crap, or (presumably), our economy will simply collapse. If we stopped sucking oil and buying junk, our jobs would disappear. Our government, propped up by all that money and power, would crumble. The air would clear up; it would get really quiet, and people would smile and sit down together and plan a garden and share what they have and...

oops, sorry, I lost it there.

 Doom, bloody, inevitable doom.

a liberal in redsville

]]> Comment #5 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/ Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:55:15 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/suburbia-oil-and-preferences/5 A Sane Plan

Here's the way I think civilization should look:  Suburbs do not exist, period.  People either live in the cities or rural areas.

The cities are surrounded by agricultural land (currently the hideously destructive suburbs), which produces all the food for the cities.  Private motor vehicles are completely prohibited, and all cities have good, 24/7 public transit, including sufficient subway systems so that it doesn't take forever to get across town.

The rural areas have no industrial amenities.  Those who really want to live in the country actually do so, without destroying the ecosystems in which they live with industrial crap.  I envision possibly solar or wind energy produced by the homes that use it, and maybe satellite TV, but that's about it.  Horses would provide high speed transportation.  There should also be very large areas from which people are completely excluded.

Mainly, the selfish suburbs have got to go, along with their selfish lifestyles.  Above all, we must greatly lower our population, or no solution will work.  The idea of an ever growing economy or living areas is totally out of touch with the reality that space is finite and humans are already taking up far too much of it.

]]> A Sane Plan

Here's the way I think civilization should look:  Suburbs do not exist, period.  People either live in the cities or rural areas.

The cities are surrounded by agricultural land (currently the hideously destructive suburbs), which produces all the food for the cities.  Private motor vehicles are completely prohibited, and all cities have good, 24/7 public transit, including sufficient subway systems so that it doesn't take forever to get across town.

The rural areas have no industrial amenities.  Those who really want to live in the country actually do so, without destroying the ecosystems in which they live with industrial crap.  I envision possibly solar or wind energy produced by the homes that use it, and maybe satellite TV, but that's about it.  Horses would provide high speed transportation.  There should also be very large areas from which people are completely excluded.

Mainly, the selfish suburbs have got to go, along with their selfish lifestyles.  Above all, we must greatly lower our population, or no solution will work.  The idea of an ever growing economy or living areas is totally out of touch with the reality that space is finite and humans are already taking up far too much of it.

]]>