This past Saturday afternoon, after doing my dance duty at the annual “Dancing in the Street” at Grand Center, across from Powell Symphony Hall, I wandered the booths of the adjacent “Green Homes and Renewable Energy Festival” going on in Grandel Square behind the stage. There were plenty of solar panels, windmills, composters, insulation plans, PAC’s, and so forth.

But what really impressed me was this oversize black surfboard-looking thing under an awning surrounded by young Christians. It was the second place winner of the North American Solar Challenge 2008: The Principia Solar Car.

I regularly see Principia College students who drive down from Elsah, IL to dance with us. But it was a pleasure to converse with the young engineers, craftspeople, and even marketing students who created and support this little marvel.

Each of the little GaAs solar cells costs over $30, and the body was hand made by sudents out of graphite mesh, resin, and structural honeycomb. Even the wheels were custom made. These younguns are every bit as dedicated as I remember from my college daze. [sic]

How can I spot them as Christian? Well, Principia is explicitly “A Liberal Arts College for Christian Scientists”. They might have some odd ideas about Life, the Universe, and Everything, but Gould’s principle of Nonoverlapping Magisteria seems to allow them a solid education outside of that realm.

And How to Build a Solar Car is not their title for these galleries of building the car, but it should be.

How can expensive gasoline save lives?

An analysis of yearly vehicle deaths compared to gas prices found death rates drop significantly as people slow down and drive less. If gas remains at $4 a gallon or higher for a year or more, traffic deaths could drop by more than 1,000 per month nationwide, said Michael Morrisey, Ph.D., director of UAB’s Lister Hill Center for Health Policy and a co-author on the new findings.

I suppose that there are some set-offs too, such as people putting off getting to the doctor when they really need to be tested or hospitalized.

Consider, also, this post: Eight ways to allow 3,000 people to die: a lesson in moral clarity.

Al Gore said it starkly: it’s time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new dirty coal plants.

If you’re a young person, looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now and not done, I believe we’ve reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.

BTW, there is no such thing as a clean coal plant yet. What’s the problem with traditional coal plants?  See this previous DI post with lots of links.

According to John McCain, Sara Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

Here’s Tom Tomorrow’s response:

Really? Sarah Palin knows more about energy than, say, anyone in the Department of Energy, thousands of Ph.Ds in academia, or the CEOs of dozens of oil and gas companies?

I agree with Tomorrow, based on the depressing literature from the oil industry itself.

Considering my somewhat informed understanding America’s energy woes combined with Palin’s simplistic claims that we can lick the energy problem without a serious focus on conservation, I’d have to ring up McCain’s claim regarding Palin’s status as “energy expert” as yet another lie.

There are plenty of innumerate groups who think that the LHC will destroy the world, as they have with each generation of nuclear test device before. Loud groups with mailing lists and placards.

The Large Hadron Collider (in case you were unaware) is the Swiss upgrade to the unfinished Superconducting Super Collider that the U.S. half built in the 1990’s. A Hardon is basically an atomic nucleus. “Large” means up to the size of the lead (Pb) nucleus (mass of 207 amu’s each). The SSC was being built in Texas, but between cutting science funding and groups protesting its danger, Congress cut it.

They fired the LHC up this morning (3:30 EDT) just to spin some protons around at nearly the speed of light. Soon, they will be ready to actually cause a collision between 2 counter-rotating currents of these hadrons. Their best hope is to find the Higgs Boson, presumably the source of mass within quarks.

The detractors worst fear is that they will create a microscopic black hole that will swallow the Earth. Over at the BadAstronomy blog, he details why this is silly. In brief, the LHC isn’t big enough. Anything we can build on the planet wouldn’t be big enough. Note: The total energy density in the core of the Sun obviously isn’t big enough, or it would be a black hole.

But, then there is this bit of silliness: HasTheLargeHadronColliderDestroyedTheWorldYet.com. If you read the code behind the page, you find several programmer in-jokes. But there is also the comment:

if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn’t yet updated
please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund

Ya gets what yez pays for, I guess.

Then, there is this (The LHC Rap):

Perhaps Physicists rapping is the sign of the end times.

We’ve had a long comment aside in the Iridium Layer post about whether a Young Earth might be proven if one assumes that all isotopes “age” faster under water at some depth.

Let’s consider some of the repercussions if this were Truth instead of fantasy:

• Nuclear waste would not be a problem. If isotopes with surface half-lives of a billion years (U-238 has a 4.5 billion years half-life) decayed in a couple of hundred days to levels that we read now, the short-lived dangerous isotopes left over after fission would decay to nothing in a day or two at depth.
• Cheap energy: Long-life isotopes that are barely radioactive (like Lead-205 at 15 million years) could be immersed in water to increase their decay rate to give off their energy (as does Cobalt-57, 272 days) and used to run turbines.
• All isotopic dating methods would have to consider the depth and duration of immersion in water, even if we are looking at thousands instead of millions or billions of years.

But, to step back to reality: Why would the relatively level Atlantic ocean floor have isotope dates that consistently range from Now at the mid-Atlantic Ridge through 180 million years old approaching the continental shelf at Florida and Africa if water depth affects aging?

Also, why would rocks found in some mountain tops date as significantly younger than some at sea level, but still much older than Noah?

Why should we ask John McCain harsh questions? Because we need to even the playing field. You see, if Barack Obama had McCain’s background, ignorance and bad character, the election would have been over months ago. The news media is holding back, though. Those media barbecues appear to be paying off.

So it’s time to even the playing field. Since the media keeps asking these sorts of disparaging and insulting questions to Barack Obama, it’s time to ask these same sorts of questions to John McCain. I admit that a few of these are outrageously unfair, just like many of the questions repeatedly posed to Obama.

Most of these questions are fair, though, and the news media has refused to dig deep and really get the answers Americans need. If you have additional questions that the media needs to ask John McCain, please submit them in the comments. I’d like to make this post a place where reporters are free to visit for ideas. As you can see, I’ve attached explanatory links to most of the proposed questions.

Unlike Barack Obama, McCain has a lot of explaining to do about what kind of person he has shown himself to be and portrayed himself to be. Let’s get started:

Generally Puzzling
Isn’t it true that you personally now oppose several bills that you yourself co-sponsored?

Why is your smile so creepy and fake?

Do you really believe that the President of the U.S. virtually functions as a dictator?

General Character Deficits

Isn’t it true that you aggressively courted your current wife, a 25-year-old beer heiress while you were still married to your first wife?

Is it true that you obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to your first wife?

How is it that being imprisoned in Vietnam or being shot down while flying a plane qualifies you to be president? Why shouldn’t we think that Vietnam messed up your head and made you erratic?

I notice that you aren’t wearing a crucifix around your neck. Is that because you hate Jesus or is it because you think you are better than God?

You have said some harsh things about a black man who is running for President. Prove to us that you and many of your supporters are not bigots.

Isn’t it true that you are not born again? How many times have you even been to church this year? How does that compare with last year, which wasn’t an election year?

How can we be sure that your wife won’t abuse drugs at the White House if you are elected President, or cover up her abuses of drugs?

Did you marry your current wife more for her great wealth or because she offered you social connections that advanced your career as a politician?

During the Vicki Iseman scandal, your wife Cindy suggested that because you were a man of character, you would never have an affair. But isn’t it true that you started dating Cindy while you were still married to your first wife?

Why did you work so hard to help spread false anthrax stories in 2001? Isn’t it true that your conduct in spreading those stories that Iraq was responsible for that anthrax enabled the Bush Administration to expose the lives and well-being of our soldiers in Iraq?

Isn’t it true that you broke your promise by not being in isolation while Barack Obama was questioned by Rick Warren?

Did you have any moral qualms when you left your first wife - a former swimsuit model - after she was disfigured in a car accident and put on a few pounds?”

Does the Religious Right know that you give talks before gatherings with dubious family values, including suggesting that your wife enter a topless beauty contest?

Aren’t you too old and forgetful to be President?

Why won’t you release all of your medical records? What are you trying to hide?

How many letters did you send for the purpose of interfering with an FCC investigation on behalf of your beautiful lobbyist friend, Vicki Iseman?

How much financial help have you and your supporters given to your lobbyist friend Vicki Isley to help her disappear since your close relationship was revealed?

Have you been sexually faithful to your current wife?

Shouldn’t you be concerned that your wife is too “icy” to effectively serve as First Lady?

Shouldn’t it raise huge red flags when people who run for high office refuse to make their family’s tax returns public? Why should your wife Cindy be an exception?

To be president, is it enough that one is an old wise-cracking, hot-tempered, and often confused and forgetful guy?

Ignorance of facts regarding major issues
Give us the names of some prominent economists who really support your “economic plan.”

Why do you seem to know so little about Iraq?

Tell me everything you know about the history, culture and religions of Iraq. You can have as much time as you need.

Out of touch with ordinary people
Didn’t your wife say that the only way to get around Arizona is by private jet? and see here.

You don’t even know how many houses you own, do you?

Tell us about some of the ways we could have wisely invested one trillion dollars in America had we not wasted it in Iraq? Take your time and talk about how we could have improved American with that vast sum of money. (more…)

I recently wrote a post called “Ethanol Lies.” Here’s a Reason.tv documentary rebutting some of those ethanol lies.

See, also, this post on how ethanol kills.

How far have we come in terms of fuel efficiency? Based on my 10-year old car, not very far.

Ten years ago I bought a 1998 Saturn SL2. I drive it about 4,500 miles per year (I travel another 1,400 miles per year by bicycle). The Saturn has proven to be a perfectly reliable car. If parts continue to be available, I won’t reach 100,000 miles on my Saturn for another ten years. That would be perfectly fine by me.

Out of curiosity, today I reviewed the fuel efficiency of brand new cars, including many cars that tout their fuel efficiency, such as the tiny new Honda “Fit.” I was amazed that there hasn’t been more progress in ten years. Obviously, fuel efficiency has not been a priority for most people and most manufacturers.

My Saturn gives me about 30 mpg in the city, and about 40 mpg on the highway. These stats resemble the mileage numbers reported by others (and see here). Compare these numbers with most of today’s leaders regarding fuel economy. My old Saturn beats the Yaris, the Mini-Cooper, the Scion, the Corolla and the Fit. Other than the new hybrids, not many cars outdo the stats of the small cars from ten years ago. You can see from the above site, for example, that the Ford Focus gets only 24 mpg in the city and 33 on the highway, and these aren’t real world numbers, like the above numbers for my Saturn.

More incredible, many cars from 1998 were more fuel efficient than my Saturn. For example, I got the following numbers from MPG-o-Matic:

1998 Chevrolet Metro 4 cylinder 1.3 liter R (M5) Manual 39 43
1998 Chevrolet Metro 3 cylinder 1.0 liter R (M5) Manual 44 49
1998 Dodge Neon 4 cylinder 2.0 liter R (M5) Manual 29 41
1998 Honda Civic HX 4 cylinder 1.6 liter R (M5) Manual 36 44
1998 Mitsubishi Mirage 4 cylinder 1.5 liter R (M5) Manual 33 40
1998 Plymouth Neon 4 cylinder 2.0 liter R (M5) Manual 29 41
1998 Suzuki Swift 4 cylinder 1.3 liter R (M5) Manual 39 43
1998 Volkswagen Jetta 4 cylinder 1.9 liter D (M5) Manual 40 49
1998 Volkswagen Beetle 4 cylinder 1.9 liter D (M5) Manual 41 48

Therefore, one way to achieve progress in fuel efficiency, would apparently be to tear up the blueprints of many vehicles currently being advertised as “high mileage” and to go back in time ten years.

How many times have you heard that there is an immense amount of oil shale, from which we can extract lots and lots of oil?   I’ve heard this claim dozens of times, yet the people uttering this claim never know anything at all about what it takes to make oil out of oil shale.

Consider this not-so-good news from the Rocky Mountain Institute:

Mr. Bush said in a statement on June 18 that the Green River Basin likely holds 800 billion barrels of oil and that “if it can be recovered it would equal more than a century’s worth of currently projected imports.”

While there is little debate about the President’s estimate, the challenges and risks of pursuing “unconventional oil” are significant. It’s hard to get, extremely costly, dangerous to the environment, and difficult to use.

If these reasons aren’t enough, oil shale holds less energy per pound than a pile of municipal trash or cow manure. In fact, oil shale has roughly the same amount of energy per pound as a baked potato, according to a report (PDF) from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency. And, like a potato, oil shale must also be cooked before it can be used.

RMI gives oil shale a big thumbs-down due to the difficulty of extracting usable energy from the shale and because of massive potential damage to the environment that would be caused by the extraction process:

Our energy challenges demand more than new ways to boil rocks.  We need to give businesses incentives to pursue fresh paths that will break our addiction to oil.  We need to encourage wide adoption of proven technologies that use energy more efficiently and expand our nation’s ability to harness renewable sources of energy.

Paris Hilton for President

I found it here and she actually makes some sense.

Here is Barack Obama setting forth his plan for keeping America energy independent.   His plan is that America should control it’s own energy and it’s own destiny.  How?  By taking real steps away from purchasing $700,000,000 of foreign oil every day and, instead, creating our own energy.  We import more than 1/2 of the oil we use.  “We must end the age of oil in our time.”

Obama agrees with McCain that our dangerous addiction to oil has been 30 years in the making (Obama notes that McCain has been in power for 26 of those years).  He argues that it’s time to stop actionless talk about energy and the destruction of our environment, and it’s time to do something meaningful.   Obama quotes  (republican) Boone Pickens, who recently said that America’s energy predicament is “something we can’t drill our way out of.”

The centerpiece of Obama’s speech is developing new sources of renewable energy immediately.    We need to completely transform our economy.  Energy independence will require an “all-hands-on-deck” approach.    We will need to find numerous new ways to conserve energy, and it will take a lot of work.  But this will also create a new energy economy that will create numerous new jobs.

The goal:  In ten years, we will eliminate the need to import any oil from the middle east and Venezuela.

We can accomplish this goal with three steps.  Obama urges that though this sounds like “pie in the sky,” but that the current technology will allow it.  He urged that these goals are “achievable”:

1. Help American industry build high efficiency cars, including new 150 miles per gallon hybrids.
2. Require that 10% of energy comes from renewable sources by the end of Obama’s first term (that would double the current percentage).
3. Reduce American demand for electricity by 15% within 10 years (he cites California, whose use of electricity didn’t grow at all in the past 30 years, while in the rest of the country, usage has leaped 60%).

McCain’s policy does not pursue these goals, certainly not the goals regarding sustainable energy.  Rather, McCain is seeking to give more than $4 Billion in additional tax breaks to oil companies.  These tax breaks are to companies like Exxon Mobile, which makes $300,000 profit in the time it takes for a person to fill up the tank of one car.

Here’s Obama’s speech, which runs about 33 minutes.

John McCain wants to have a contest that will award $300 million to the person/company that develops a better car battery.

Yes, it would be great thing if someone would develop a better battery, but it seems to me that spending massive amounts of money in a contest is a terrible way to get the job done. While prizes can be used as an incentive where the marketplace lacks an incentive, a better car battery is something that many companies are working on right now.

McCain’s contest is a gimmick. Does McCain really think that the voters are going to think, “Wow! A contest! Now someone will try to invent a better battery!”?

If contests are so terrific, let’s have a $300M contest to “cure” obesity and another $300M contest for the person who figures out a way for the U.S. to leave Iraq. The “winners” take all in each of these contests, while the “losers” get nothing, of course. That’s the nature of contests. And how will we decide who won? The government decides, of course. We already know that the winner will be a company that donates millions of dollars to a few well-placed politicians. How about a $300M contest where the winner figures out how to get dirty corporate money out of America’s political campaigns?

Instead of a contest, how about using tax dollars to fund battery research in a responsible way, where various reputable companies and universities are paid incentives to hire the people and equipment they need to accelerate their research and development?

Now consider that “huge” number McCain is proposing, $300M. Some people might be wondering why that amount so “big”? It’s not really very big at all, though, considering the importance of having a new generation of batteries. The war in Iraq is costing $720 million each day, more than twice the amount of McCain’s contest award. To put this in perspective, McCain thinks that the need for a new generation of batteries is so incredibly important that he’s willing to spend a total of ½ of the money that we spend in Iraq in only one day on developing those batteries.

Like obesity, saving energy is a mater of lifestyle. To prevent economic ruin, or to prevent the strokes and heart attacks associated with obesity, we need to run America lean and mean. Without seriously addressing the availability of energy to put into those batteries, new batteries won’t much matter. We’re running out of oil and coal is a horrible idea for many reasons. Nuclear has it’s risks (though I’m not opposed to nuclear being part of the solution). We can generate lots of usable energy using solar and wind, but not enough to sustain our current energy indulgent lifestyle. One approach shines brightly above all the others: conservation.

It really puzzles me that so many conservatives refuse to consider the enormous amount of energy that could be saved by using less energy. The recent dispute regarding the need to keep tires inflated is a case in point. “Conservatives” hate the idea of conserving. They find it demeaning and feminizing. If you don’t believe this, just listen to the conservatives demean conservation–it’s the same tone they use when they attack gays. They roar that no one will ever tell them that they can’t drive their big cars. No one will ever tell them to not set their air conditioning to 70 degrees. No one but the “free market,” anyway.

Conservation is a gift that keeps on giving. There is great wealth (and national security) that can be generated by focusing on conservation. One incredibly impressive example is the ability (using current technology) to build carbon-neutral buildings. We could each get involved in dozens of ways to use energy smartly. We could each be mini-heroes in the effort to free ourselves from economic and environmental ruin.

Here’s one more thought on what some money could do if spent in the better way:

The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could . . . outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity.

I’ll end with a fantasy contest (one I’m not really proposing): What if the federal government awarded a 50% discount on income taxes to the 10 million American households with the smallest carbon footprint each tax year? If you want to see some serious grass roots movement toward sustainability, consider something like this, then let the “free market” take over. Those conservatives who continue to disparage conservation need not apply.

In the meantime, I’ve written this post to make note that McCain’s battery contest is yet another attempt to distract America from the only potent workable short-term (and long term) solution to our energy crisis: conservation.

Here is the simple goal for those participating in Naked Bike Ride: Protest our dependency on oil and celebrate the power and individuality of our bodies. In America, most people tend to have a warped attitude toward bicycles. They see bicycles as toys and amusements, not as incredibly efficient and serious modes of transportation. More than anything else, Naked Bike Ride is an attempt to change this attitude and to get people to choose bicycles rather than gas guzzling motor vehicles, whenever possible.

This combination was pure marketing genius. If 1,000 people had assembled in the middle of St. Louis to promote alternative sustainable methods of transportation, the media wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass. Because these organizers promised to wrap this serious message about bicycle riding in a package of nudity, however, the media was there in droves.  Here’s an video interview of two of the organizers.

Now, what kind of nudity did those curious media types actually see when they got to the assembly prior to the bicycle ride? Well, they saw some of this:

As well as some of this:

The evening could also have been accurately called Slogans Painted on Partially Naked People on Bikes Night, but that would have been unwieldy.

This use of nakedness to promote the message that we desperately need to start using sustainable transportation methods has been successfully executed in numerous other cities. Tonight, the event came to my home town. I decided to both participate in a minimally naked way . . .

. . . and report on the St. Louis edition of “Naked Bike Ride.” Yes, the message on my back was not creative. I went for the brutally clear approach.

The St. Louis organizers encouraged participants to push the nakedness to the legal limit, but not more than the limit:

[W]e also met with the police tonight. We wanted you all to know the official word after that meeting. Here’s the city ordinance that they went over with us. We are encouraging strategic coverage of the controversial areas (genitals, buttocks, breasts) but maximum exposure within the law and if people decide to bare it all you need to know that that is in violation of the ordinance and the police have to right to make arrests if there are complaints.

What goes on during Naked Bicycle Night? The cyclists have the opportunity to take a 12-mile bicycle ride on the city streets devoid of gas-slurping automobiles, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens in various states of cycling nudity.

Perhaps you are wondering whether it would be uncomfortable to ride a bicycle while naked. The national organizers dedicated several paragraphs to that topic here.

It might have been more accurate to call it Underwear Bicycle Ride, but there was, indeed, some nakedness, including several people riding totally in the nude. It was hilarious to watch the expressions of the numerous bystanders who saw the totally naked bicycle riders passing. Many of them had that look (”Oh my. It looks like . . . no, it couldn’t be . . . but maybe it is . . . but is that legal?” I would estimate that there were 500 riders tonight. We passed by a several thousand people staring out hotel and restaurant windows but many more cheering on the streets. Many people cheering knew about Naked Bicycle Ride and were lined up along portions of the route.

The crowds often shouted lots of enthusiasm, honked horns, jumped up and down and waved. As we passed through the applauding people early in the ride, a woman riding next to me said, “This is such a rush.” Indeed.

I snapped this shot as my group paused at an intersection in front of a brightly lit gas station. That’s what it’s all about, right?

There were many creative body paintings. Note this woman’s violin motif, for example. I took most of these photos while riding my bicycle, holding onto the bike with my left hand and shooting with the right, without looking through at or through the camera. Given the haphazardness of the situation, I was surprised that I was able to capture so many usable images. As you can see, this includes images of many people conveying the an unsurprisingly coherent political mood.

(more…)

Newt Gingrich recently ridiculed Barack Obama’s suggestion for a way to immediately save LOTS of oil: make sure your tires are filled with sufficient air and make sure your car is tuned up. Who’s right? According to Think Progress, it’s Obama.

Obama is correct to suggest that inflating tires properly and getting regular tune-ups “could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling” — and by a long shot. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the “lower-48″ outer continental shelf will increase by about 200,000 barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800,000 barrels per day, immediately.

Seeing that this issue is finally being debated publicly gives me some satisfaction. The immense amount of oil saved by properly filling our tires is one of the first topics I wrote for DI (2 1/2 years ago). Some of the statistics I cited in my post are as startling as Newt Gingrich’s arrogance and ignorance. If you think I’m exaggerating, take a look at the Think Progress site’s video to watch Gingrich farting out of his mouth.

For at least a decade, we’ve had a trend where Republicans would rather look bombastic than use their brains. It wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t destroying out way of life.

BTW, you can always detect weak-minded people. They are afraid to give their “opponents” their best foot forward. Let’s assume that we will eventually have to drill for more oil in the US (though this would be unwise for the reasons Al Gore has made famous). Even assuming that we had to drill more, it is clearly true that Obama’s practical advice would have a substantial impact. An honest politician would admit that Obama’s idea was a good one as a prelude to making his or her own proposal.

An honest news media would pillory Gingrich for his ignorance rather than simply promulgating his ignorant rant.

This raises the issue of why so many conservatives bristle at conservation. I suspect that they fall prey to the illusion that motion is progress. They would rather do something physically dramatic than act in an intelligent way that doesn’t give rise to photo ops. Hence, drilling oil, digging coal, bombing anyone that moves and constantly waving flags are much more attractive to them than conserving oil, working out political differences or protecting constitutional rights.

It’s time to elect smarter politicians who appreciate that taking real steps to save energy, such as insulating home, constructing more energy-efficient buildings, downsizing cars, and tapping into renewable energy are real solutions. Much of the American public is not ready for thoughtful politicians yet. Maybe we’ve lost the critical mass of voters necessary to make it ever again possible, because there are huge numbers of drill-and-bomb voters out there . . .

Think globally, act locally.  That’s the message of this Common Dreams article, entitled “Energy-Addicted US Can Learn a Lot From Europe.” And yes, we can really learn a lot about energy from Europeans.

Someday soon, we’re going to be having fantasies that we had their fleet of tiny cars, those same cars we laughed at a couple years ago.   Cars that look like this one I photographed in London three years ago:

The huge U.S. fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs is putting us in a straight-jacket.  Actually, it’s even worse.  It’s a national security issue.

And what can you say about a government that allowed us to accumulate a fleet of oversized cars that we can’t afford to use?  A fleet that causes us to act belligerently across the globe in an attempt to fill our huge cars with fuel?  If only, 5 or 10 or 20 years ago, we had used the tiny amount of IQ necessary to see this energy crisis coming, so that we would have downsized our energy-using equipment in order to be prepared for what we’re about to face.

Here’s a thoughtful and well-researched article on the safety of bicycling by Alan Durning of Grist.  Here’s his bottom line:

Biking is safer than it used to be. It’s safer than you might think. It does incur the risk of collision, but its other health benefits massively outweigh these risks. And it can be made much safer. What’s more, making streets truly safe for cyclists may be the best way to reverse Bicycle Neglect: it may be among communities’ best options for countering obesity, climate disruption, rising economic inequality, and oil addiction.

He also concludes, based on ample research, that

if you’re a cautious, law-abiding, risk-averse cyclist, biking is far safer than you’d think from the aggregate statistics, which are inflated by the proliferation of two-wheeling daredevils.

Durning thinks we can do a lot better to protect cyclists.  He advocates better cycling facilities, such as bikeways, bike boulevards, traffic calming, blue lanes, and cycle signals (the use of bike lanes is disputed, however, as you can see in the comments).  He also advocates for better educating drivers and cyclists.  For instance, in Germany, fourth graders are required to demonstrate cycling proficiency.

At this site, we’ve often advocated cycling as a mode of transportation (see here, for example).  I’m linking to Durning’s article because it is a good resource.  The comments continue the good discussion well.

As I read the statistics in Durning’s article, I had to agree with the need for cyclist education, as well need to educate motor vehicle drivers of the existence of bicycles. But back to those cyclists.   I cringe at the way half of them ride.  They violate virtually every traffic law.  They weave all over.  They don’t wear helmets.  Many of them ride much fast than is safe in the traffic.   I would think that U.S. bicycle/car collisions could be cut in half were the cyclists made to feel that the traffic laws pertain to them too.   My concern is a source of optimism, too, because it might be possible to dramatically cut the bicycle collisions without any substantial costs.

Those who are truly interested in community-building (rather than striving to enhance their own status through resource-exhausting displays of material wealth) might want to take note of two ways city folks play in water.

This idea occurred to me while walking through Tower Grove Park in St. Louis last week. Dozens of children splashed in a modest shallow pool fed by a fountain. As you can see from this (expandable) photo, the children were being closely watched by their parents. It was a communal celebration on a warm night. No one was there to display his or her financial assets. This sort of community-building occurs in many cities every day.

Sometimes a municipality builds a big pool rather than a small pool and fountain, with the same result (as seen below, a photo of the Maplewood, Missouri municipal swimming pool. Anyone can join for a relatively modest fee.

This is a photo of my seven-year old daughter going down a water slide into a municipal pool. You might be thinking, “What kind of parent are you to allow your daughter to share a swimming spot with strangers?” What kind, indeed! The same kind that knows that strangers can get along. We can even share beaches!

As shown in the above photos, people of modest means can actually enjoy playing in water quite well when they share. And they can share and they do share, just as they did decades ago while I was growing up in a middle-class neighborhood. In fact, almost no one had their own pool (other than inflatable pools for infants). Swimming was always done as a community only a few decades ago. And (believe it or not), government was competent at running swimming pools (and libraries and fire departments). The bottom line is that people shared swimming spots and yet the world did not fall apart. And because people shared, there wasn’t as much wasting of natural resources (the water, the chemicals, the electricity to run the filters, the pool companies using fuel to drive out to do maintenance, and even the energy used to heat these pools in October).

Compare the park fountain at the top of this post to the following photo I took two days ago while flying over Boston suburbs. Many of these houses have their own swimming pools (none of them being used on this hot day while this photo was taken). Based on their decisions to build their own pools, none of these people were interested in sharing swimming spots. “Come on over,” I can hear them saying to their private friends. “We have our own pool. No strangers are allowed.”

I’m seeing it everywhere these days: resource-wasting displays of wealth that have been acquired in an attempt to elevate social status. In these days of more expensive oil (though it’s still cheap), SUV’s will undoubtedly once again become an item of special status for the rich, as the middle-class decides that it can’t keep up with the rich. They won’t be able to afford the oil.

As cheap oil disappears, we’re going to put most of those middle-class pretenders back in their place in many ways. So much of what they thought they “needed,” including those pools in their own back yards, will disappear. At that point, luxury items like unnecessarily large vehicles and unnecessarily private swimming pools will once again come to be displays of real status, real power and real wealth. The rich can once again breathe easy that they will once again come to look rich.

RJ Matson, Roll Call

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune

Postura Climatica
Tab, The Calgary Sun

The G-8
Dario Castillejos, El Imparcial de México

Televictim
Angel Boligan, El Universal, Mexico City

[Admin note:  All Cartoons are being published at DI with full permission by Cagle Cartoons]

I wrote about complacency once before. I focused on the complacency of most Americans in the face of the energy crisis that is clearly upon us. We have no assurance that gasoline won’t double or triple in price over the next five or 10 years, throwing our economy into a massive depression. With stakes like these, you would think that prolific energy wasters like us would immediately jump on our energy consumption problem by enacting a national conservation plan to cut our petroleum use in half. This could be accomplished by modifying our wasteful energy usage in dozens of ways. For instance, we really could carpool. We could build up our mass transit systems and encourage their use. We could walk and bike more. We could make our homes much more energy-efficient. Instead of building new homes in existing farm fields, we could renovate homes that already exist. While we’re at it, we could cut our use of all other forms of energy in half too. For instance, the technology already exists to make zero-carbon footprint buildings.

Others have written extensively regarding many methods by which we could reduce energy use. Due to the widely accepted law of supply and demand, cutting our use of energy would also have the effect of lowering the price of energy (relative to whatever it would have been had we not taken such measures), thereby diminishing the financial damage from our perennial trade deficits and budget deficits.

My concern is that so many people (including many people I know personally) are absolutely complacent about the need to change the way we produce and use energy. I keep hearing people say that “they will make our gasoline out of corn” or “we have plenty of coal” as though some unspecified “corn plan” would produce net energy without causing people to starve or some fantasy “coal plan” could be a foolproof substitute for petroleum, without somehow contributing massive amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

People are finally buying more energy-efficient cars, but that is only in response to the spiking costs of gasoline. It’s like we need to be kicked in the shin in order to get our attention. Many mainstream news articles discuss that this price jump of gasoline occurred “suddenly,” as though it was impossible to see that high gasoline prices were in our future. We still don’t get it, though. For example, many news articles are currently talking about the high price of gas as though gas will continue to be five dollars per gallon five years from now, as though we’ve hit a stable plateau.

As I suggested in my prior post about complacency, I sense that there’s a rampant attitude that most of the big things in life are not under our control. Rather, they simply “happen.” According to many people, the “free market” decides what will be available for sale and at what price it will be sold. Similarly, “God” makes decisions about disasters and diseases such as heart attacks and lung cancer (even though people cause many of their own problems through climate change in lifestyle at choices). The people who are big believers in the free market and a sentient God see humans as powerless children who simply react to situations. We act like there’s nothing we can do to root corporate corruption out of our national political system.

From so many people, I hear this solution: “They” will come up with something to solve our energy problems, our medical problems, our food production problems, our natural resource supply issues and our pollution problems, as though these problems don’t start with each and every one of us. As though we are not responsible for what “they” need to do. As though we don’t make the messes that “they” need to clean up.

I have no doubt that we could cut our energy usage in half. We could substantially reduce our risks of certain diseases by changing our lifestyles. We could eat foods that are friendlier to the planet, such that the average item of food would not actually need to travel 1000 miles or more to our plates. We could start making difficult decisions that would ensure sustainable supplies of water well into the future, at least for many communities (Las Vegas might not be in the plans). By using much less of everything we consume we could substantially cut the amount of toxic waste we generate. When “we” live more responsibly, “they” have less work to do to save us.

Admittedly, some bad things do seem to just happen to us. On the other hand, many of our biggest problems are caused by us. Therefore, to act complacently as a general rule is a huge cop-out virtually guaranteeing disaster. The real solution is to force ourselves to follow the chain of production through our use of our products and resources so that we can see that our local actions often have tangible national and global consequences. We are incapable of assessing these big problems to the extent that we allow ourselves to overlook problems that have solutions that would be expensive or inconvenient to us.

Sacrifice is a dirty word these days. No politician wants to tell the citizens that we will need to give up some of our wasteful ways. The same thing goes for the many “greenwashing” articles out there. For instance, I read several “green” magazines, including Plenty; they are extremely light on the need for self-sacrifice. (more…)