Re: [carfree_cities] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Columnist: Fly Me to the Moon
- On 6 Dec 2004, at 12:27 PM, emccaughrin wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, rickrise@e... wrote:I suppose, though, that a generous reading of "alternative energy and
>> (...) a crash science initiative for
>> alternative energy and conservation to make America
>> energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American
>> kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision.
> I really wish these editorial writers would take a crash course in
> thermodynamics. How many times now have we seen editorials written
> by scientifically illiterate morons that seem to think there is some
> miracle technological solution out there to make Americans
> energy "independent" while at the same time driving 4+ ton vehicles
> 25 miles per day? It doesn't matter how much money is thrown at the
> NSF -- nobody is going to invent a perpetual motion device.
conservation" might imply cutting back on -- and cutting out as far as
possible -- wasteful modes of transport, which would imply a need for
scientific research on improving urban environments and reshaping the
suburban landscape around more intelligent transportation choices (an
enormous, complex task that would require a lot of experimentation and
modelling). I can imagine that the NSF could fund a lot of very useful
research in these areas. A U.S. Carfree Institute, like what Joel
Crawford hopes to set up at some point, would stand to benefit
enormously from NSF research funding channelled into this area.
Long distance transportation-related news: an interesting article on
today's CBC website about a tomato shortage in Canada due to bad
weather earlier this year in the California and Florida
This is but a "foretaste" of what could be expected with increasing
transportation costs, with or without further (perhaps global
warming-induced) weather problems -- just the kind of thing Jim
Kunstler, among others, warns about.
Washington DC, USA
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Christopher Miller
>You are being far too generous. The idea clearly being advocated by
> I suppose, though, that a generous reading of "alternative energy
> and conservation" might imply cutting back on -- and cutting out
> as far as possible -- wasteful modes of transport
Mr. Friedman -- and an embarassing number of "environmental"
organizations -- is that we blow billions on white elephant projects
like "intelligent" highway systems, hydrogen highways (i.e. "21st-
century fuel"), battery-powered hummers, etc. For politicians
(Democrat and Republican) it is a "win-win-win" situation. They can
say to their constituents that they are "environmental" by funding
such programs without having to make any of the difficult decisions
about reducing the gigantic subsidies sustaining sprawl.
> which would imply a need for scientific research on improvingReearch what, exactly?
> urban environments and reshaping the suburban landscape around
> more intelligent transportation choices (an enormous, complex
> task that would require a lot of experimentation and
Designing energy efficient cities and transport systems is already a
solved problem. Off-the-shelf technology already in use today could
eliminate America's energy deficit. But until the various structural
problems are fixed, there is no market incentive to do so.