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

Re: [carfree_cities] re: "America is addicted to oil"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.