Iraqi war forecast in 1920's

Forwarded by Mike Vandeman:

Published Saturday, January 18, 2003, in The Guardian (London)

Car wars

The US economy needs oil like a junkie needs heroin - and Iraq will supply its next fix

Ian Roberts

War in Iraq is inevitable. That there would be war was decided by North American planners in the
mid-1920s. That it would be in Iraq was decided much more recently. The architects of this war were
not military planners but town planners. War is inevitable not because of weapons of mass
destruction, as claimed by the political right, nor because of western imperialism, as claimed by
the left. The cause of this war, and probably the one that will follow, is car dependence.

The US has paved itself into a corner. Its physical and economic infrastructure is so highly car
dependent that the US is pathologically addicted to oil. Without billions of barrels of precious
black sludge being pumped into the veins of its economy every year, the nation would experience
painful and damaging withdrawal.

The first Model T Ford rolled off the assembly line in 1908 and was a miracle of mass production. In
the first decade of that century, car registrations in the US increased from 8,000 to almost
500,000. Within the cities, buses replaced trams, and then cars replaced buses. In 1932, General
Motors bought up America's tramways and then closed them down. But it was the urban planners who
really got America hooked. Car ownership offered the possibility of escape from dirty, crowded
cities to leafy garden suburbs and the urban planners provided the escape routes.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, America "road built" itself into a nation of home-owning
suburbanites. In the words of Joni Mitchell: "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." Cities
such as Los Angeles, Dallas and Phoenix were moulded by the private passenger car into vast urban
sprawls which are so widely spread that it is now almost impossible to service them economically
with public transport.

As the cities sprawled, the motor manufacturing industry consolidated. Car-making is now the main
industrial employer in the world, dominated by five major groups of which General Motors is the
largest. The livelihood and landscape of North Americans were forged by car-makers.

Motor vehicles are responsible for about one-third of global oil use, but for nearly two-thirds of
US oil use. In the rest of the world, heating and power generation account for most oil use. The
increase in oil prices during the 1973 Arab oil embargo encouraged the substitution of other fuels
in heating and power generation, but in the transport sector there is little scope for oil
substitution in the short term.

Due to artificially low oil and gasoline prices that did not reflect the true social costs of
production and use, there was little incentive to seek alternative energy sources. The Arab oil
embargo temporarily stimulated greater fuel efficiency with the introduction of gasoline consumption
standards, but the increasing popularity of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles over the past
decade has substantially reduced the average fuel efficiency of the US car fleet.

The US transportation sector is almost totally dependent on oil, and supplies are running out. It is
estimated that the total amount of oil that can be pumped out of the earth is about 2,000 billion
barrels and that world oil production will peak in the next 10 to 15 years. Since even modest
reductions in oil production can result in major hikes in the cost of gasoline, the US
administration is well aware of the importance of ensuring oil supplies. Every major oil price shock
of the past 30 years was followed by a US recession and every major recession was preceded by an oil
price shock.

In 1997, the Carnegie commission on preventing deadly conflict identified factors that put states at
risk. They include rapid population changes that outstrip the capacity of the state to provide
essential services, and the control of valuable natural resources by a single group. Both factors
are key motivators in the war with Iraq. Sprawling suburban America needs oil and Saddam Hussein is
sitting on it.

The US economy needs oil like a junkie needs heroin and Iraq has 112 billion barrels, the largest
supply in the world outside Saudi Arabia. Even before the first shot has been fired, there have
been discussions about how Iraq's oil reserves will be carved up. All five permanent members of
the UN security council have international oil companies that have an interest in "regime change"
in Baghdad.

Car dependence is a global public health issue of which gasoline wars are only one facet. Every day
about 3,000 people die and 30,000 people are seriously injured on the world's roads in traffic
crashes. More than 85% of the deaths are in low and middle-income countries, with pedestrians,
cyclists and bus passengers bearing most of the burden. Most of the victims will never own a car,
and many are children.

By 2020, road crashes will have moved from ninth to third place in the world ranking of the burden
of disease and injury, and will be in second place in developing countries. That we accept this
carnage as the collateral damage in a car-based transport system indicates the strength and
pervasiveness of car dependency. Moreover, car travel has reduced our walking. One-quarter of all
car journeys are less than two miles. A 3km walk uses up about half the energy in a small bar of
chocolate. The same distance by car expends 10 times as much energy but from the wrong source. We
can make chocolate but oil reserves are finite.

Car use and the corresponding decline in physical activity is an important cause of the obesity
epidemic in the US and UK, and physical inactivity increases the risks of heart disease, diabetes,
osteoporosis and hypertension. Car-based shopping has turned many small towns into ghost towns and
has severed the supportive social networks of community interaction.

The first gasoline war was waged in Kuwait and the second will be waged in Iraq. The world must act
now to prevent the third. On the brink of war with Iraq, Tony Blair is playing the role of tough
world leader. But transport, not Iraq, is the truly tough issue. His deputy, John Prescott, tried
and failed to deal with car dependency and now the government is in policy retreat. Ken Livingstone,
who does not own a car and has leadership qualities that Blair lacks, may with congestion charging
succeed where others have failed, but his enemies have the support of powerful lobby groups.

Those who oppose war in Iraq must work together to prevent the conflicts that will follow if we fail
to tackle car dependency. We must reclaim the streets, promote walking and cycling, strengthen
public transport, oppose new road construction and pay the full social cost of car use. We must
argue for land-use policies that reduce the need for car travel. We need "urban villages" clustered
around public transport nodes, not sprawling car-dependent conurbations. We can all play our part
and we must act now.

Ian Roberts is professor of public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

M A R T I N K R I E G : "Awake Again" Author Bent Since '83, Car Free Since '89, Attacking with
Love Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor '79 & '86 TransAm Vet - Invites you to:
http://www.BikeRoute.com/SCNBGFest N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y

 

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:02 GMT, "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:

[q1]>Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on the[/q1]
[q1]>USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own homeland's[/q1]
[q1]>dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point.[/q1]

Speaking as a Brit I read over half the article as applying equally to the UK. There was a flame war
on a uk.transport recently sparked by the suggestion that a woman who killed a cyclist by overtaking
far too close (didn't even cross the centreline) should probably not have been allowed to drive home
from court- no driving ban was imposed. Britsh drivers have exactly the same tunnel vision -
car=transport therefore transport=car.

And yes, I commute 15 miles round trip by bike.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm as worried about Saddam's weapons of mass decoration as the next man. One
touch of a button, and Whoosh! Dangly trim things on the pelmets and white dralon sofas in every
living room in the West. It'll be like living in a continent-wide version of "Changing Rooms". Wait
a sec, did you say "destruction"? Damn, I've been worrying about nothing all along...

Realistically, though, one would hardly expect Mr. Tony Blair (a.k.a. "Nobhead") to come out and say
"Actually, boys and girls, you're right, it *is* about oil." Remember he is a politician, and
therefore everything he says must be treated with extreme suspicion. And the same goes for all the
other politicians who fall over themselves to sell weapons to scumbag dictators while pretending to
have an "ethical foreign policy".

Grr!

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter http://www.bhpc.org.uk/ Who didn't vote for Blair
===========================================================

 

See how hard it is for me to focus? ;-) Please don't think I meant to flame anyone in the country
besides the one individual (the author). I spent time in England (Mildenhall) and have nothing but
praise of the UK. But I do remember the oil-dependent traffic there was every bit as bad (if not
worse) as here in the US, so I took exception when he compares the US oil dependence to a heroin
junkie and focused the blame on North America. I distinctly remember nasty fuel-wasting traffic jams
there too.

Brian

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:07:02 GMT, "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on[/q2]
[q2]> >the USA's dependence on oil but completely[/q2]
overlooking
[q2]> >or neglecting any mention of his own homeland's dependence on it, I have[/q2]
a
[q2]> >hard time focusing on his point.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Speaking as a Brit I read over half the article as applying equally to the UK. There was a flame[/q1]
[q1]> war on a uk.transport recently sparked by the suggestion that a woman who killed a cyclist by[/q1]
[q1]> overtaking far too close (didn't even cross the centreline) should probably not have been allowed[/q1]
[q1]> to drive home from court- no driving ban was imposed. Britsh drivers have exactly the same tunnel[/q1]
[q1]> vision - car=transport therefore transport=car.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> And yes, I commute 15 miles round trip by bike.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Guy[/q1]
[q1]> ===[/q1]
[q1]> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and[/q1]
[q1]> dynamic DNS permitting)[/q1]
[q1]> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer[/q1]
[q1]> work. Apologies.[/q1]

 

It's not SUV's that need to be blamed. SUV's are just a product of the people who produce them and
the people who drive them. These people and their mentality are the problem.

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<L5%[email protected]>...
[q1]> Yes I've seen a SUV in England. BTW, I wasn't criticizing the English at all--only the author of[/q1]
[q1]> the article ,Ian Roberts, for (in my opinion) focusing blame on North America. But on the same[/q1]
[q1]> hand, I think it is rather silly to buy into the notion that the SUV is the root of all oil[/q1]
[q1]> related problems. Both a SUV or a small engine compact car burn infinitely more oil than I do on[/q1]
[q1]> my way to work riding my RANS Tailwind. And a compact car is almost as deadly to me as a SUV[/q1]
[q1]> should we collide. Focusing blame on SUV for our oil dependence makes no more sense to me than[/q1]
[q1]> focusing blame on North America, as the author did.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Brian[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in[/q2]
[q2]> > news:[email protected]:[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q3]> > > Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping[/q3]
[q3]> > > on the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own[/q3]
[q3]> > > homeland's dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it[/q3]
[q3]> > > was the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the[/q3]
[q3]> > > seeds for today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North[/q3]
[q3]> > > Americans home town planners of the 20's instead.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how[/q3]
[q3]> > > Ian Roberts gets around?[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not[/q2]
[q2]> > even CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)[/q2]

 

It's not SUV's that need to be blamed. SUV's are just a product of the people who produce them and
the people who drive them. These people and their mentality are the problem.

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<L5%[email protected]>...
[q1]> Yes I've seen a SUV in England. BTW, I wasn't criticizing the English at all--only the author of[/q1]
[q1]> the article ,Ian Roberts, for (in my opinion) focusing blame on North America. But on the same[/q1]
[q1]> hand, I think it is rather silly to buy into the notion that the SUV is the root of all oil[/q1]
[q1]> related problems. Both a SUV or a small engine compact car burn infinitely more oil than I do on[/q1]
[q1]> my way to work riding my RANS Tailwind. And a compact car is almost as deadly to me as a SUV[/q1]
[q1]> should we collide. Focusing blame on SUV for our oil dependence makes no more sense to me than[/q1]
[q1]> focusing blame on North America, as the author did.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Brian[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in[/q2]
[q2]> > news:[email protected]:[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q3]> > > Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping[/q3]
[q3]> > > on the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own[/q3]
[q3]> > > homeland's dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it[/q3]
[q3]> > > was the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the[/q3]
[q3]> > > seeds for today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North[/q3]
[q3]> > > Americans home town planners of the 20's instead.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how[/q3]
[q3]> > > Ian Roberts gets around?[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not[/q2]
[q2]> > even CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)[/q2]

 

Brian:

"I believe your impression of me couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own, nor have I ever
owned, nor do I intend to ever own a SUV."

Actually, the "you" was rhetorical. It applies to anyone who currently owns an SUV. In other words
simply choosing to own a different vehicle might actually have the effect of a net *increase* in
energy usage. It may be much wiser to simply drive a bit less.

"I just don't buy this notion that we can single out a group of people (such as SUV owners) and tell
them--and actually believe--they're the cause of our oil dependence and the rest of us are not. "

Well, of course not. But the mentality that many seem to mistake for partriotism, an attitude that I
call "bread and circuses" and is just as likely to be manifested by the "left" as the "right" *is*
the problem. The essential freedom is the freedom to deterimine the course or arc of your life,
involving who you marry, what career you adopt, schooling, etc. Compared to that whether you have
the freedom from criticism about driving an SUV is decidedly secondary. Indeed, if we were to raise
the price of that choice by adjusting the price of gasoline, or imposing restrictions on gasoline
consumption, that would *also* be a secondary issue. And furthermore the ability to choose to
exercise your consumer sovereignty ("your" again being rhetorical) in order to make things
marginally tougher for terrorism is not an abrogation of freedom, but an affirmation of it.

That's all I'm saying. And, of course, that we exercise a bit of intelligence and wisdom about our
choices. I'm not implying that we're in disagreement. I'm just making a point about the economics of
the thing.
--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"bandjhughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> Scott:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I believe your impression of me couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own, nor have I ever[/q1]
[q1]> owned, nor do I intend to ever own a SUV. Also, I'm a 5-day per week, year round, bike to work[/q1]
[q1]> commuter. More weeks than not I put zero miles on my motor vehicle (a pickup truck that I last[/q1]
[q1]> went almost 6-months between fill ups)--how much less should I drive?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> If I seem like I'm defending SUV ownership, it may be because I just don't buy this notion that we[/q1]
[q1]> can single out a group of people (such as SUV owners) and tell them--and actually believe--they're[/q1]
[q1]> the cause of our oil dependence and the rest of us are not. When I see BS statements like "If you[/q1]
[q1]> ride an SUV you ride with osama" I just want to puke.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Brian[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
news:<[email protected]>...
[q2]> > Brian:[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > If it's true then it might be more economical to hang onto your SUV if[/q2]
you
[q2]> > already have one, rather than sell it and purchase a more economical car[/q2]
off
[q2]> > the production line. Just drive it a little less. And stay out of my[/q2]
way,
[q2]> > 'cause you're blockin' my view.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > --[/q2]
[q2]> > --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
[q2]> > news:[email protected]sread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...[/q2]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > > And since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use[/q3]
[q3]> > > > in its lifetime, SUVs[/q3]
are
[q3]> > > > sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.[/q3]
[q3]> > > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I[/q3]
don't
[q3]> > > know if it's true. But I'm curious, if it is indeed true, how many[/q3]
cars
[q2]> > are[/q2]
[q3]> > > built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built per barrel? And what about this[/q3]
[q2]> > idea[/q2]
[q3]> > > of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that[/q3]
supposedly
[q3]> > > are going to get twice the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if[/q3]
the
[q3]> > > real oil usage is in production of the vehicle itself? I doubt these hybrids will be built at[/q3]
[q3]> > > twice the rate per barrel.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would[/q3]
it
[q2]> > in[/q2]
[q3]> > > fact be better for the overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or[/q3]
[q2]> > even[/q2]
[q3]> > > a used SUV (since that oil used in production has already been used)[/q3]
[q2]> > instead[/q2]
[q3]> > > of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more[/q3]
oil to
[q3]> > > be used in production than you will ever burn while driving your used[/q3]
[q2]> > motor[/q2]
[q3]> > > vehicle)?[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the[/q3]
"several
[q3]> > > times more oil in production versus in use" statement. If it is[/q3]
indeed
[q3]> > > true, the solution seems to me to be encouraging people to keep their vehicles (even their[/q3]
[q3]> > > large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid buying[/q3]
new
[q3]> > > vehicles every few years--that would lower the world's oil[/q3]
requirements
[q2]> > much[/q2]
[q3]> > > much more than improving the average fuel mileage of the vehicles.[/q3]
Also
[q2]> > if[/q2]
[q3]> > > true, Detroit (and other auto makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving the[/q3]
[q3]> > > energy efficiency of producing vehicles,[/q3]
and
[q3]> > > forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage of the vehicles themselves.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Brian -- Still a skeptic[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q1]>[/q1]

 

"Freewheeling" skrev...
[q1]> That's all I'm saying. And, of course, that we exercise a bit of intelligence and wisdom about our[/q1]
[q1]> choices.[/q1]

Oh...thought we were talking about the human race.

M.

 

Brian:

"I believe your impression of me couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own, nor have I ever
owned, nor do I intend to ever own a SUV."

Actually, the "you" was rhetorical. It applies to anyone who currently owns an SUV. In other words
simply choosing to own a different vehicle might actually have the effect of a net *increase* in
energy usage. It may be much wiser to simply drive a bit less.

"I just don't buy this notion that we can single out a group of people (such as SUV owners) and tell
them--and actually believe--they're the cause of our oil dependence and the rest of us are not. "

Well, of course not. But the mentality that many seem to mistake for partriotism, an attitude that I
call "bread and circuses" and is just as likely to be manifested by the "left" as the "right" *is*
the problem. The essential freedom is the freedom to deterimine the course or arc of your life,
involving who you marry, what career you adopt, schooling, etc. Compared to that whether you have
the freedom from criticism about driving an SUV is decidedly secondary. Indeed, if we were to raise
the price of that choice by adjusting the price of gasoline, or imposing restrictions on gasoline
consumption, that would *also* be a secondary issue. And furthermore the ability to choose to
exercise your consumer sovereignty ("your" again being rhetorical) in order to make things
marginally tougher for terrorism is not an abrogation of freedom, but an affirmation of it.

That's all I'm saying. And, of course, that we exercise a bit of intelligence and wisdom about our
choices. I'm not implying that we're in disagreement. I'm just making a point about the economics of
the thing.
--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"bandjhughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> Scott:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I believe your impression of me couldn't be further from the truth. I don't own, nor have I ever[/q1]
[q1]> owned, nor do I intend to ever own a SUV. Also, I'm a 5-day per week, year round, bike to work[/q1]
[q1]> commuter. More weeks than not I put zero miles on my motor vehicle (a pickup truck that I last[/q1]
[q1]> went almost 6-months between fill ups)--how much less should I drive?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> If I seem like I'm defending SUV ownership, it may be because I just don't buy this notion that we[/q1]
[q1]> can single out a group of people (such as SUV owners) and tell them--and actually believe--they're[/q1]
[q1]> the cause of our oil dependence and the rest of us are not. When I see BS statements like "If you[/q1]
[q1]> ride an SUV you ride with osama" I just want to puke.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Brian[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
news:<[email protected]>...
[q2]> > Brian:[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > If it's true then it might be more economical to hang onto your SUV if[/q2]
you
[q2]> > already have one, rather than sell it and purchase a more economical car[/q2]
off
[q2]> > the production line. Just drive it a little less. And stay out of my[/q2]
way,
[q2]> > 'cause you're blockin' my view.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > --[/q2]
[q2]> > --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
[q2]> > news:[email protected]...[/q2]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > > And since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use[/q3]
[q3]> > > > in its lifetime, SUVs[/q3]
are
[q3]> > > > sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.[/q3]
[q3]> > > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > You know, I've heard that factoid mentioned several times before. I[/q3]
don't
[q3]> > > know if it's true. But I'm curious, if it is indeed true, how many[/q3]
cars
[q2]> > are[/q2]
[q3]> > > built per barrel of oil Vs SUV built per barrel? And what about this[/q3]
[q2]> > idea[/q2]
[q3]> > > of hybrid (electric and gas/diesel) cars, trucks and SUVs that[/q3]
supposedly
[q3]> > > are going to get twice the fuel mileage or more--what's the point if[/q3]
the
[q3]> > > real oil usage is in production of the vehicle itself? I doubt these hybrids will be built at[/q3]
[q3]> > > twice the rate per barrel.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Also, how much oil does it take to build a new recumbent bike? Would[/q3]
it
[q2]> > in[/q2]
[q3]> > > fact be better for the overall oil supply to buy a used car instead or[/q3]
[q2]> > even[/q2]
[q3]> > > a used SUV (since that oil used in production has already been used)[/q3]
[q2]> > instead[/q2]
[q3]> > > of having a new recumbent built (which will perhaps cause even more[/q3]
oil to
[q3]> > > be used in production than you will ever burn while driving your used[/q3]
[q2]> > motor[/q2]
[q3]> > > vehicle)?[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Seriously, I would like to know the source and credibility of the[/q3]
"several
[q3]> > > times more oil in production versus in use" statement. If it is[/q3]
indeed
[q3]> > > true, the solution seems to me to be encouraging people to keep their vehicles (even their[/q3]
[q3]> > > large monster SUVs) much longer, and avoid buying[/q3]
new
[q3]> > > vehicles every few years--that would lower the world's oil[/q3]
requirements
[q2]> > much[/q2]
[q3]> > > much more than improving the average fuel mileage of the vehicles.[/q3]
Also
[q2]> > if[/q2]
[q3]> > > true, Detroit (and other auto makers around the world) should focus primarily on improving the[/q3]
[q3]> > > energy efficiency of producing vehicles,[/q3]
and
[q3]> > > forget about the minor benefit of improved mileage of the vehicles themselves.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > > Brian -- Still a skeptic[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q1]>[/q1]

 

"Freewheeling" skrev...
[q1]> That's all I'm saying. And, of course, that we exercise a bit of intelligence and wisdom about our[/q1]
[q1]> choices.[/q1]

Oh...thought we were talking about the human race.

M.

 

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

[q1]>When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???[/q1]

1920 or thereabouts.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

[q1]>When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???[/q1]

1920 or thereabouts.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on the
USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own homeland's
dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it was the
British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the seeds for
today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North Americans home town
planners of the 20's instead.

Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how Ian
Roberts gets around?

 

"Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200120030953403782%[email protected]...
> Forwarded by Mike Vandeman:
>
Anything contributed by MV isn't worth the electrons it took to carry it, IMHO. YMMV

Tom Thompson

 

> Car ownership offered the possibility of escape from dirty, crowded cities to leafy garden suburbs
> and the urban planners provided the escape routes.

Gee Whiz......Sounds like a plan to me..........

Needs to be tweeked a bit but not abolished.

Jerry Rhodes

 

"Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200120030953403782%[email protected]...
> Forwarded by Mike Vandeman:
>

SMOG. Please...tell me it's not THAT MJV. Let's have at least one bike NG not polluted with
his drivel.

Pete

 

Oil dependence isn't "addiction." Not any more than dependence on hydroelectric power is
"addiction." It would be prudent to cultivate alternative energy sources, not so much because of
Iraq, but because oil revenues flowing into the Middle East find their way to supporting the
expansion of the Wahhabi sect of Islam, part of a longstanding three-way battle between Persia
(Iran), Egypt, and S.A. for control of the Islamic world. It's a complicated history but, if
anything, allowing Iraq's resources to be utilized in competition with S.A. actually works to
*undermine* the spread of Wahhabism, the recruitment ground for Al Qaeda.

But oil isn't even "about oil" any more. It's about terrorism, or to use a more familiar concept:
totalitarianism in the guise of religion.

The fact is that the Middle East would be better off if it had something other than a one-product
economy... but we aren't going to "take" Iraq's oil any more than we "took" Kuwait's. Certainly we
want to deny such a critical resource to a Ba'athist dictator who see's himself as the reincartion
of Saladin, but that's just good common sense. (Ba'athism is a kind of second rate fusion of Marxism
and Nazism, developed in the 1930s by an Arab Christian named Michael Aflaq.) So oil *is* important,
but this war is about security... of which oil as a critical, but not overwhelming, part.

If, for instance, Saddam Hussein were to have a "Qadaffi moment" and enthusiastically embrace
disarmament of his WMD arsenal we'd reluctantly leave him in power, for the time being. (Not that
there's much of an humanitarian excuse for allowing this trainwreck of a regime to continue a moment
longer than it has to.)

And if there were a regional power, besides Israel, with an interest and capability to resolve the
Iraq situation (as there is in North Asia, for instance) we'd be tickled to let them handle things,
with a little help. But Turkey just ain't there yet. Dealing with Iraq under these circumstances is
a really crappy business, and if we could foist the job on anyone else we'd do it in a heartbeat.

Regarding the UN inspection team: If you're looking for a needle in a haystack (or a needle in a
piece of straw in a haystack) and the farmer starts raising hell whenever you pull out a magnet it's
valid to infer that there's something metal in the straw even if you haven't exactly seen it
glinting in the sun. The *behavior* of the farmer is evidence every bit as tangible as holding the
needle in your hand. This whole civilization is built on inference about things that can't be seen
directly, either because they're too small or too ephemeral. Wake up.

[Hint: A comprehensive list of weapons scientists and technicians available for interview in
sanctuary is analogous to a magnet. The only problem, apparently, is that these people inexplicably
prefer the wonderful climate of Iraq to a working vacation on the Riviera. Yeah, right.]

Oh, one other thing. This is not about automobiles either. Detroit really couldn't care less what
sort of power plant or engine their vehicles use, as long as they're satisfactory to the customer
and there's a distribution system. In fact, strictly speaking they'd probably be tickled to supply a
total "fleet replacement" of all the vehicles in North America, based on a different energy
resource. But such a mass conversion would require the use of petroleum to "prime the pump" for the
transition, as Bucky Fuller and Medard Gabel outlined in the 1980s.

By the way, the most successful and open societies in the Middle East have diverse economies, and
produce little if any oil. It's the producers that are dependent, not the consumers. In that sense
the "addiction" is on the other foot. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor.) Ultimately this producer
dependence is a much bigger political issue than the consumer dependence that has been
mis-identified as the "problem."

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

<<Rant snipped

 

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:53:40 -0800, "Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Published Saturday, January 18, 2003, in The Guardian (London)
>
>Car wars
>
>The US economy needs oil like a junkie needs heroin - and Iraq will supply its next fix
>
>Ian Roberts

Professor Roberts needs only to take the wise counsel of his own Prime Minister Blair, as voiced
during Prime Minister's Questions, 01/15/03:

"Let me first deal with the conspiracy theory that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way
whatever, if oil were the issue, that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam,
who, I am sure, would be delighted to give us access to as much oil as we wanted if he could carry
on building weapons of mass destruction.

The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of
the other conspiracy theories put forward. It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations
has laid down - indeed, it has been laying down for 10 years - that Saddam Hussein has to disarm
himself of weapons of mass destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons, and
I believe that we have to make sure that the will of the United Nations is upheld.

I also believe, incidentally, that a majority of the British people - who, I think, always take a
firm view of the need for action in the face of dictators such as Saddam Hussein - knows that the
UN, having laid down its mandate, has to see that mandate through."

 

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on
> the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own
> homeland's dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it was
> the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the seeds for
> today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North Americans home
> town planners of the 20's instead.
>
> Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how Ian
> Roberts gets around?
>
>
>

You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not even
CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)

 

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:58:06 -0500, "Tom Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anything contributed by MV isn't worth the electrons it took to carry it, YMMV

Your Mike may vary? No, mine is the same as yours - completelky worthless :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.