Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

re: "America is addicted to oil"

Expand Messages
  • On the Train Towards the Future!
    Hi everyone, especially in the USA, Dont let your friends and colleagues whom you think are perhaps sitting on the fence a bit about carfree issues give Bush
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi everyone, especially in the USA,

      Dont let your friends and colleagues whom you think are perhaps "sitting on the fence" a bit about carfree issues give Bush any slack in regards to him saying "oil addiction"!

      Ask them:

      * If he wants to end the addiction or simply replace the drug
      * What he is doing fundmentally to change energy use now
      * If they want their tax dollars spent on nuclear research
      * If they really believe in "clean coal"
      * If they think that a car powered by something other than oil changes:
      - Social isolation and worse of automobile-dependent neighborhoods?
      - Road noise caused by airflow and tire noise?
      - Enabling of obesity?
      - 1.2 million dead per year?
      - In category "The global parking lot":
      -- If it improves ability of real children to play in real streets?
      -- If it changes huge amount of space needed for automobile movement and parking?


      Remind them:

      * That his friends are in the "energy industry", not simply the "oil industry", and they are happy to keep us addicted.


      PLEASE advance this discussion.


      - T

      ------------------------------------------------------

      Todd Edelman
      International Coordinator
      On the Train Towards the Future!

      Green Idea Factory
      Laubova 5
      CZ-13000 Praha 3

      ++420 605 915 970

      edelman@...
      http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

      Green Idea Factory,
      a member of World Carfree Network
    • Jym Dyer
      ... =v= Bingo. Recall that in 2003 s State of the Union address he mentioned allocating $1.2 billion so that the first car driven by a child born today could
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > Ask them:
        > * If he wants to end the addiction or simply replace the drug
        > * What he is doing fundmentally to change energy use now

        =v= Bingo. Recall that in 2003's State of the Union address
        he mentioned allocating $1.2 billion "so that the first car
        driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and
        pollution-free." With this turn of phrase, his speechwriters
        (1) reinforce the idea of driving cars as a rite of passage
        and (2) suggest that there's no pressing need to fix cars for
        another 15 years or so.

        =v= People who should have known better were encouraged. The
        record from the White House at that point is pretty much the
        same as it is now: slashing energy conservation and clean
        energy research from budgets, aggressive promotion of fossil
        fuels and "clean, safe, nukular energy," and absurd tax breaks
        for SUV drivers.

        =v= I looked at the FY2003 proposed budget that went along
        with that speech, and wrote this at the time:

        The Department of Energy executive summary stresses "clean"
        energy, but as you read on you find that the big money's
        going to (surprise!) fossil fuels and nuclear energy. We
        also see that the automotive technology money is going into
        the "Freedom CAR" program, which as we know simply throws
        money at Detroit without any real accountability or goals.

        Take a look at the actual budget that goes with this year's
        speech, and you'll see nothing new.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html

        Well, actually, there is something new. In 2003 the very high
        cost of decomissioning nuclear power facilities was categorized
        as "renewable energy." In 2006 it's been renamed "environmental
        management."

        > * If they want their tax dollars spent on nuclear research
        > * If they really believe in "clean coal"

        =v= He mentioned a mythical beast called "safe, clean nukular
        power." He also mentioned ethanol. The scriptwriters seem to
        have pulled that section, word-for-word, not from any energy
        research report, but from a recent _Fortune_ story.)
        <_Jym_>
      • Andrew Dawson
        I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for the US DOT, which is not much. Any ways there is practically nothing decent for the FTA or
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for the US DOT,
          which is not much. Any ways there is practically nothing decent for the FTA
          or Amtrak. Till later, Andrew

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html

          >From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
          >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
          >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"
          >Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:11:31 -0800
          >
          > > Ask them:
          > > * If he wants to end the addiction or simply replace the drug
          > > * What he is doing fundmentally to change energy use now
          >
          >=v= Bingo. Recall that in 2003's State of the Union address
          >he mentioned allocating $1.2 billion "so that the first car
          >driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and
          >pollution-free." With this turn of phrase, his speechwriters
          >(1) reinforce the idea of driving cars as a rite of passage
          >and (2) suggest that there's no pressing need to fix cars for
          >another 15 years or so.
          >
          >=v= People who should have known better were encouraged. The
          >record from the White House at that point is pretty much the
          >same as it is now: slashing energy conservation and clean
          >energy research from budgets, aggressive promotion of fossil
          >fuels and "clean, safe, nukular energy," and absurd tax breaks
          >for SUV drivers.
          >
          >=v= I looked at the FY2003 proposed budget that went along
          >with that speech, and wrote this at the time:
          >
          > The Department of Energy executive summary stresses "clean"
          > energy, but as you read on you find that the big money's
          > going to (surprise!) fossil fuels and nuclear energy. We
          > also see that the automotive technology money is going into
          > the "Freedom CAR" program, which as we know simply throws
          > money at Detroit without any real accountability or goals.
          >
          >Take a look at the actual budget that goes with this year's
          >speech, and you'll see nothing new.
          >
          >http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html
          >
          >Well, actually, there is something new. In 2003 the very high
          >cost of decomissioning nuclear power facilities was categorized
          >as "renewable energy." In 2006 it's been renamed "environmental
          >management."
          >
          > > * If they want their tax dollars spent on nuclear research
          > > * If they really believe in "clean coal"
          >
          >=v= He mentioned a mythical beast called "safe, clean nukular
          >power." He also mentioned ethanol. The scriptwriters seem to
          >have pulled that section, word-for-word, not from any energy
          >research report, but from a recent _Fortune_ story.)
          > <_Jym_>
        • Jym Dyer
          http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html ... =v= $21 billion over one year for air travel depicted as peachy. $283.9 billion over six
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html

            > I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for
            > the US DOT, which is not much. Any ways there is practically
            > nothing decent for the FTA or Amtrak.

            =v= $21 billion over one year for air travel depicted as peachy.
            $283.9 billion over six years for highways, depicted as lovely.
            $29 billion over thirty-five years for Amtrak, depicted as a
            horrible, horrible thing that must be destroyed.
            <_Jym_>
          • Andrew Dawson
            So Uncle Sam is really cheap (my government is just as cheap too), no wonder we ve gone from being in the 1st to 4th world transportation wise here in North
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              So Uncle Sam is really cheap (my government is just as cheap too), no wonder
              we've gone from being in the 1st to 4th world transportation wise here in
              North America.

              Till later, Andrew

              >From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
              >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
              >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"
              >Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:47:26 -0800
              >
              >http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html
              >
              > > I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for
              > > the US DOT, which is not much. Any ways there is practically
              > > nothing decent for the FTA or Amtrak.
              >
              >=v= $21 billion over one year for air travel depicted as peachy.
              >$283.9 billion over six years for highways, depicted as lovely.
              >$29 billion over thirty-five years for Amtrak, depicted as a
              >horrible, horrible thing that must be destroyed.
              > <_Jym_>
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Mike Neuman
              The U.S. is not a cheapskate when it comes to funding highway and airport developments. About the only two areas of U.S. investment larger than highways and
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 7, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                The U.S. is not a cheapskate when it comes to funding highway and
                airport developments. About the only two areas of U.S. investment
                larger than highways and airports are U.S. military expeditures and
                2006's tax breaks for the rich!

                --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Dawson"
                <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:
                >
                > So Uncle Sam is really cheap (my government is just as cheap too),
                no wonder
                > we've gone from being in the 1st to 4th world transportation wise
                here in
                > North America.
                >
                > Till later, Andrew
                >
                > >From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
                > >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                > >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                > >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"
                > >Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:47:26 -0800
                > >
                > >http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/transportation.html
                > >
                > > > I took a look at link you provided and saw what there was for
                > > > the US DOT, which is not much. Any ways there is practically
                > > > nothing decent for the FTA or Amtrak.
                > >
                > >=v= $21 billion over one year for air travel depicted as peachy.
                > >$283.9 billion over six years for highways, depicted as lovely.
                > >$29 billion over thirty-five years for Amtrak, depicted as a
                > >horrible, horrible thing that must be destroyed.
                > > <_Jym_>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Greg Steele
                The source of Bush s comment, I believe, comes from Set America Free (http://www.setamericafree.org/). I encountered this group last summer. At first glance
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  The source of Bush's comment, I believe, comes from Set America Free
                  (http://www.setamericafree.org/). I encountered this group last
                  summer. At first glance they seem to be saying the right things,
                  however, their "solution" is that new technology will permit happy
                  motoring into the future. You can read about my encounter at
                  http://walkbike.org/_wsn/page2.html - see heading "Checkmate!" This
                  group has been courting the Republican Party, so it follows that their
                  ideas made there way into the President's speech.

                  My apologies for not being active in this group as of late, or
                  updating my blog – walkbike, but I am now employed by Amtrak. In the
                  spirit of doing more with less I have been taking work home and
                  focusing on my job. My thanks to everyone on this group for promoting
                  rail in the US.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.