I'm Part of the Reason For That Oil Spill

"I really do believe that if people can actually experience a clean, fresh, efficient, widespread, fast public transportation system, most of them will be happy to abandon the crawling, "

I agree. But you have to get there first. They can't experience that until there is one to experience, and there aren't many of those in this nation. Until you build it, you will have huge battles and fights.

Case in point--Seattle: some of the worst traffic in the country. Some of the most environmentally-conscious people, too. And how long did that monorail take to get approved and built? has it even gotten to that stage yet? (I don't know--haven't lived there for close to 10 years now). Yet of all cities, it was the perfect storm of conditions ripe for public transport. If Seattle can't get it done...how hard for other cities?

I totally agree we need the public transportation. What I don't agree with is that it will be:

1) easy to implement
2) implementable without seeing a corresponding rise in gas prices after subsidies are removed.

I'm with you--give everyone a free field trip to Japan.

And what does your "fact" prove?

Lesson #45,654:

"Fail-safe" is an oxymoron

For some reason, the "reply" feature isn't operational. So I have to respond here.

Patricia wrote: " am thinking the systems we have purposely designed to be cumbersome because we are so suspicious of each other are capable of being changed - by us -if we want to :). And, cumbersome and bureaucratic as those systems are, people still need, apply for, and use the benefits those systems provide. They do make a difference for many, many poor people."

I know, remembering my own personal visits to social services/welfare/disability/Unemployment offices that there were plenty of other people (besides myself) who have depended upon these programs and have been utilizing them. People have HAD to use these programs.

But I also believe, from reading the responses from those who haven't had to use them, that the entire experience of having to apply for these government aid programs is an entire experience in itself. This is an experience that people -- no matter how well-intended, who have not had to use these programs -- simply do not understand. It's been quite a few years since I've had to use any of those programs; I've been a taxpaying worker for over a decade. But I sitll remember it as if it had happened yesterday. People who have never had to go through these onerous application/approval processes just don't "get" how horrible they are; one can try to explain, but it doesn't seem to soak in because some of these same people keep saying, "oh, we can have welfare programs for poor people." Which is a sort of denial, just as when people who say, "oh the oil will never run out and BP's spill was just an accident so we can keep using gas-guzzlers for ever and ever and we don't need public transportation." Denial is all over the map.

I'm still not clear as to why private entities (using government tax breaks) and/or the government itself can't just go ahead and start building a clean, fast, efficient public transportation system. They can use the money saved from no longer subsidizing oil companies or auto companies. And also money saved from no longer waging imperialist wars in foreign countries for the goal of getting more control over oil supplies.

I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you are; I really do believe that if people can actually experience a clean, fresh, efficient, widespread, fast public transportation system, most of them will be happy to abandon the crawling, exhaust-fume-filled, frustrating car commuting battles in order to ride on a nice, fast, clean train where they can read the newspaper or do texting or whatever. Oh, there will be a few folks who are masochistic enough to cling to the crawling highways, and they will probably be quite loud about it (with folks like Rush Limbaugh egging them on). But most people will switch the channel from Limbaugh et al and be quite content speeding past the crawling, clogged highways.

For some reason, the "reply" feature isn't operational. So I have to respond here.

Patricia wrote: " am thinking the systems we have purposely designed to be cumbersome because we are so suspicious of each other are capable of being changed - by us -if we want to :). And, cumbersome and bureaucratic as those systems are, people still need, apply for, and use the benefits those systems provide. They do make a difference for many, many poor people."

I know, remembering my own personal visits to social services/welfare/disability/Unemployment offices that there were plenty of other people (besides myself) who have depended upon these programs and have been utilizing them. People have HAD to use these programs.

But I also believe, from reading the responses from those who haven't had to use them, that the entire experience of having to apply for these government aid programs is an entire experience in itself. This is an experience that people -- no matter how well-intended, who have not had to use these programs -- simply do not understand. It's been quite a few years since I've had to use any of those programs; I've been a taxpaying worker for over a decade. But I sitll remember it as if it had happened yesterday. People who have never had to go through these onerous application/approval processes just don't "get" how horrible they are; one can try to explain, but it doesn't seem to soak in because some of these same people keep saying, "oh, we can have welfare programs for poor people." Which is a sort of denial, just as when people who say, "oh the oil will never run out and BP's spill was just an accident so we can keep using gas-guzzlers for ever and ever and we don't need public transportation." Denial is all over the map.

I'm still not clear as to why private entities (using government tax breaks) and/or the government itself can't just go ahead and start building a clean, fast, efficient public transportation system. They can use the money saved from no longer subsidizing oil companies or auto companies. And also money saved from no longer waging imperialist wars in foreign countries for the goal of getting more control over oil supplies.

I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you are; I really do believe that if people can actually experience a clean, fresh, efficient, widespread, fast public transportation system, most of them will be happy to abandon the crawling, exhaust-fume-filled, frustrating car commuting battles in order to ride on a nice, fast, clean train where they can read the newspaper or do texting or whatever. Oh, there will be a few folks who are masochistic enough to cling to the crawling highways, and they will probably be quite loud about it (with folks like Rush Limbaugh egging them on). But most people will switch the channel from Limbaugh et al and be quite content speeding past the crawling, clogged highways.

Squeaky - the monorail died, but Seattle now has light rail from downtown to the airport, and plans to expand across to the east side and north to at least the U district :).

Also, the sounder commuter rail system runs in the morning and evening from Everett south and Tacoma north - not nearly enough, but as long as tracks have to be shared with freight it's the best they can do.

Seattle is supposedly getting funding for high speed rail sometime in the near future - everyone's fingers are crossed!

And, finally, since the Olympics, 2 trains per day between Seattle and Vancouver BC!

It's kind of a patchwork of stuff, but it's a beginning.

"We rely on foreign oil sources because all the major oil fields in the US are past peak. We drill deeper because that is where the largest oil fields are now. We are running out of cheap, easily accessible oil."

Really?!? The USGS assessed anywhere from 5 to 16 billion barrels underneath ANWR alone. But we can't drill there...why?

They assessed that based on the geology of the area. In other words, they know what rocks are there and the geologic environment in which they were deposited, and that oil tends to form in those environment. Beyond that, they have done no extensive testing, such as geophysical testing or drilling. They don't know how big the deposit really is, nor do they have any idea the nature of the deposit in terms of shape and location (it could be several, spaced out, small deposits that would be more costly to tap).

And 5-16 billion barrels. How much oil does the US use in a year? Look up that number and tell me how long you think those 5-16 billion barrels will help us, or even if they will help us at all. Not to mention it would be about 10 years before it even came to market. Not a solution, long term or any term.

Of course - though he has not been successful in some time - most people are on to the fact that he makes his living by coming up with newer and stranger initiatives :).

"The demand is still there, regardless. And we are the demanders. Mostly because we don't see another way (or at least not a way that requires no sacrifice), and oil is easy...for now."

Because the other ways -- clean, safe, fast, efficient trains/buses that actually go where people need and want to go -- don't exist at the current time. If they existed, no sacrifices would have to be made; in fact people will be happy to leave the clogged, exhaust-fume-filled roads where people crawl in order to take fast, gleaming trains that will deliver people quickly and efficiently.

Let's end the subsidies to oil companies and give subsidies to those who would build the public transportation systems that we need.

See my reply to Patricia.

You wrote: "Am I a cynic? Partly, yes. We are a sinful race, after all, so it is just plain reality."

So you believe that human beings are basically sinful and must be kept on the straight-and-narrow by fears of punishment or consequences? You don't have faith that, if humans are actually presented with a viable alternative, that they will make good choices?

"But also, on a previous thread, one poster said 'if we were running out of oil, why don't the prices reflect that?' The prices give us a false sense of security, and as you can tell just with this thread alone, it is very difficult to convince others of the truth if oil seems to be inexpensive. Ask Pcnotforme and sparechange if they think oil is past its peak. Pretty sure their answer will be 'drill baby, drill,' blissfully ignorant of the fact that there are few places to drill in this nation any more."

I don't know if PCnotforme or Sparechange have had to fight traffic and deal with congestion, exhaust fumes, honking horns, etc. as they crawl their way to their jobs or their other destinations. Maybe they haven't, I don't know.

One huge problem is that when people think about public transportation, they think about what actually exists in this country -- slow, noisy, hot or cold trains and buses (lacking working heat/air conditioning) that run less and less often, that don't actually go where people need to go, that are filled with trash along with crime, drunks, etc. No sane person would prefer this to a nice clean car with a personal CD player, radio, air-conditioning, heating, etc. Even with the clogged traffic, that is preferable to a lot of people than what currently exists as public transportation.

"And public energy assistance for those in need, as Patricia suggests, is a viable solution to the high costs imposed on those who can least afford it. Once public transport comes on line, that will become less of an issue."

See what I wrote to Patricia about applying for any sort of public aid in this country. And let me ask you the same question I asked Patricia -- have you ever had to apply to any government aid programs? If so, what was your experience with this process like?

The solution lies in presenting the public with an alternative to what currently exists. We could offer free trips to Europe or Japan to experience their train/bus systems, but that would be impractical. So instead, we could present the public with a clean, fast, temperature-controlled, efficient train and bus system that will relieve people from having to contend with clogged roads and smelly, annoying traffic as they crawl to work. Build the nice trains and buses and the people will come, mark my words.

"And, once again you are ignoring the possibility of increasing financial assistance to poor people to help them pay the real price for gas :). I am not ignoring poor people, and I do NOT consider poor people collateral damage - that's not fair. I offered a solution in the form of increased assistance for those people."

As I've said before: I don't know if you've ever had to deal with applying for any sort of public assistance. Because if you had, you wouldn't dismiss this with "increasing financial assistance to poor people".

So to be fair, let me ask you: have you ever had to apply for any type of public assistance i.e. welfare, food stamps, social security disability, energy assistance programs, or even Unemployment benefits? If you have and you encountered no problems with the cumbersome bureaucracy of the system, and the system being designed to weigh down prospective recipients with various tasks to "prove" that they are "truly deserving" and not "malingering" or "cheating the taxpayers", then you've had a very unusual experience with these programs.

I've had to turn to some of these programs more than once, and it was my experiences with the degradation that these programs put people through that was a prime factor in turning me from being a typical left-leaning progressive to a libertarian who distrusts most government aid.

And it seems that you still insist on the negative reinforcement -- having gas prices go up -- as the best way of forcing people to confront higher prices so that they will support public transportation systems. This sort of negative reinforcement won't work; instead it will build resentment and make people want more than ever to remain in their cars.

Positive reinforcement: building the sort of efficient, fast, clean, widespread public transportation system will work a lot better. Most people, unless they are masochists who are in love with their cars, will be happy to abandon the clogged roads, the exhaust fumes, the honking horns, and general frustration that car commuters now have to deal with, and they will happily get into nice, clean, fast trains and buses to get to their destinations.

"And, once again you are ignoring the possibility of increasing financial assistance to poor people to help them pay the real price for gas :). I am not ignoring poor people, and I do NOT consider poor people collateral damage - that's not fair. I offered a solution in the form of increased assistance for those people."

As I've said before: I don't know if you've ever had to deal with applying for any sort of public assistance. Because if you had, you wouldn't dismiss this with "increasing financial assistance to poor people".

So to be fair, let me ask you: have you ever had to apply for any type of public assistance i.e. welfare, food stamps, social security disability, energy assistance programs, or even Unemployment benefits? If you have and you encountered no problems with the cumbersome bureaucracy of the system, and the system being designed to weigh down prospective recipients with various tasks to "prove" that they are "truly deserving" and not "malingering" or "cheating the taxpayers", then you've had a very unusual experience with these programs.

I've had to turn to some of these programs more than once, and it was my experiences with the degradation that these programs put people through that was a prime factor in turning me from being a typical left-leaning progressive to a libertarian who distrusts most government aid.

And it seems that you still insist on the negative reinforcement -- having gas prices go up -- as the best way of forcing people to confront higher prices so that they will support public transportation systems. This sort of negative reinforcement won't work; instead it will build resentment and make people want more than ever to remain in their cars.

Positive reinforcement: building the sort of efficient, fast, clean, widespread public transportation system will work a lot better. Most people, unless they are masochists who are in love with their cars, will be happy to abandon the clogged roads, the exhaust fumes, the honking horns, and general frustration that car commuters now have to deal with, and they will happily get into nice, clean, fast trains and buses to get to their destinations.

"I really do believe that if people can actually experience a clean, fresh, efficient, widespread, fast public transportation system, most of them will be happy to abandon the crawling, "

I agree. But you have to get there first. They can't experience that until there is one to experience, and there aren't many of those in this nation. Until you build it, you will have huge battles and fights.

Case in point--Seattle: some of the worst traffic in the country. Some of the most environmentally-conscious people, too. And how long did that monorail take to get approved and built? has it even gotten to that stage yet? (I don't know--haven't lived there for close to 10 years now). Yet of all cities, it was the perfect storm of conditions ripe for public transport. If Seattle can't get it done...how hard for other cities?

I totally agree we need the public transportation. What I don't agree with is that it will be:

1) easy to implement
2) implementable without seeing a corresponding rise in gas prices after subsidies are removed.

I'm with you--give everyone a free field trip to Japan.

Well at least you can't blame Obama for a lack of response. His golf cart is electric.

People in the know have said that the expense of drilling isn't worth it long-term; as far as ANWR, that would last only about a decade.

You miss the point, of course. The point is that 5-16 billion barrels of oil is a long, long way from a solution to our oil needs. So the argument that we can fill our oil needs with domestic oil fails miserably.

But then, you aren't really interested in dialogue are you? You prefer to just take potshots. I have observed that to be your MO.

Or, why no drilling on the thousands of acres in the US oil companies ALREADY HAVE LEASES FOR, but choose not to drill on?

Facts are pesky little things...

"But we can't drill there...why?"

If you haven't figured it out yet then....

"People sitting in their cars are to blame for the oil spill???"

As I posted above to Patricia: I don't think that people sitting in their cars in clogged, congested highways are to blame. I believe that, if a truly clean, fast, efficient, widespread train/bus system were in place, people would leap to get out of those clogged highways and traffic jams. If you've ever traveled to Europe or Japan, you will see what I mean -- a truly efficient, clean, widespread public transporation system.

Build this transportation sytem and they will come.

"Again, Patricia, why no drilling in ANWR? Why no drilling on US Soil?"

After this latest (of a long line of disasters), even as a person with libertarian tendencies, I think it's up to the government enforcement powers to protect the property rights of the people on the beaches from being fouled by all of this oil.

Drilling should be suspended until and unless a company can prove that they have already built relief wells (as BP should have done before they started on their project). I also believe that all subsidies to oil companies should be ended. Government subsidies are a form of socialism. If oil companies actually had to compete with each other rather than being able to form a government-subsidized monopoly cartel -- I'm sure that things would be quite different.

Squeaky - the monorail died, but Seattle now has light rail from downtown to the airport, and plans to expand across to the east side and north to at least the U district :).

Also, the sounder commuter rail system runs in the morning and evening from Everett south and Tacoma north - not nearly enough, but as long as tracks have to be shared with freight it's the best they can do.

Seattle is supposedly getting funding for high speed rail sometime in the near future - everyone's fingers are crossed!

And, finally, since the Olympics, 2 trains per day between Seattle and Vancouver BC!

It's kind of a patchwork of stuff, but it's a beginning.

"Free Marketeers get it--it's simple supply and demand. Offshore drilling occurs because market forces make it profitable to acquire the oil."

Actually, not entirely true. Oil companies drill because they are a government-subsidized monopoly cartel. I wonder what their profit margins would be if they had to actually compete with each other and forgo the socialistic government subsidies.

Well, of course that's true. And given our recent discussion of this, I'm sure you know I know that. But it's good to point out for those who weren't keeping up with that.

I was speaking...erm...hypothetically. And employing the KISS method (Keep It Sorta Simple)

The demand is still there, regardless. And we are the demanders. Mostly because we don't see another way (or at least not a way that requires no sacrifice), and oil is easy...for now.