Have you ever tried to talk someone out of a bad idea? Maybe the person they’re dating is all wrong for them. Or a job change or some economic investment is just going to end in tragedy? If so, you’ve probably gotten a quick lesson in basic psychology. A percentage of people are going to be open-minded and listen to your objections, and if you’re actually right, they’ll consider the evidence and take your advice. Most people will get defensive, however, and refuse to listen. Some people will get so defensive that they’ll actually double down to prove the nay-sayers wrong—they’ll marry that bad boyfriend or put more money into the bad investment. They will, rather than risk the chance that they might get proven wrong and open themselves to a chorus of “I told you sos”, will live in denial about their bad decisions until the last possible moment when it’s becoming clear that they cannot sustain this bad decision any longer.
Now, the thing about this is that everyone does this sometimes. I realize there are a lot of people on the internet who preen like they rarely make bad decisions, and when they do, they recant immediately, but you’ll see that such people rarely offer examples of how this has actually happened in their lives. We all get into the rationalization cycle, some more than others, but we all do it. If you come across someone who claims to be above rationalization or standing by bad choices, that person probably does it more than anyone else, because they’ve got a mistake-free self-image that means they are especially prone to rationalization.
I bring this up, because if you know much about the rationalization spiral, then the fact that America’s reaction to increasing evidence of both peak oil and global warming would be to reduce our average gas mileage was entirely predictable. Some people, when presented with the evidence, were likely to get more efficient vehicles or start taking more public transportation/walks/bicycles. While it’s very self-flattering, as one of those people, to suggest that we’re just super-rational, the truth is mostly that we weren’t that invested in car culture to begin with.* I never liked driving—sitting in traffic is my personal version of hell—and so I was an easy sell on the idea that cars are an environmental disaster. But for people who really like cars and driving, it was entirely predictable that they’d be eager to rationalize it to themselves not only by denying that we were facing sustainability problems, but that they’d double down by halving their gas mileage.
Which is why I agree with Tim F. that singing “I told you so” isn’t that fun after all.
I don’t feel particularly smug when I stand next to my Honda Fit watching some SUV owner near tears as she puts more than $100 of gas into a car she doesn’t need. It just feels sad to think about how long it’s been since it became obvious to anyone who cared to look that we won’t be able to scare off problems like fuel scarcity and climate change by closing our eyes and wishing.
That lead time was an opportunity to make changes. Some would have been painful and some merely sensible, but it would prevent huge numbers of honest Americans get caught with their pants down. Instead we blew it out the tailpipe of cars that average 15 MPG. Now, instead of a planned transition, we get to see what happens when stubborn denial meets inescapable change. It’s simply unsustainable to live in suburban car country with a negative equity on the house, $6-7 gas (wait until you see what that does to property values in outlying suburbs) and expensive SUVs that nobody wants. The saddest thing for me was that most who will get fucked the worst had no idea this was coming. There was that one guy who warned us, but he had a snooty laugh.
On an individual level, it’s easy to feel superior to people who bought SUVs and are paying for it now. But that’s foolish, because we all rationalize our choices like this, so it was inevitable that a high percentage of people would like SUVs not in spite of their low mileage, but because of the low mileage. Instead of wishing human nature to change, then, I’m going to suggest that the people who exploited this rationalization tendency hold the lion’s share of the blame. For people who wanted to engage in wishful thinking about the relationship between oil and environmental problems, right wing pundits, car companies, and oil companies did all the hard psychological rationalizing work for people. They painted critics as effeminate hippies that are just trying to tell you what to do because they’re sanctimonious and nosy. (That some really are sanctimonious only made the situation worse.) They gave people pseudo-scientific explanations they could latch onto. They were the ones who started offering the opportunity to marry that bad boyfriend and show everyone how wrong they were: halve your gas mileage and show those hippies! It’s a P.R. strategy that only had to work on enough people, and it did.
*Same with being a vegetarian, or vegetarian who occasionally indulges of the fish flesh. It was easy for me to give up the vice of meat-eating, because I wasn’t that attached to meat in the first place. Meanwhile, I rationalize fish-eating because I love seafood enough that I can’t go cold turkey, and also appreciate having that as a restaurant option when everything vegetarian on the menu is laden with cheese.
As Heinlein observed: humans aren’t a rational organism, they are rationalizing organisms. It’s like presidential candidates - folks come up with rationalizations why they’re voting for someone who appeals to their emotions rather than the logical alternative.
I couldn’t disagree more. If you empathize with these dolts it’s going to lead to a plan to bail them out of their predicament that will cost us all money. Well fuck them. I made the right choice several years ago to begin altering my lifestyle in accordance with reality and I’m not about to pay for their foolish mistake of not doing the same.
That’s right, I’m a blogger and I can’t properly format a comment box. Go ahead and shoot me now.
I meant to blockquote this:
It’s not that Americans are addicted to large cars or suburbs either. Americans, or more specifically new car buyers and suburbanites, are addicted to horsepower and status.
During the last gas crisis of the late 1970’s, American car makers started to put diesel engines into cars. With the diesel engine, a large, full-sized Chevy Caprice could get 25-30 mpg (compared to a little more than half that for the gas powered version). However, the diesel engine had no power, among other problems, and was quickly dropped when oil prices collapsed in the mid 1980’s.
Still, technology improved even the gas powered Caprice. By the end of the model run in 1996, the Caprice got 18-25mpg with a V8 with twice the horsepower as the 1980’s version. But new car buyers didn’t want Caprices, they wanted SUV’s, so GM quit making Caprices and started making Tahoes at the same plant.
Now, there are plenty of people in this country who want a good car at a good price with good fuel economy and don’t care about power and size they don’t need. The problem is, from Detroit’s perspective, that most of them don’t buy NEW cars, especially new American cars. Either they will buy used, or they will buy imports. Sensible people are less likely to spend 20-30K on a product that loses a large portion of its value the moment the buyer drives it off the lot. Car companies market their cars to the irrational, selfish and vain because that’s where the money is. (DaimlerChrysler shamelessly targeted this demographic with it’s Dodge Durango commercials. Mom wanted all the creature comforts for her little darling while dad wanted the “hemi”)
A good example of this is the rise of SUV’s as opposed to minivans. For people who need a large car, minivans cost less and provide more space than SUV’s. But minivans aren’t “cool,” and coolness is extremely important to the carmakers most profitable customers. Even minivans have come a long way. Car-based minivans started off as 4-cylinder vehicles. The original Dodge Caravan was an oversized, 7 passenger K-Car. Internationally, these vehicles have been around for years, but are strictly utilitarian. However, every attempt to import a European style “microbus” has failed miserably in this country. American new car buyers want power and style.
I am a capitalist. I believe in the free market. But the market is not perfect, and fuel efficiency is one of the cases where the market has failed. Government intervention is necessary to get automakers to design, build and sell more efficient cars. (Personally, I support an exise tax on vehicles that fail to meet efficiency standards. Consumers will pay for their inefficiency.)
Carter was right, but he was too far ahead of his time. Energy efficiency is linked to national security. Far more often than not, oil money funds repression and terror. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to tell Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela exactly where they can stick all that oil? Wouldn’t it be great not to pay to send a terrorist to camp when we fill up at the pump?
I used to think the SUV/minivan contingent was primarily made up of people who drove around a lot and wanted a convenient ride above all and didn’t give a single damn about the environment or the myriad of other ways that the SUV culture makes things worse overall. But then my wife pointed out that it’s illegal now to drive in the same way we did twenty years ago and for many people SUV/minivans are the only things that will work. Specifically, if you have three young children (in some states, that is up to 8 years old!) then you need car seats for all of them, and three car seats just won’t fit in a sedan or station wagon. Yet when I was little, it was common to stick both of my brothers and I in the lap-belt-only back seat with the youngest generally stuck in the middle.
So the laws have changed but the technology hasn’t caught up. Where is the vehicle class for gas mileage above 35mpg, fits in a sedan-size parking space, yet can fit three car seats?
I swing pretty hard to the right on this issue, not to the point of being a global warming denier, but to the point that I believe that we would be better off with a (relatively) free market as opposed to making drastic measures to stop global warming and slow the rise of gas prices.
Subsidies for ethanol gas has caused food shortages world wide. Isn’t this an indication that we should tread into cautious waters to dealing with a problem that is many years, and many technical innovations away? The Simon-Ehrilch wager comes into mind here. Hell, back when people took the “problem” of over-population seriously, couldn’t you throw the same mud at those who had 5 kids - a bit much, but a drop in the bucket to world population - as the mud you are throwing at the SUV users - one owner of a SUV car is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the big picture?
Additionally, if the culture couldn’t had been changed during the era of SUVs, what steps should have been taken to stop it? SUVs production caps? Banning of SUV commercials on television? Telling gas ad car companies that they can’t go to the CATO institute when there are people making criticisms about their industry? Each seem asinine, arbitrary, unfair, and ineffective to me.
And heck, how accurate is it that people bought the cars because of their low milage? I barely remember the times, but I recall the SVU ads being directed at mothers, soccer moms specifically highlighting the fact that the (perceived) safety the cars would bring to the mom’s little kids, and the fact that the car would be best-suited for the mother’s hectic lives. (I remember one ad featured a mother driving over snow banks to get to a grocery store, and countless featured the mothers picking up kids from ______)
Myself, although I don’t drive SUVs and find driving any car that is higher then 2 feet over the ground to be terrifying, I agree with “stupid hippies” sentiment. The anti-SUV sentiments, to me, seem to come from a anti-consumerism (”You made a personal decision to buy something I don’t like, therefore I don’t like you!”) viewpoint, and is justified by “saving the environment.”
Also, to back off the right wing nuttery a little, I think stubbornness is an essential human trait- sure, it could lead me to dismiss someone’s advice that wearing a trucker hat makes me look like an absolute shmuck, but it also doesn’t mean I don’t shift my entire world view if someone persistently tries to convince me that pants don’t exist.
Bush should have put the 55 mph speed limit back into effect 9/12. Highly unpopular, but saved gas (the ‘55 saves lives’ campaign came later) He also should have imposed a $1-2 federal gas tax at the same time. Better that money go to supporting the troops than to lining oil barons’ pockets.
But no. He just used the opportunity to gut the economy to line Cheney & Friends pockets. Gut the constitution, too.
Not quite. Gore went down because Monica went down. If Bill Clinton had kept it in his pants, Al Gore would have easily cruised to victory. Instead, the squeaky-clean Gore was the unfortunate victim of a moral panic. And why would people care? Back in 2000, the biggest issue was what we were going to do with the budget surplus. Voting for Bush (or Nader, which had the same effect) gave people a way of disapproving of Clinton’s sleaze, and damn the consequences.
Only three kids in the backseat? I remember being “double buckled” in the adjustable center lap belt seat so we could fit four kids in the back.
Telling people to drive 55 when the road and the cars are designed for people to go 80+ is just inviting people to break the law. Furthermore, when some people are driving 55 and others are driving 80, this creates a dangerous situation on the highways.
A gas tax would have been a good idea, but political suicide. A better idea would have been to use the opportunity to dramatically increase CAFE standards (or implement a comparable fuel efficiency plan.)
But this assumes that Bush is getting paid to work for the American people.
Stuffing snark back down my memory hole as I type…?:~)
Anyways, I think you are making a pretty fundamental buddhist point what with all the personal qualities embedded in the things we *own* whether that be possessions or ideals, and how that can cause suffering.
The most interesting about this post is how you interpreted that point with fundamentally heirarchal lenses. Either from the “hand from up high” or the “I got the drop on you” viewpoint. I am aware that much of this is a description of how other percieve the situation and the advocates for changing the status quo, but there are other decision matrixes around other than “To Tutt or Not to Tutt, That is the Question…” I’m not sure whether this was a concious or unconscious frame (I mean, there’s at least a little of both in all frames, but the post is pretty depersonalized in places).
On another point, of course you are invested in the car culture, and the meat culture, and all that, if only because you are invested in the infrastructure and other social mores affiliated with them. And really, unless you are a hermit, it’s very hard to not be invested. Society doesn’t generally give people choices about being privileged about anything that underlies the basic premise of that society. For example, if you give someone a house, you give a depreciating asset that requires, in most places, a job in order to pay other people who buy materials and come into your house and fix it. Ergo, wage slavery. White privilege works the same way; a white person recieves a small set of benefits (visible or invisible, and some only truly available for upper class) for what is essentially a promise not to fraternize with potential enemies of “society”. Rig it such that other whites pay a penalty if nonconformists are around…Voila! You have a large group of people who will voluntarily prevent social changes at the expense of the upper class. Society depends on extracting more from individuals than what individuals recieve from society, and bait-gifting is an essential gambit in that function.
This is getting to be long, so I’ll cut it here.
It’s also true that policymakers and NIMBY community groups have made it very difficult for people who did want to make the necessary lifestyle changes to do so. Rents near decent subway systems and commuter rail are really high–lots of people would clearly love to live in places where they can get around without a car. But we don’t build those places anymore.
See my above post.
Carmakers could build one tomorrow, but not enough NEW car buyers would buy one. The profit margins simply aren’t there.
“If Bill Clinton had kept it in his pants, Al Gore would have easily cruised to victory.”
I don’t think I buy that one. Clinton was always seen by the Reichwing, and more importantly by The Villagers, as a usurper (just like Carter). His presidency was considered illegitimate from the beginning, and it was only the weakness of Dole and the surprising lack of reaction toward BlowjobGate that gave him a second term.
Gore was tainted by being in the wrong party. He could have been the best Democratic candidate of the 20th century and still failed. The only surprising thing was how close he got, but I suspect even if he had done better in some other state(s), somehow the margin somewhere else would have been too close to call and the Supremes would still have ended up making the final decision.
IMHO…FWIW…
Hah, SUVs are used here in Whitest Whitesylvania where it snows. Some of the hillbillies need the 4WD to get out of their hollers. But…this is using essentially a construction vehicle. To put it in terms even the urban can under stand. An SUV compares to driving a PennDOT truck. Great visibility, safe for your offspring (but not others’), can haul or tow all sorts of stuff, and tres macho. You’d think the drivers were stooopid shi*s and treat them with derision. The rest of the world (metric system, day-month-year, social supports) looks at us the same way. Why in the world would ‘Mericans drive such a vehicle?
The suburbs will soon allow public transport or become ghost towns. Only the wealthiest will have cabins (like the McSames) and the rest of us will learn to live on our incomes.
Additionally, if the culture couldn’t had been changed during the era of SUVs, what steps should have been taken to stop it?
How about making SUVs subject to the same CAFE standards as other cars rather than let them slide under the rules meant for actual trucks?
It still astounds me that I was able to buy a Toyota Corolla in 1988 that got better gas mileage than just about any regular car on the market today (and better even than some hybrids): 36 mpg. We backslid on requirements over the intervening 20 years and now we’re running to catch up to where we should have been by now.
Oh, and you might want to tell Toyota that making high-MPG cars is unprofitable, because they seem to be getting the opposite message from consumers. I guess that “I Want My MPG” campaign was successful.
“Where is the vehicle class for gas mileage above 35mpg, fits in a sedan-size parking space, yet can fit three car seats?”
Our European friends, who have faced much higher fuel costs than us (much of the price being taxes, BTW), for a much longer time, have been selling versions of that vehicle for some time.
But to follow in their footsteps requires Americans to make a wholesale commitment to diesel-powered cars and trucks, and not just some huge Ford or Dodge like is fairly common here now.
You have not lived until somebody driving a turbo-diesel powered full sized BMW 7-Series sedan has blown by you on the Autobahn at 100+mph, while still getting mileage in the 30’s.
There are a lot more high-mileage diesel cars available in Europe, in every car class from the lowest/smallest economy models, all the way to the top. Half or more of all new car sales in Europe are for diesel-powered models, some of which are getting mileage in the equivalent of 50+ mpg.
However, if those cars were brought over here, they would not sell because (enough) Americans would not be willing to put up with a diesel car. If if a few were sold because of consumer panic (in 1979 dealers could not keep diesel VW Rabbits on the lots), the panic disapates and we go back to our old habits.
VW has sold economical diesel cars virtually continuously since for the last 30-years but they have always sold as niche products that appeal to a very small audience, despite offering all most people need in a car.
Admittedly, technology like modern diesel engines will not solve our needs over the long run. But we do have to get through the next couple decades while real alternatives are being developed.
But until Americans decide to stop kicking ourselves in the head and emphasizing stupid macho posturing and arrogant ignorance of the overall energy picture, we’ll keep making the same bad decisions until they hurt too much to continue…
I would not be surprised in the least to see in the near future some asshole happily filling the tank of his 12mpg giant SUV, even with gas at $5, 6$, $8/gallon or more. There really are people for whom such extravagance is a badge of distinction…
To put it in terms even the urban can under stand.
this is an aside, but shut the fuck up.
I could elaborate on how this is but another example in the long series of you striving to prove what an asshole you are, but I really don’t have the time or patience right now, so I’m just gonna say shut the fuck up.
Actually, SUVs aren’t very safe for the people inside them, either. SUVs are unstable and apt to tip over in circumstances under conditions that would never roll a sedan or a mini-van. These less-serious crashes are much more common than the dramatic “big car vs. small car” crashes that people envision when they choose a vehicle for safety.
The visibility argument cuts both ways. I’s nice to be up high. The downside is the huge blindspot.
The Reichwing hated him in 1996, but not enough for Dole to win. Yes, there was Perot, but Dole would have had to win almost all of Perot’s supporters to beat Clinton.
I don’t think there was a “lack of reaction” toward BlowjobGate as much as the American people were simply madder at the Congressional Republicans than they were at Clinton. This does not mean that they didn’t care about Clinton’s behavior.
Enter George W. Bush, who was not a Congressional Republican. A large part of his campaign was that he was a Washington outsider who was there to clean up the White House. Had he not had that angle, how could he come close to beating Gore? (It should be noted that the Democrats tied the Senate that same election.) Yes, Gore got screwed by the Supremes. But the lesson that Democrats failed to learn in 2000 was that if Gore had won Tennessee, nobody would have cared about Florida.
Which is what I mean by a market failure.
The problem is not that there are assholes that enjoy filling their tanks with $5, $6, or even $8 gas. The problem is that there are too many of them and that even at inflated prices, they are not bearing the true cost of that gas.
The cost of gasoline or inefficient vehicles must be such as to accurately reflect the true cost of these decisions, including environmental, military, government and social externalities. Until then, the asshole in the giant SUV is still getting a good deal.
it’s easy to feel superior to people who bought SUVs and are paying for it now
You know why I find it perfectly OK to feel superior to the SUV crowd?
Because they so often tend to be types back home in Teh HartLayund who get all smug with me when I mention how much things cost in NYC. I explain my decision to live in the expensive Northeast with “I’m willing to pay more to get what I really want.”
Now these same idiots are paying outrageous prices for something that ultimately makes no difference to them, and you know what? The schadenfreude feels good.
Shit, $100 is the going rate to fill up an SUV? And these folks have the NERVE to mock John Edwards’s $400 haircut? He’s getting a deal compared to them…
Agreed– it won’t help to get personally incensed at individuals for making stupid decisions. It’s just a matter of what we do about it. The conservabot/neoliberal route is to say “ha ha, you made a bad decision, i’m not going to pay for i–aw, fuck, i just drove into the huge pothole you left in the road.” The more socially-conscious route is to say, “we’re all going to clean this up, and i just get to bask a little more gleefully in the result because it validates the decision i made. whereas you just won’t get it.” Holding back the benefits of a better infrastructure from people who didn’t make the right choice is the line of reasoning behind privatization. If we want functioning roads, clean/cheap/available public transit, better cars, and a for real green energy system, we have to suck it up and accept that even the bastards who got us into this are going to experience the benefits.
MikeEss, didn’t BlowjobGate happen well after Clinton’s reelection in 1996? If I am remembering right, that leaves Bob Dole’s lack of appeal to explain why the Villagers decided to make an exception and tolerate a usurping Democrat.
Be interesting to see how they try to rescue John McCain from the comparison. Dole and McCain look alike to me: crusty, ill-tempered, adulterous, dumped-the-loyal-first-wife elderly Rethugs. And Dole could’ve been spun as a maverick too.
Subsidies for ethanol gas has caused food shortages world wide. Isn’t this an indication that we should tread into cautious waters to dealing with a problem that is many years, and many technical innovations away?
Actually, America’s ethanol plans are a small part of the massive spike in food prices this year. Repeated droughts in various countries, especially Australia, the rising cost of fuel worldwide in growing, shipping, and transporting grain are also a major factor. And that’s not even touching on the increased food imports by china and india as the economies of those nations improve the standards of living.
This one isn’t America’s fault. While I agree completely that corn-based ethanol is a terrible solution for fuel independence, the current problem runs much deeper. If climate change continues, and the price of food remains tied to the price of oil, then this problem will only get worse.
Rents near decent subway systems and commuter rail are really high–lots of people would clearly love to live in places where they can get around without a car.
I’ve done the math on this time and time again, and actually, that doesn’t compute. Another reason I have very little respect for the car-addicts amongst us.
I live in NYC — Brooklyn, to be exact. I’m a 5 minute walk from the subway. I’m single and share a 2-bedroom apartment with a roommate. I pay circa $80 per month in transportation expenses, and under $600 in rent (which I’ll admit is on the cheap end). My total rent + transit costs per month are well under $800. Even working an entry-level job in a creative field, I’m able to get by quite well.
If I moved back to the rural south, I would have to have a car. Even if I got a very good deal on a used car in great shape and was able to pay in cash out of pocket, I would have to have insurance, and I would also have to keep it gassed up. Not to mention regular maintenance, cleaning, and all the little things. Since rental properties in safe and convenient areas are few and far between, I would actually end up spending more in housing, as well (especially since having a roommate is considered quasi-deviant). Even if I was willing to live in some shithole in a ghetto (or a trailer on the edge of town, or whatever), the price difference wouldn’t be enough to make up for the transportation expenses.
Long story short? There’s no fricking way I could live in car-dominant small town heartland America on what I currently need to support myself in fancy-pants elitist NYC. All this “well I would just love to live near public transportation, but I just can’t afford it” is ridiculous, sorry.
“MikeEss, didn’t BlowjobGate happen well after Clinton’s reelection in 1996?”
You’re right, although Paula Jones, Whitewater, “TravelGate”, Vince Foster, Hillary’s “luck” in the commodities market, rumors of a trail of bodies the Clintons left behind on their way to the Whitehouse, etc., were all in full bloom by ‘96. Monica was just the crowning event.
I sort of lump them all together anyway as basically one long scandal that started before Clinton was elected in ‘92 and continuing (at least) until he left office…
Dole was one of the least politically attractive candidates in several decades. I really believe the Rethugs let him get the nom knowing he would fail, and setting the stage for Bush Jr. Dole was not a NeoCon, and so was not a believer in the One True Faith of the modern Republican hierarchy, so his loss probably was as big a deal as Bush Jr.’s “win” in 2000…
“…his loss was probably NOT as big a deal…”
My fingers need to go back to the shop…
That’s a generous take on it all. Good for you for getting there. Me, I’m still pretty prone to self-satisfaction when I hear these people upset about their ridiculous gas costs, and I’m pretty pissed off, too, at the denial and rationalization that got us so deep in this mess. Yeah, I blame the leaders who led us here, but I definitely, rightly or wrongly, also blame the sheep.
*I justify the fish thing because for me there’s some moral consistency in that I personally could kill a fish. I can stand on the dock and slice it open or gonk it on the head. (I don’t like it, but I can do it.) I could not do that to a mammel. And my understanding of a fish’s consciousness and feelings of pain also factor in big time. Really, it comes down to could I kill it with my bare hands or do I object to that murder; if so, I shouldn’t be eating it. (and actually, I didn’t even start eating fish till after I gave up meat, so I’m not sure why I’d rationalize this away; but ya never know)
With regard to SUVs, I think what’s called for is some good old fashioned social approbation. Driving a 12mpg vehicle should be about as socially acceptable as farting in church.
The thing is, most people know this already. Isn’t the basic concept underlying the HUMMER a big ol’ FU to everyone and everything? Well, I say raise the social stakes for the this sort of aggressive narcissism. Making SUVs not cool will rid the roads of this scourge a lot faster than market forces, CAFE standards, or anything else.
KL, the number of people out there with three small children in car seats is a fraction of SUV owners. Like a teeny, tiny fraction. Having three under that age is really unusual.
You know why I find it perfectly OK to feel superior to the SUV crowd?
I might not necessarily feel superior to them, but I’m not exactly sympathetic, especially considering it was a trend a few years ago in Atlanta’s northern suburbs to buy the biggest SUV you could specifically to “piss off liberals.” Sort of along the lines of Adam Yoshida leaving all his lights on.
“If you come across someone who claims to be above rationalization or standing by bad choices, that person probably does it more than anyone else, because they’ve got a mistake-free self-image that means they are especially prone to
rationalizationRepublicanism.”There ya go, fixed it.
*nods* thank you for saying this. I’m a frigging graduate student, scraping by on a stipend not a hell of a lot above poverty. Yet I live in downtown Chicago. Admittedly, my apartment isn’t huge compared to what the suburbanites have, and I have a roommate, but I live 7 mins walk from the subway.
Look, you want a huge house in the ‘burbs? Cool, go for it. You want to live way out in the middle of nowhere? Have at it. But then don’t come crying to me that the solutions that work for the majority of people won’t work for you because you chose were you live.
I see choosing to take up less space, to live more efficiently, to fit more people into a given amount of land, AS a moral issue, and something our planet desperately needs. If you chose otherwise, don’t expect me to feel sorry for you.
I love how the right-wingers go all on about personal responsibility, but then totally fold when it comes to take responsibility for their actions.
Lucky for them I’m NOT a capitalist. I DON’T believe in the free market working out what is best for everyone. The free market works towards one thing and one thing only; profit, and will do whatever it needs to get that. So I believe we need government interventions, like they have in Europe and other western democracies; a managed economy. I think we need to step in change things, and do things for people … just don’t expect me to feel sorry for them. The information was there for anyone willing to look.
To add to what Lindsay said about SUV safety: in addition to a high center of gravity, SUVs are also heavier than other vehicles. Because they’re heavier, they can’t stop as quickly and they’re harder to maneuver. My little Jetta can avoid accidents which an SUV can’t.
Anyway, my father used to work in the legal department for one of the American car manufacturers. I’m afraid to say that he fought against CAFE standards for years. I’ve long felt that if the GM et al had knuckled down and decided to make cars that got good gas mileage, they’d be in a hell of a lot better off than they are now.
And heck, how accurate is it that people bought the cars because of their low milage?
The Hummer’s entire marketing strategy was “fuck the hippies”, and for a time, it was effective, until it became clear how immature that was. I suspect other SUVs benefitted, and like others have said, the minivan was better for the safety and room benefits, but was a lot less popular.
I guess the reason I am willing to admit that I feel superior and that I have very little sympathy is that I feel like these folks in general are not willing to take personal responsibilities for their choices and actions (in this particular regard).
I’m perfectly able to say “Why, yes, I do pay $85 for a haircut, and the shampoo I use costs $10 per bottle. However, I’m willing to spend more money in order to get something that makes me happy.”
The people I’ve talked to who rationalize their gas-guzzling SUV’s and resource wasting McMansions, however, seem to be all about how it wasn’t their decision, they “need” this, my urban lifestyle wouldn’t work for them (AKA would be too expensive and impractical), etc. etc. Which is bullshit. Very few people really need SUV’s. You do not “need” to live suburbia-style, and no it is not cheaper, more efficient, more practical, etc. etc. etc. It’s what you chose.
Of course, I also think a lot of it boils down to family size, i.e. reproductive decisions. A lot of the people I talk to who rationalize their lifestyle choices as “necessary” have multiple small children. And it really is difficult to have a lot of little kids in places with good public transit. These same folks also tend not to get that reproductive choice exists. You have 4 kids under 8 because you CHOSE not to use birth control. Therefore your lifestyle is a choice, every bit as much as my $85 haircut lifestyle is.
There’s no fricking way I could live in car-dominant small town heartland America on what I currently need to support myself in fancy-pants elitist NYC.
A lot of the “costs are higher near public transportation” data comes from Western (and some Midwestern) cities. Try living in car-dominant fancy-pants elitist LA — rents jump anywhere from $200-500 if you are in walking distance of the (*cough*) subway (although the LA definition of ‘walking distance’ is a lot shorter than the NYC definition, I gotta say. My favorite is still the two ladies who took the bus one whole block). It’s not unique in that regard either. Once you cross the Mississippi — hell, once you cross the Appalachians — cities start spawling a LOT more, and public transportation is an afterthought. Living near it, although it won’t get you half the places you really need to go, is a privilege you have to pay for.
I assume people commenting on Americans and SUVs have all read High and Mighty?
It’s not so much that I don’t think access to public transit raises rents, just that when you factor in having a car vs. not having a car, living sans public transit IS CHEAPER than living the car-dominant life. I live in a rather upscale part of the most expensive city in the USA. It would cost more for me to live back home, in one of the cheapest parts of the country, because the cheaper housing wouldn’t be enough to absorb the addition of a car.
If you have an SUV and spend $400 a month to fill the tank, moving close to public transportation and paying $200 more in rent would SAVE MONEY.
This is why I feel superior. Because these people either don’t understand kindergarten level math, or they feel justified in living a more expensive lifestyle that doesn’t actually mean anything for their quality of life.
sorry, I meant “living sans car”. Bleh.
No argument, Opoponax, and I say that as a NYC-to-LA transplant who just got a car two months ago after getting by for 6 months without one. Why did I get one? Because public transit here is so under-developed that I need it. When I’m looking at spending as much time getting to work via public transit as I would spend AT work (half-time; I’m a student), because I would have to go so far out of my way and wait so long at each transfer, public transit is not economical. Would I like it to be? Hell yes! I would kill for a NYC-style transit system out here. Trouble is, it’s years and years away still, and in the meantime public transit becomes an interesting reverse-NIMBY issue because it leads to gentrification, pricing out all of the people who would most benefit from it because they can’t afford a car.
I swear sometimes I’m the only person in America who decided to buy an older house and fix it up (rather than tear up land and build a McMansion), then also decided to stick with a car built in 1990, treat it well, and when it got to 200k miles, bought another one (with only 37k miles!!) and use the first one for parts.
Comfortable- excellent in snow- gets fairly good mileage- low on repairs/maintenance- big enough to haul most items. Roomy enough for 6 (we normally have just the 4 of us).
i think it’s easy for dedicated urbanites to forget just how strong the anti-urban feeling runs in second or third-generation suburban folks. Many of the people i went to school with as a kid, in the ‘burbs, had parents who grew up ALSO in the burbs. Now that they’re all growns up, they too rent little shit condos (think Office Space) in slightly nicer burbs even FURTHER from anything like public transit. I’m the weirdo who left Elgin to live in NY and then on Chicago’s west side.
30 miles outside Chicago, “urban” = “Cabrini Green”. (never mind that Cabrini is mostly gone and most people couldn’t find it on a city map…) The general feeling is you don’t live there, you sure as hell don’t raise kids there, and if you can swing it you won’t even WORK there. You visit 10 square blocks of it (Navy Pier) once a year for some fireworks, or maybe a cubs game. You shake your head at those “crazy kids” in their 20s or early 30s who rent places in gentrifying areas.
I don’t know how to get around that mentality, that urban life is Not Viable, regardless of gas prices. I do know that bringing my mother here for frequent visits is making a dent…
lest the Cabrini Green comment seem like a toss-off, i should note that throughout the 80s and 90s there was a huge amount of local media coverage of Chicago Housing Authority buildings and their various scariness.
A lot of the local perception of the city is tinted by that history of sensationalism…thanks, Fox News.
And even American made…
i think it’s easy for dedicated urbanites to forget just how strong the anti-urban feeling runs in second or third-generation suburban folks.
I grew up in the country, and my entire family has been thoroughly rural as far back as we’ve been in the USA, i.e. at least 3-4 generations. It’s probable that most of my ancestors were rural folk back in the old country, too. Shit, I probably have a couple million years of pure country stock behind me.
Though I will say that I kind of get the idea that the vast majority of people are happy to replicate for themselves the lifestyle they grew up with. However, that is still a CHOICE. People who grow up in the suburbs are not biologically different from people who grow up in cities. They do not actually have different needs. What they have is different desires.
The confusion between needs and choices is a huge part of what is wrong with America today.
Why did I get one? Because public transit here is so under-developed that I need it.
No, you don’t “need” it. You chose it. There is nothing wrong with that choice. There is nothing wrong with saying “I chose to get a car because I don’t want to deal with having to change buses 3 times just to get to work,” any more than there is anything wrong with me saying “I chose to take a taxi to yoga last night because it was pouring out and I didn’t want to walk in the rain.”
Making a lifestyle choice because it’s easier or makes you happy or otherwise adds some positive benefit to your life is not wrong. Why do people have such a hard time owning up to their agency?
I can’t say what the fraction of the total is, but the phenomenon itself is really common around here (semi-rural Texas). At one church we visited, out of a total pool of maybe 100 families, over 20 of those families had 3-4 children spaced 2 years apart (4 of them were exactly aged 3-1-pregnant), and many of the other 20-30 couples who were married were thinking about having children with 2-3 years between each one. I can’t imagine that all of those SUV/minivan families are going to trade out for sedans as soon as they can fit all the kids into one, I expect that they will keep their vehicles as long as reasonably practical.
Googling “sibling spacing” shows 1-3 years between children to be quite common. For any two-parent families that choose to have (or adopt) three children 1-3 years apart, they cannot legally drive a sedan to get them around in most states. According to this , the only states such a family can legally use a sedan in are Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Dakota.
As others have pointed out, yes having children is a choice and all, but my point is that this behavior of putting 3 kids in a sedan or station wagon was viable for 30 years but isn’t anymore. Maybe a vehicle that addresses this need could also address some of the other reasons people pick SUVs.
I think your definition of ‘need’ is perhaps a little too literal, Opoponax.
i think it’s easy for dedicated urbanites to forget just how strong the anti-urban feeling runs in second or third-generation suburban folks.
My experience growing up in the ‘burbs was quite different: we were all just a generation or two removed from families who used to live in cities before having kids and coming to the suburbs. Then the instant we graduated college, we all moved to cities. Few people I grew up with went from the suburbs to college to back to the suburbs without at least a sojourn in a city in between.
Insofar as this feeling does exist, I would guess it’s on the way out and being replaced by a generation that didn’t grow up with the idea that the city was a scary place where no one lived except the very rich and very poor.
In my state, the kids have to be in various versions of car seats til they’re 7…isn’t that unusual to have three kids ages 6, 3 and under 1. I have several coworkers in that fix. They are all stuck with minivans.
I have an SUV because when I bought it, I lived out on gravel roads in a climate with a well-defined winter season. The cost of living any closer to my job was prohibitive…a lot of my coworkers live out in the wilds of West Virginia and Pennsylvania and commute in because they literally could not afford a home any closer to work than that.
I understand that some people may enjoy sneering at SUV and minivan drivers, but unless you personally know the individual you are sneering at, isn’t it kind of pathetically presumptuous to assume that they’re “getting their just deserts” now…?
No, you don’t “need” it. You chose it. There is nothing wrong with that choice. There is nothing wrong with saying “I chose to get a car because I don’t want to deal with having to change buses 3 times just to get to work,” any more than there is anything wrong with me saying “I chose to take a taxi to yoga last night because it was pouring out and I didn’t want to walk in the rain.”
Unless you’re choosing to take that taxi to yoga every single day at the same time — and take it back again once you’re done — it’s not quite the same thing. Believe it or not, having a job is not a luxury for most people, and being able to get there at a reasonable hour that didn’t require three hours on a bus is a luxury the same way that having a bed instead of sleeping on the floor is a luxury.
Unless you’re the yoga instructor, going to a yoga class and going to work are not the same thing.
Also, I’m kind of astounded not a single person has mentioned why so many people live in the suburbs and exurbs: schools. Chicago has some of the crappiest public schools in the country. Los Angeles public schools vary wildly in their quality: if you live in Bel-Air with a $5 million home, your kid will get a great education at the public school down the street. If you live in South LA, not so much.
My brother and his (now ex-) wife moved 60 miles away from his job because if they lived closer, they would pay the same price for a house but they’d have the added expense of sending the kids to private school. No matter how expensive gas gets, it’s still going to trump tuition at a good urban private school.
The Hummer’s entire marketing strategy was “fuck the hippies”, and for a time, it was effective, until it became clear how immature that was.
Which is why, I’m sure, you can understand the temptation to look at those SUV drivers who are suffering now and tell them, “well fuck you, too.” Given that you seem pretty much resigned to the fact that social pressure succeeded in convincing people to make poor decisions, don’t you think it’s at least worth considering that we should leverage social pressure and the power of spite to make them make better decisions?
The cost of living any closer to my job was prohibitive…a lot of my coworkers live out in the wilds of West Virginia and Pennsylvania and commute in because they literally could not afford a home any closer to work than that.
This sounds like you work in Montgomery County, Maryland or thereabouts. I don’t think it was that they couldn’t afford a home closer than that (the distant Frederick, MD has never been known for being expensive), but that they wanted a certain amount of space and personal lifestyle that could only be afforded by moving out to those distant regions. My housing costs are high because I choose to live in an expensive neighborhood, because it’s close to my friends and amenities I want. While I don’t like paying all the money that I pay, I realize that the reason I’m paying that amount is because it supports a certain lifestyle. If I were willing to give up a certain lifestyle I wanted, then I would have less costly options.
@ LS - I think a lot of people’s definition of ‘need’ is way, way too figurative.
If you are a member of the middle class, your life is (generally speaking) an open book of choices. Some choices are easier or will win you brownie points. A lot of choices have long strings of unforseeable consequences. But all of them are choices.
Middle class Americans spend a lot of time erasing the choices we’ve made, pretending that they were “needs”. I “need” a 5000 sf home because I have 4 kids (anyone who could afford that much house had the choice whether to have 4 kids or not). I “need” an SUV because minivans are icky. I “need” a credit card because my kid “needs” a couple thousand dollars in Christmas presents every year. Interesting how the word “want” could be inserted into any of those sentences and it would actually make more sense.
Believe it or not, having a job is not a luxury for most people, and being able to get there at a reasonable hour that didn’t require three hours on a bus is a luxury the same way that having a bed instead of sleeping on the floor is a luxury.
Yeah, because I’m secretly a trustafarian who doesn’t actually have to have a job, I only work because I want to…
I have an hour commute (each way) on 2 subway trains and a bus every morning.
I can’t afford a car.
I deal.
I’m not judging LS for getting a car. She wanted a car, because it would make her life easier. She bought a car. Good on her.
My sole point here is that a lot of American problems with lifestyle and consumption are rooted in the idea that the things we want are actually things we need. If everyone who was spending $$$ filling up their SUVs could admit to themselves that they chose to buy an SUV, that they wanted an SUV, then I would not feel superior or schadenfreudish about gas prices. I feel superior to SUV-gas-whiners (NOT, by the way, to all suburbanites, or everyone who made different choices than I did, or whatever) because I can acknowledge that the choices and splurges and treats in my life are choices and splurges and treats, not needs.
I understand that some people may enjoy sneering at SUV and minivan drivers, but unless you personally know the individual you are sneering at, isn’t it kind of pathetically presumptuous to assume that they’re “getting their just deserts” now…?
I personally know many/most of the people I’m sneering at, in this. The main reason I sneer is because they go out of their way to sneer at my choices. I’m sorry, but if someone has the nerve to act like I’m Little Miss Moneybags because I have chosen to prioritize sustainable eating turns out to be spending $400 a month on gas for their SUV? Wow, whaddya know, the table just TURNED!
An hour would be nice. I used to do that when I was living outside NYC - NJT into Hoboken, PATH, two subways and a walk. That was managable, and the NJT part was even quite pleasant.
Here in LA, my commute to school by public transit is an hour. (15 minute drive, 20 in traffic) My commute to work would have been on the order of 2-3 hours, each way. Need? Yes. I can’t afford to spend the equivalent of a whole other job taking transit when I’m juggling school and work.
I shudder to think what people who are just scraping by go through trying to deal with this; I see people nursing junk bucket cars because if they can’t drive, they can’t work in this city. It’s lose-lose, because when better public transportation comes into an area, the rents go up — but you can’t yet get rid of the car — because the transit is so piecemeal that you cannot get to all the places you need to go. Maybe one person in the family can now get to work in a reasonable time-frame; the other can’t, the kids can’t get to school, etc.
Viable public transportation has to be designed and implemented as a city-wide, neighborhood-oriented plan with considerations for mixed-income housing. That’s the bottom line. Some cities have workable systems in place already, and they’re doing well. Most don’t, and until they can develop something, the majority of their population is tied to their cars — yes, by need.
I shudder to think what people who are just scraping by go through trying to deal with this
For what it’s worth, I also have all the sympathy in the world for people who are truly needy right now. Because it’s about to get a hell of a lot harder. I saw a documentary recently on PBS about rushes on food banks (as well as drops in donations due to rising prices). A lot of people who depend on food banks are simply not able to get what they need. Which means, yes, there are people in this country who are actually going hungry.
Yet another reason why I tend to sneer at people (people I know, people who are not at all made of straw, no matter how much I wish they were) who gripe about how much it costs to fill up the Range Rover these days.
Also, LS, seriously, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a car. I’m saying that people should own their choices. And, yeah, I agree, if I had a 3 hour commute I’d find a more workable way, too.
the kids can’t get to school
Another carbon-footprint pet peeve of mine — whatever happened to school buses? When I was in school lo those many years ago, there was never any issue about how we were going to get there, because that’s what school buses are for.
55MPH isn’t the answer (Why 55? Why not 40, which is closer to the optimum efficiency of an engine?) you will save a lot more gas if you require towns to synchronize traffic lights. Once you are at a given speed, you only burn fuel to overcome air resistance and tire friction; you burn more fuel in accellerating to a given speed than driving at that speed. (F=ma, and all that.) There’s a reason why you get better mileage on the highway than in the city (hybrids excepted.)
Unfortunately, most communities do not time their lights, so you end up in a cycle of accelleration and deceleration. Near where I live is a city with about ten traffic lights, timed so that if you go the speed limit, they all turn red as you approach. But, if you go 10MPH over the limit, they’re perfectly synchronized… Bad for the environment with all the stopping and starting, but good for revenue…
Exactly. My mom works a few blocks from the White House and lives 30 miles south of DC. Her commute is an hour twenty on a good day (car to Metro or commuter bus), two thirty on a bad day. The commute is killing her–lack of sleep, stress, not to mention being forced off the road once or twice by other bleary-eyed drivers at 5:15 A.M. And yet she absolutely refuses to consider moving closer in, not just because she’d get less house for the money, but because she wouldn’t get the detached single-family dwelling and the yard that’s big enough to garden in. Never mind that she’s too tired to actually take care of said garden, and that the quiet town they moved to five years ago is now in the throes of sprawl and traffic congestion, but anyway. It drives me nuts, and it makes me worry like crazy about her, but what can I do?
I remember one summer during college when I was commuting by train to my job on campus. I overheard a fellow passenger talking about how he’d just moved out to my town, and it was so great because there wasn’t traffic like there was in the closer-in suburb he’d moved from. In the next breath, he’s talking about how great it is that we’re going to get a new major chain grocery store, because now he has to drive five miles to the next town to get the kind of services he’s used to from that closer-in suburb. I still regret not turning around and saying, “Hello? Would you listen to yourself? You are perpetuating the problem, and you don’t even see it!” If he was representative of the typical suburban dweller, then I think the problem is that they just don’t get it.
Re: school buses
Our elementary school is implementing full-day kindergarten (instead of the current 1/2 day schedule) next year so the buses will be able to make one less run around town every day.
As it currently is set up, the morning K kids ride at 7:30 am into school with the rest of the elementary kids (1st-3rd graders), then go home at 11:30. The afternoon K kids are picked up on that same bus run and go home with the 1st-3rd graders at 3pm.
Middle and high schoolers ride together- bus is here at 6:15am, as the run starts at our house. They get to school by 7:15 and then the buses go out for the above described elementary runs.
When we see gas over $5 a gallon, I think we’re gonna see either fewer bus runs and/or all the runs combined into one time period. That’s going to mean terribly overcrowded and unsafe buses…
Years ago while living in Norwood MA (Boston suburb), I found that when visiting my best friends in Framingham, you could zoom along Rt 9 to Rt 128/ I-95 nicely (about 10 miles, I think) and hit every light as it was turning green. But ONLY if you went so many miles over the speed limit. Just as James described above.
There were virtually no cars on the US market with the form factor of the Fit, Echo etc. five years ago.
The big US makers pushed their production lines into SUVs and trucks, rather than selling the small cars that they offer outside the US. The high margin and supply meant that dealers would offer low payment deals over extended time, whereas if you wanted a small car, you’d likely need to pay cash privately or take what the dealer offered. (Or: what wayward said.)
So, short-term quasi-rational decisions mean that Detroit is fucked, because the Japanese makers didn’t go all-in on auto-megalosaurs, SUV owners who bought on finance are fucked as resale values plummet, and so on.
a chart showing US transportation pattern vs other advance countries. (It’s friggin pathetic, a result only decades of detroit car advertisement can achieve)
http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/eh_trips.png
OK, I knew that US public transit was pathetic compared with Western Europe; but if you try to talk about Europe, people start going on about population density, as if we all lived in Montana or something.
Anyway, Canada has lots of open space, too — and it doesn’t even have $8 a gallon gas. Yet it still has usable public transit in a lot more cities than we do.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/the-eh-team/
The Japanese are making quite a few of those giant trucks and SUVs we’re all griping about here. Honda Passport? Toyota Landcruiser? Titan pickup? Not exactly all Fits or Priuses. Sure, they also make those quality items in the small car market, for which we should be and are lauding them. But Detroit is screwed because it put all its eggs in the big vehicle basket, not just because of the big vehicles.
Here’s what I think we need to do to make a quicker and better transition to the post-cheap-oil car world: allow carmakers to disregard safety measures for any car that gets over 60mpg (aside from obvious things like seatbelts and a windshield/lights/etc.,) have a sliding scale below that (40mpg+ requires no airbags or something similar,) and institute a consumer tax on all vehicles that get less than 20mpg ($500 per mpg below 20 would be a nice disincentive toward buying a gas-guzzler and a strong incentive to make more efficient cars.) The high-mileage stuff would spur innovation and can be accompanied with some liability-avoidance (to make the business lobby happy) while the low-mileage taxes would be needed to make people think twice about getting a big SUV, truck, or Jaguar. And no, I haven’t figured out where all-electric cars would fit in: I’m thinking out loud, not writing governmental policy.
I drive a minivan that gets the same crappy mileage (18ish) as many midsized SUVs, rarely have it filled with children, can afford gas up to 7 or 8 dollars if I must (actually could afford more, but then I might have to use my bicycle more often–oh, the horror!,) but I’m not going to turn it in for something else. The most ecological car is the one I don’t buy: to replace a vehicle that still works, still is affordable, and doesn’t require the creation of a new car is the more green choice no matter how efficient the replacement will be (at least so far.)
I’m privileged and lucky to be able to have extra money after all my bills and such are paid, but I really want to put some caution in the minds of all those who think they can buy their way out of an economic problem. A new Fit, Prius or hybrid Civic may seem like a great idea, but a used Hyundai or Geo might solve your mess without costing as much. Or, you could just drive smarter, less, and with a better maintained car. And keep those tires full of air, folks.
OK, maybe I’m just really stupid, but wouldn’t lowering safety standards on vehicles that get better mileage cause people to avoid buying them?
I mean, a lot of people rationalize their SUV’s as “safer”. (and yeah, i know they’re not, but at least they come with airbags!)
It is not an accident that we own one car and that car is not used for commuting.It is not an accident that we live near public transit, and near our children’s schools and near parks they can walk to or bike to to play soccer.
It is not an accident that we live in an energy efficient house with a modest amount of square footage. it is not an accident that we were happy to see that it came with solar panels. It is not an accident that we liked said house in 1998 for the fuel efficiency that the size, new windows, and southern exposure with northeast sheltering setback provided to us. In 1998, nobody but the previous owner and us seemed to give a fuck.
It is not an accident that in 2008 the trebling of fuel prices over the winter meant that we had a $500 a month energy bill at peak winter load, while others ouch along at $1500 or more.
So please, pardon me if I am causing a severe smug alert. I knew cheap gas was a clusterfuck waiting to explode. I planned accordingly. Why can’t I enjoy a little bit of fuck you as a result? (fflllllbbblllltttttt! Ah, smells soooo good!)
Do people still buy motorcycles and scooters? Not to mention bicycles, though I’m certain no one would ever allow a child to use such a thing.
If an unsafe thing can have two or three wheels, why can’t it have four?
Rock on, Sarah, Rock on!
To those who say “but we had to get a big house and big cars far from transit for our family” I say BED MADE LIE! For my husband and I, who grew up in smaller digs with more people, this 1300 square foot home is a fucking palace! We have some woods to toss the kids into, and we don’t have to mow them, either. Our kids wanted to go to a card store 3 miles away to add to their gathering piles of magic the gathering and… and … THEY TOOK THE BUS. My son had to referee a little kids game and … HE BIKED. We couldn’t pick him up from his soccer game until we were done at one much further away … so he walked into Davis Square and bought a coffee and played pool at the coffee shop until we arrived. Can suburban kids do that at age 12?
(looks down street for DSS bots …)
$500 a month energy bill at peak winter load, while others ouch along at $1500 or more.
Holy mother of fuck.
I am so throwing this little tidbit at the next assmunch who tells me I’m “throwing money away” as a renter. Because do you know how much I pay for heat each winter?
Exactly $0.00.
Oh, you pay for your energy use. It is included in your rent, Opoponax.
That it is included, may be a geographic issue. I really doubt that you could get a 1300 square foot apartment in the Boston area with heat and utilities included, and if you did the rent would be at least $1800-$2000 a month. That’s more than what we pay in mortgage, taxes, and utilities in the coldest winter chill.
We also live in New England, where energy bills in winter are typically quite high anyway (this was the sum total of electricity and gas bills for a January-February billing period).
A decent number of comments on this thread propose putting forth an attitude of superiority and speak of individual responsibility…ya know, fuck’em, they made their bad choices, I don’t want to pay for them now.
I can’t help but highlight the similarities in tone, if not word for word comparisons, to what you could hear on wingnut radio every friggin day for the last two decades.
Funny, huh?
Its ALWAYS tempting to say I told you so! The sense of satisfaction in being right, especially after a period of ridicule, is about as good as it gets.
BUT what separates you as a progressive or liberal from the wingnuts??? When they complain that others had the same information that they had, but they made the right decisions, didn’t you question that assumption and their arrogance? Didn’t you peel behind the black and white portrayals of complicated circumstances and their indifference to cultural barriers?
Leadership.
Now is not the time for ‘I told you so’. MOST people know that we are now in a bind and are as open as ever is humanly possible to some proper guidance and direction. Who are they going to look to first? Those who have alternatives! And it continues from there…
Did your best boss at work ever ridicule you for making a mistake or did heshe choose another path?
This is an opportunity for us all. Let’s lead, not celebrate. There is too much at stake.
Subsidies for ethanol gas has caused food shortages world wide.
Bullshit. Subsidies for corn-based ethanol have contributed to shortages of corn feedstock and food corn, but cellulosic ethanol fuels can be made out of a hell of a lot more things than corn. A lot of the shortage problem has been caused by a couple of grain crop blights that have been tearing up half the world — the half North Americans don’t tend to hear about on the news. Africa’s breadbasket region has had crop losses in the 75% range, for instance, and it isn’t much better in South Asia and parts of the Middle East. That kind of food crisis affecting that many people can’t help but cause spillover demand for other commodities, which is why rice prices are also rising.
jon: I’m reminded of the Toyota Hi-Lux that Top Gear tried to kill. It would not die. Look on YouTube for it. And the Land Cruiser is built to deal with the Sahara or Afghan roads. But point taken. Thing is, it’s rare you find a Japanese vehicle, even in the US market, that’s fuck-you big and thirsty in the way an Escalade or Hummer are big.
Detroit knows all this: its small cars compete with Japanese or Euro models in other countries. But the margins aren’t there. Except, they will be.
Well, my roommate and I pay for gas for heating in the winter, and you know how much it costs? Around $100 a month. Total.
Now admittedly, we live in a 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment, but we have energy efficient windows throughout. But you know what else we do? We throw on a sweater, and ug-boots, and maybe even a throw-blanket on the couch … don’t need to crank the heat up to toasty.
Not to mention, as much as I love my kitty, and my roommate loves hers, they simply don’t need the same temp setting during the day that we do … same thing overnight, as you just throw another blanket on the bed. It’s what all our grandparents used to do to be honest.
And Kate … rock on back at ya hon! I am so sick of people thinking that their choices somehow get them out of solutions.
A decent number of comments on this thread propose putting forth an attitude of superiority and speak of individual responsibility…ya know, fuck’em, they made their bad choices, I don’t want to pay for them now.
I can’t help but highlight the similarities in tone, if not word for word comparisons, to what you could hear on wingnut radio every friggin day for the last two decades.
Funny, huh?
Its ALWAYS tempting to say I told you so! The sense of satisfaction in being right, especially after a period of ridicule, is about as good as it gets.
BUT what separates you as a progressive or liberal from the wingnuts??? When they complain that others had the same information that they had, but they made the right decisions, didn’t you question that assumption and their arrogance? Didn’t you peel behind the black and white portrayals of complicated circumstances and their indifference to cultural barriers?
Leadership.
Now is not the time for ‘I told you so’. MOST people know that we are now in a bind and are as open as ever is humanly possible to some proper guidance and direction. Who are they going to look to first? Those who have alternatives! And this will continue…
Did your best boss at work ever ridicule you for making a mistake or did they choose another path?
This is an opportunity for us all. Let’s lead, not celebrate (as nice as it might feel). There is too much at stake.
A decent number of comments on this thread propose putting forth an attitude of superiority and speak of individual responsibility…ya know, fuck’em, they made their bad choices, I don’t want to pay for them now.
I can’t help but highlight the similarities in tone, if not word for word comparisons, to what you could hear on wingnut radio every friggin day for the last two decades.
Funny, huh?
Its ALWAYS tempting to say I told you so! The sense of satisfaction in being right, especially after a period of ridicule, is about as good as it gets.
BUT what separates you as a progressive or liberal from the wingnuts??? When they complain that others had the same information that they had, but they made the right decisions, didn’t you question that assumption and their arrogance? Didn’t you peel behind the black and white portrayals of complicated circumstances and their indifference to cultural barriers?
Leadership.
Now is not the time for ‘I told you so’. MOST people know that we are now in a bind and are as open as ever is humanly possible to some proper guidance and direction. Who are they going to look to first? Those who have alternatives! And this will continue…
Did your best boss at work ever ridicule you for making a mistake or did they choose another path?
This is an opportunity for us all. Let’s lead, not celebrate (as nice as it might feel). There is too much at stake.
Oh, you pay for your energy use. It is included in your rent, Opoponax.
I’m sure there’s something added to our rent to compensate for our energy use (though it’s a fixed amount, so i’d guess winter use is amortized), but it’s nowhere near $500 a month, I can tell you that. Let alone $1500!
The fact that we have steam heat via a boiler in the building’s basement and radiators probably helps matters.
We throw on a sweater, and ug-boots, and maybe even a throw-blanket on the couch … don’t need to crank the heat up to toasty.
That’s something we do. We also programmed our smart thermostat to dial down the thermostat to 60 overnight, and also during the day when we are likely not here. It is set at 67 when we are at home, 65 on weekend daytimes because we get solar heat that compensates.
That said, we overrode it to 70 when had the flu bug that was not covered by the flu shot. We also ripped our our kitchen and I can tell you it made a HUGE difference when I got that R19 into the walls and the alcove ceiling!!
Those factors added into that unusually high energy bill for us. I can’t understand how anyone can possibly be clocking $1800 a month peak, but that figure was typical of older homes without proper insulation and too-large suburban houses built by crappy builders and heated by oil.
Opponax, I think you have noticed one of the hidden pitfalls of seeking alternatives to car culture: that so much of car cost is hidden in the landscape.
Sometimes literally — if big cities didn’t have to accommodate parking lots, gas stations and oversized streets, they could be as much as 30% denser.
Couple o’things:
1) Some states require that children ride in a car seat up until the age of eight, and in the backseat until twelve. It’s not at all implausible that parents have to accommodate this.
2) Many semi-urban and rural communities have no public transit system — or only private van-like systems. Not everyone is an urbanite.
Many semi-urban and rural communities have no public transit system — or only private van-like systems. Not everyone is an urbanite.
THANK YOU. The public transit where I live is pathetic.
Oh, I don’t need a car. I could always walk about five miles to the nearest bus stop, and then be dropped off ten miles from my job. That’ll work.
Thank you, Lauren, for injecting sense into the discussion.
I’m not certain I got this right:
“Double down”? I don’t know that colloquialism. The pro-car people would deny any upcoming shortage (got that part), and… would cut their gas use? *scratches head*
Semi-related, I am very much someone who likes cars. I’ve owned two Austin-Healeys, a Porsche 914, even a Volvo 240DL (obligatory brick experience). For the past decade I’ve driven a ‘96 VW Golf. I get 28-30 in the city, and 34-38 on the highway; if I turn off the A/C, I can get 45-49 on the highway. And that’s with a car that’s now at 180K — and with a 2.0liter engine.
It can also haul 18 2x4s at once, or 4 sheets of plywood (cut at the lumberyard into 20″ and 30″ wide segments, but hey), or even 37 cases of books and still not obscure the side-view mirror. I’m used to truck-driving guys joshing me about buying a truck, until they see just how much the VW can hold and that’s without leaving the tailgate up.
My point isn’t that I’m a good driver, but that decent mileage is possible if you know what you’re doing and the car already has an adequate baseline in the first place (27/32 for the ‘96 Golf, IIRC). And, I absolutely love to drive (in case it’s not obvious by now).
I do not believe that SUV drivers love to drive. They sure don’t handle the roads like they’re enjoying themselves. No one’s guilty of the “brake for no reason” worse than SUV drivers, it seems; they’re slow, ponderous on the corners, hesitant, and those that don’t seem to drive like clunky “get from here to there and what’s all this excitement about” seem to be instilled with a sort of fear (which I guess is understandable if you’re driving a three-ton vehicle: you must feel like you’re always on the verge of losing control).
SUV drivers are looking for safety, reliability, and maybe a bit of cache (as much as you can get driving something the size of your living room, but hey). They’re certainly not driving for the experience… and while I get that there probably are folks who purchase more efficient cars without much invested in the cars themselves, I think there are probably a far greater number who purchase those cars because they’re fun to drive first, and the awesome fuel efficiency just makes the deal sweeter. If you love to drive, then you want to make it possible to keep at it: so you’re probably far more likely to purchase a car that gets 36mpg city… then you can drive even more without killing your budget, and ain’t that making for a great day?
Well, it does for me. Just isn’t a good day if I’ve not made at least three SUV drivers eat my German dust.
The Japanese are making quite a few of those giant trucks and SUVs we’re all griping about here. Honda Passport? Toyota Landcruiser? Titan pickup?
Yet, you never, ever see them on the streets in Tokyo. Go figure.
I hear ya, Ms Kate. Own your choices…
We left city life over a decade ago and bought a home that frankly was uninhabitable in 1996. Then applied ALOT of elbow grease…
We’re 10-15 miles from “civilization” but vehicles are well-maintained, (yes, Jon- tire pressure is an easy thing to check and a good tip) and if I go out (twice a week at most), I have a list of chores and fill the trunk. Many days, I stay within 5 miles of the house and have been this way for years. Could open a small convenience store with what I routinely keep on hand.
We replaced all 26 windows in this 100+ yr old farmhouse (1600 sf at most; huge by my standards) sealed it up and painted it with durable paint 5 years ago, have insulated attic and sheet-rocked over the existing plaster. This summer, we will be adding more insulation to the basement and having an evaluation done to see where we’re still leaking out heat. Fingers crossed, we can replace the old roofs.
Still have an old oil furnace as backup, but with a 125 gallon tank and 4 floors’ worth of chimney to resleeve before we could put in another, we started to switch over to zoned propane Rinaii heaters 2 years ago. Adding 3 more small units to the first floor this month. They are remarkably efficient.
SUVs are really not all that great. When the Philly area had one meter of snowfall overnight, most of the vehicles in the ditch were SUVs. My little FWD with snows tootled along.
Why in FSM would anyone below the Mason-Dixon need an SUV? The weather doesn’t force you to consider 4WD and who really needs a PennDOT truck to commute? Oh, it’s all about the tiny.
Lived in the evilbig city and now dwell in Whitest Whitesylvania. Both have things that endear. Both have serious deficiencies. Food in the hills tends toward fuel. Crime in the hills is far more rare. Cities have choices. Cities have nasty air issues.
If one permits oneself a bit of blue-sky thinking one can see how to save the suburbs. They are, if one thinks about it, essentially “pods” of no through-traffic clusters of hundreds of homes served by one or two main streets with similar homes. They are, with the current mortgage/housing/etc. crisis also threatening to have large numbers of empty houses. One response might be a multi-stage plan:
1 - As homes within the “pod” become available people move from the homes on the main drag to those homes; use incentives if necessary.
2- As the homes on the main drag become vacant, replace them with main-street style stores with apartments along the top. In essence, re-create a bit of small town America.
3 - Permit long, lateral stores while maintaining the “look”. In other words, if people are willing to drive to a big store then allow the big store to be long and lean rather than boxy.
4 - Gut the bylaws which discourage places of drinking entertainment in such areas. People will need to go to pubs, whatever you call such a place. There is a future for making Americans talk over a pint or wine just like 700 million Europeans do. The Puritan ethos in America has always made socializing over a drink at your “local” to be something dirty and hidden away, save for urban areas. (Think American small towns and suburbs: many of the best bars are only accessible by car. The “roadhouse” is often a product of being forced out there rather than a chosen culture expression. It’s interesting that “social gathering” bars are more likely to be found in small towns where gentrification occurred.)
5 - Have lots of bike (with decent anchors to lock to!) and motorcyle parking along these new main streets.
6 - Very, very regular public transit (electric buses?) up and down the main drag, with microbuses with less frequent but still regular schedules within the pods. Have superb linkage to the urban transport at the city boundaries.
7 - Make motorcycles, electric cycles and bicycles the sweetest deals out there. One of the flaws of the system here in Canada, for example, was that mopeds in the 1970s were pretty much wiped out by a regulatory system that treated them the same as 1200cc Harleys and a tax system that made them near-as-dammit unaffordable. It is a prime example (so prime that I’m amazed that libertarians don’t cite it all the time) of the market actually going in the right direction for once and then government screwing it up.
8 - Realize that there has to be a narrowing of the gap between the safety standards for cars and motorcyles. It amazes me and that I can hop on a superpowered bicycle and go into traffic and the government finds that “safe” but I can’t go out in many affordable, gas-efficient microcars because the government thinks them “unsafe”, notwithstanding the fact that I am a hundred times safer than I am on a motorcyle.
Oh, and one other thing. Could somebody please make big, motorcycle-style hardshell panniers* and rack-mounted lockbox for a bicycle that don’t cost a fucking fortune? Sometimes I have to take the damned car do to shopping simply because there’s a limit to what my backpack can carry, because I don’t want my stuff in an EZ-soak-through saddlebag that’s floppier than a GOP dick and because I can’t find bicycle lockbox that will fit something larger than a fucking sandwich?** PLEASE? ANYBODY?!?!?!
* - Fascinating. I just google imaged such a beastie and most of the places selling them were in the UK. What a shock. (Also, it has to have a damned lock. and be securely affixed to the bike. Just because I live in a city doesn’t mean that I want to take everything out and safe just so I can go in and have a coffee secure in the knowledge that I’ve left free goodies for a crackhead, tweaker or smackdaddy.
** - Designers: you might start with this: It, at minimum, has to be big enough to fit a laptop in a padded sleeve, one of those 2″ binder-briefcases, and an average-size insulated lunchbag. Is that so hard?
De-lurking for a minute:
“whatever happened to school buses? When I was in school lo those many years ago, there was never any issue about how we were going to get there, because that’s what school buses are for.”
You know what happened to school buses in my parents neighborhood? They cut all the routes serving anyone who lives within 2 miles of the school to save money. They rationalize this by saying that kids that close should be able to walk. What they really mean is that parents are stuck finding them another ride. This is in an inner ring suburb of Minneapolis, MN where for a good 3 months of the year it is literally havardous to be exposed to the air outside for more that a few minutes. Nobody is sending their kids out in that. Luckily my parents live on the outer ring of the school district so my little sister (in high school) can still ride the bus rather than having to drive herself there every day, but I bet there are kids living 1.9 miles from school who had to add a daily commute to their household. I bet there are even families who had to buy another car because the parents work schedules that don’t allow them to drop the kid off.
Yeah, these people have a choice in the simplest sense. They have a choice between adding to their transportation costs and carbon footprint or getting hypothermia and frostbite. Great choice.
You are really bending over backwards to dismiss the possibility that people could have genuine tran