Where is the US economy headed?

It's obvious okie hasn't tried to ride on the Underground in London, the trains in Tokyo, or the Metro in DC during commute hours. Yeah, mass transit is the pits, because they're just not efficient!

To your question, yes, to a point. I think sometimes it is taken to the extreme. We are not arguing about doing something or nothing, but just how much and how, and in what way.

Not BS about the buses. The statistics are available if you wish to run the numbers.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's obvious okie hasn't tried to ride on the Underground in London, the trains in Tokyo, or the Metro in DC during commute hours. Yeah, mass transit is the pits, because they're just not efficient!

Or Chicago pretty much Mon-Fri.

Cyclops, I am a bit flippant when I say cities are as bad as they are, but seriously I do not think they are very efficient places to live. I have lived in both, and find my energy use (auto use) much lower in small towns and rural areas, as long as you aren't too far from town. I do not have statistics to back it up. I would be curious about any. But I don't see how anyone can witness gridlock in most typical cities, or close to gridlock, and say that such a scenario is very efficient. Cars idling or stop and go all day long, and if you live in a city, it takes far more gas to go a typical mile than if you live somewhere else.

And I would like to see statistics on energy use per city, according to size, and according to degree of sprawl. Some of these things that are published as fact may not turn out to be so factual.

okie, Have you ever considered a) opportunity, b) jobs, c) climate, d) family and friends, and e) not everybody can live in small towns and rural areas.

What with the 'cars idling' phenomena you describe, I would think that increases in fuel efficiency would massively increase our supply and decrease the emissions produced by automobiles. This is one of the reasons I'm bullish on increasing efficiency before drilling for new oil.

Cycloptichorn

The real problem with increasing fleet fuel efficiency is that it's very slow to affect fuel consumption in general, because you're only having an effect as old cars are retired/scrapped/exported and new ones purchased. (New car purchases done specifically to save fuel are generally a terrible idea - you spend a lot more on the car than you save in gas!)

Also, it's kind of hard to shift consumer preferences away from "big car" towards "small, fuel-efficient car", because for a lot of people, larger cars honestly have a significantly added utility. It doesn't matter how many MPG you get out of a Civic if you have three teenagers, after all.

The spread of hybrid technology may have a real effect here, though, especially if they can get it a -little- cheaper (and assuming gas prices don't crash, which is probably a safe bet at this point). Even if you're only squeaking an extra 2-3 mpg out of a car, that adds up eventually.

Specifically addressing the question of new refineries, it's not like the only people who can build a refinery are companies that already own refineries. If there really was increased demand for fuel products (and there is), and there really was no legal issue to worry about, then there is serious money to be made. So why isn't anybody making it? Because there -are- those legal issues to be worried about, and in an area of uncertainty, big, capital-intensive projects don't get constructed. It's kind of the same way for nuclear plants - we NEED 'em, people want to build 'em, we can afford 'em, but the legal/political climate is hostile enough that nobody wants to be the one to front the money.

Thats the point. It will not screw up the environment. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule, a term you guys like to use, but in this case is actually applicable. I would need to look up the percentage, but it is only a very small fraction of the 10 or 15%, more like less than 1%.

Besides, if you wish to talk about impacts on the environment, it isn't oil wells that are a problem, it is the numbers of people. Big cities are some of the worst places, environmentally, than anywhere else, yet that is where the liberals hang out.

Your choice to live in the urban areas or small towns is not even a consideration for most people who must work; that's a simple fact of life.

[ANWR won't produce NEARLY enough to offset the rising prices of gas in this country. Not even close.

It depends which city you're talking about. I notice how you dropped "liberal" in that paragraph. I know plenty of conservatives who also live in big cities, so please, do your research before making yet another blanket statement.

I take an electric bus to and from work everyday, and live in the same town where I work. Can the same be said for the rural dweller who may have to drive many miles to get to work and back?

You also negated refineries that are AWAY from cities, and yet still do their part to pollute our air. You also fail to mention the enormous amount of methane that comes from the huge slaughterhouses and cow farms. People in the city actually are MUCH more aware of social/environmental issues, and try to do something about is, vs. the rural dweller who may not give a sh!t.

We shouldn't be looking for new places to drill; we should be looking for alternative forms of energy. But the Bush administration is in bed with big oil and the Sauds, so that isn't going to happen anytime soon me thinks.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your choice to live in the urban areas or small towns is not even a consideration for most people who must work; that's a simple fact of life.

People don't work in urban areas or small towns, imposter?