"GWB is very eloquent, yes eloquent, on cycling.
I very much appreciate when prominent people promote cycling, even if they perform poorly at their day jobs.
In praise of mountain biking"
Cycling ambassador
Mon, 08/15/2005 - 5:02pm
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 5:22am
#1
Another Benefit
And, of course, since gasoline prices are shooting up under GWB's watch, that will eventually mean fewer cars on the road for cyclists to contend with...another way he's promoting cycling.
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 7:06am
#2
GWB
Higher gasoline prices will mean more cars on the road and less trucks (think SUVs). The net effect is still the same # of motor vehicles on the road. Even at $3/gallon its price is still cheap. One can travel 20 – 30 miles on $3 gas. MetroNorth or NJ Transit wont get you that far for a $3 spot.
Regarding GWB, if you want less cars on the road, then the toll should be raised to say $9, like is done for the Verrazano bridge or like 10x that amount like is done in Japan.
Why do you attribute high gasoline prices to GWB’s watch? One could make a different corollary, that without his past and present interest in oil, it would be much higher.
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 8:30am
#3
Under His Watch
"I don't attribute higher prices to GWB's watch. But ""under his watch"" means under his watch...this is when it's happening, not necessarily his doing (although I don't agree with your corollary).
And $3 gas is only the beginning; there will be fewer internal combustion engine-driven vehicles on the road over the next few years, since this current price rise is only the tipping point.
And, to keep the bike topic on topic, the kind of weekend joy-riding that brings these vehicles on the road when most of us ride our bikes will diminish, making cycling more pleasurable.
"
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 9:22am
#4
reading comprehension & biases
"""...under his watch..."" and ""..another way he's promoting cycling..""
That's a strong implication that you do attribute higher gas prices to GWB. How can _one_ (as in myself and others) interpret otherwise from what you wrote?
I never implied I agreed with the other corollary either. I intentionally carefully worded it so.
I do know that the current rise in oil prices has much less to do with politics and much more to do with primarily refinery problems and financial specualtion among other reasons.
While I agree with you and Bob that it seems reasonable that there will be less cars on the road, it's purely
conjecture. I could easily argue such will not be the case. Here's an example..
Having grown up in this area, I've experienced a steady increase in traffic. Population growth coupled with plenty of new construction/development work (read sprawl). For example, I'm talking like places like River Rd (south of GWB), Tices Farm in Montvale, McMansions in Tenafly, or far reaching places like Mott Farm Rd to name a few examples. There's still plenty of new development occuring in the metro area.
"
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 10:19am
#5
Interpretations
"Peter writes: ""That's a strong implication that you do attribute higher gas prices to GWB. How can _one_ (as in myself and others) interpret otherwise from what you wrote?""
Well, it may be under GWB's watch, but if someone is asleep at the watch, things can happen that are not under his control (but ""under his watch"" implies responsibility).
And what you attribute to temporary causes, such as ""primarily refinery problems and financial specualtion,"" I attribute to long-term and permanent changes, such as peak oil production and the growing middle class in the world's two largest nations (China and India) wanting more and more oil.
And if you think sprawl that increases traffic and makes cycling less enjoyable can continue if, say, gasoline doubles from today's current price, you think differently than I do.
However, being a close-in suburb, I don't think Tenafly counts as sprawl."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 12:41pm
#6
come again?!?
"How is GWB responsible for the growing middle class of the world's two most populous nations?
""gasoline prices are shooting up"" and ""over the next few years"", so now its long-term and permanent changes?
India and Chinas' have grown in tandem to the growth of our economy and the exporting of goods to this country for consumption. Sprawl is endemic to many parts of this country (which incidentally is 'larger' than India).
Your reasoning and logic is not very coherent.
"
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 12:55pm
#7
More Meanings than One
"Larger also refers to population; I'm sorry, Peter, that you've never heard of that usage of the word (or are you being deliberately obtuse?). In that meaning of the word, India and China are ""larger"" than the US, much larger.
GWB is responsible for what policies this nation implements or does not implement. Since there are long-term changes afoot, not reacting to them in a reasoned and logical manner is one factor in gas prices increasing on his watch (going back to my original term, which refers to titular status, not necessarily actions).
Gasoline prices are shooting up, now, AND there are long-term changes that are starting to take effect. Both present tense and future tense...where's the lack of coherence in that?
Bottom line: fewer cars on the road has the potential to make bicycling more pleasurable."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:50pm
#8
full circle
"GWB is responsible for what policies this nation implements or does not implement. Since there are long-term changes afoot, not reacting to them in a reasoned and logical manner is one factor in gas prices increasing on his watch (going back to my original term, which refers to titular status, not necessarily actions).
And what ""reasoned and logical manner"" would that be? You are quick to criticize GWB, but have yet to articulate in any detail why he is responsible. There's alot to be critical of him, but on this matter it is truly folly. How is his watch any different than any other world leaders regarding this matter? Or more to the point, what do you think worldwide rise in oil prices has done to the middle class growth in India and China.
Bottom line: fewer cars on the road has the potential to make bicycling more pleasurable.
Now your contention is just fewer cars as opposed to ""fewer internal combustion engine-driven vehicles on the road""?
Even if the only vehicles on the road, are and will only use gas for energy consumption, and gas doubles in price, I still contend that there will be more cars on the road tomorrow than today. This is so due to economic and population growth. More folks, owning more cars/person and living outside of urban areas - that long term trend already exists. Cutting down on discreationary (""recreational"") driving is trivial in comparison.
"
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 2:16pm
#9
Last for Me
"You ask ""How is his watch any different than any other world leaders regarding this matter?"" Excuse me; you don't believe the actions of the ""leader"" of the nation with the world's largest economy have a different effect than that of other leaders?
No, I'm not articulating details such as opening up the Alaskan wilderness for a pittance of oil as a ""solution"" since the theme is still bicycles.
(Oh yes, first sentence from an article in today's NYT: ""The Bush administration is expected to abandon a proposal to extend fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles..."" Again, another ""solution"" from the mountain-biker at the Crawford compound.)
And my change from the fancy term of ""internal combustion engine-driven vehicles"" to the common term of ""cars"" is not a change in my thinking; rather, it is simply a change of language. But for you to focus on that appears trivial on your part.
So, bottom line: You say there will be more cars on the road tomorrow (a term you do not define, unless you mean August 17th), and that's a long-term trend that you don't see changing. I say that long-term trend toward more cars and urban sprawl is bound to shift into reverse as gasoline prices reach high levels never seen before in this nation (which will affect not just car ownership but the economy as a whole), and my definition of tomorrow for that shift is over the next five years."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 3:25pm
#10
"Let's put this into perspective. Our country consumes 25% of all oil pulled from the ground. The disparity is even greater if your meausurent is by economic size (GDP) for the latter party. What are the other 75% of consumers outside of the USA doing about the problem of rising oil prices?
Regarding ""internal combustion engine-driven vehicles"" - your argument is that there will be less cars on the road due to higher gas prices. Your mention of such alternative vehicles weakens such argument that much more. That is why I pointed it out.
Of the 25% of world oil consumed in the USA, half of that is done so for vehicles of transport. This includes 18 wheelers, boats, planes used for commercial purposes as well as automobiles. To think extending USA fuel economy restrictions to Hummers is really going to effect the bottom line of worldwide gas prices is obviously not the case.
Well, I'm not saying your bottom line prediction is wrong, but how exactly is urban sprawl going to go in reverse? Gas would have to reach triple digit prices for folks in Rockland, Orange and Putnam counties to give up there cars and move to the city. Even if gas costs 6, $9 bucks a gallon it still is cheap compared to other modes of transportation and convenience (as mentioned before the MetroNorth example)."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 3:26pm
#11
nm (nm)
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 8:32am
#12
nm (nm)
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 1:34pm
#13
His mission is clear
"Apparently you haven't heard the breaking news.
""Bush Vows to Eliminate US Dependence on Oil by 4920""
And not a momement too soon."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 2:02pm
#14
Geopolitical instability
"Regarding your question: Bush launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, leading to 2 plus years of unimaginable instability in this large oil-producing country. His ""global war on terror"" has had unsettling effects in the allied kingdom Saudi Arabia. Iran, another large producer of oil, was labeled part of the axis of evil, thus adding more instability to that region of the world. We condoned if not orchestrated a coup against an elected leader in Venezeula, another major oil exporter. And the price just rises and rises through these events.
Finally, Bush is opposed to conversation and related attempts to reduce global warming emissions. He has had no initiatives to increase fuel efficiency or otherwise promote the conversation of energy. This even after September 11th showed how our reliance on foreign oil funds our most murderous enemies. Conservation is, presumably, the domain of liberal environmentalists.
Peter - if you have any more ideas of how US policies can contribute to the high price of oil, please suggest them. The most obvious ones have been effected and Bush may be looking for new ones."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 3:46pm
#15
political noise & economic reality
No one was complaining about oil prices when Iraq was attacked by the USA a few years back. Iraq's production, or lack thereof, of oil then and now is of little consequence for world oil prices. Iran, Venezeula and Saudi Arabia have actually increased oil production as prices have risen. It's a simple matter of economics.
In fact OPEC increased production has contributed to a global supply exceeding demand over the past 2 years. The primary rise is bottlenecks with refining the oil. Demand has increased, the infrastructure of converting oil to gas has not kept pace with the demand.
Chris, you casually forgot to mention the UN's oil-for-food program, Iran's defiance with nuclear weapons and Venezeula and Saudi Arabia constant ramping up of oil production as a way to buy-off political dissent by the masses in their own country.
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 4:43pm
#16
Economics is politics (in disguise)
"Peter - You describe my points regarding geopolitical instability as ""political noise"" as opposed to presumably the ""economic reality"" that you proffer. I was not claiming to give a comprehensive overview of the factors affecting the price of oil, but rather to simply answer your question as to how anyone can say the Bush Administration has any responsibility on this matter.
Is it your position that this Administration's policies, namely foreign policies, have played no role in the 250% increase in the price of oil over the past 3 years?"
Wed, 08/17/2005 - 5:33am
#17
It's your contention that political instability attributable to GWB is attributable to higher oil prices. While I don't dismiss political instability influencing oil prices to some degree, I do contend that it's secondary in influence to the issue of supply (attributable to oil refining companies). Shouldering all of that political instability on one man's shoulders is a bit of stretch.
The countries you sight were politically unstable long before GWB took office. Iran's nuclear ambitions, their 10 year or so war with Iraq, Iraq invading Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia's welfare state and all the (supported deeply by American tax dollars) IMF $ Venezeula pissed away for many years and has had a long history of coups, which is nothing new. For instance how do you think Mr Chavez got into office?
Those countries you mention are pumping out more oil than they did before GWB took office. That puts pressure on crude oil prices to fall. Of course cars don't run on crude oil. If they did prices, at the pump would be lower.
There's alot to be critical of the President. In my opinion, to blame him for higher oil prices worldwide is a folly.
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 5:37am
#18
FYI
Chavez went to jail when he attempted his coup, then got elected (and re-elected, and also won a referendum calling for his dismissal), then was the victim of a coup himself (which was tacitly supported by the US) but was re-installed by his armed forces. Let's not start spreading government propaganda...
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 9:16am
#19
propaganda?
"""..Let's not start spreading government propaganda...""
Chris had a problem with the US supporting a Coup to remove Chavez from office. Chavez attempted a Coup himself.
--
That's correct, the US supported, not initiated the last (of many) coups.
He's also sacked plenty of judges, political opponents and basically anyone who comes close to being a dissident. He was also a paratrooper and heads the military. Sounds alot like Castro, doesn't it?
While winning one re-election after another selling lots of oil, and for years squandered outside $ assistance (World Bank and IMF) to take care of the poor with elaborate social programs who in turn cast their votes for him. Poor folk only care about the means, not the ends and while he has remained in office, for quite some time now, the country has only gotten poorer under his leadership.
And your point is?"
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 8:45pm
#20
my point
"my point was that you were implying he came into power by fomenting a coup d'etat, which he wasn't.
Meanwhile, what's wrong with being a paratrooper? and isn't the president head of the military as well? What's your point?
He hasn't put any of his dissidents in jail has he? Seems like the elite class in Venezuela has a loud enough voice, having control of the media and all.
And finally, I don't see how spending outside $ assistance on ""elaborate social programs"" to ""take care of the poor"" is such a bad thing. Whether the country is in a better or poorer state of affairs, I don't know, but sounds like he's on the right track."
Fri, 08/19/2005 - 1:32pm
#21
miscommunication
Now that I understand better, I don't disagree with what you wrote. I didn't mean to imply that he actually came to power that way, rather that he did at try a coup at one point as you correctly point out. I don't agree with the US president's tactic with respect to Argentina, rather just outlining a case for how such could be plausible and a rational decision, including providing outside $ assistance.
In any event Chris picked a poor example to prove his point. That country has increased its oil production and its political instability still would occured regardless if GWB was in office or not.
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 12:51pm
#22
ambassador NOT
"He may be a preacher, but ambassador he isn't. From the descriptions of the way he rides, it seems like he could be one of those ridng in CP who expect pedestrians in the crosswalks with the light to get out of their way (to bring up a recent thread topic).
Also noteworthy is that this article contains the language (picked up by the Daily Show) about having to ""get on with my life"", which in his case apparently means working out 4 hours a day and going to bed at 9:00."
Tue, 08/16/2005 - 4:08pm
#23
squeezing
He obviously enjoys mtbing. I'm glad that he's taking it seriously, gone clipless, and that he manages to squeeze in time to run the country. mtbing is perfect. He appears to be an environmentalist when he's the exact opposite. And how cool it must be to have 1,600 acres of your own on which endlessly to cut brush and mtb.
Wed, 08/17/2005 - 10:20am
#24
Cycling ambassador
"He's just riding around the ranch, having fun and getting some exercise. I scarcely need to say that he isn't promoting cycling as an alternative to driving.
The last President to speak honestly about our energy problem was Jimmy Carter:
""Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
""It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
""We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
""We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
""Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.
""The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
""Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the 'moral equivalent of war' -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.""
"
Wed, 08/17/2005 - 11:06am
#25
Honestly
"Mordecai writes: ""The last President to speak honestly about our energy problem was Jimmy Carter.""
Yes, quite so...and if you also remember, Carter got slammed for his honesty.
That's why each president since has gravitated toward its opposite."
Wed, 08/17/2005 - 11:43am
#26
Another USA TODAY article
"From an article on Jimmy Carter:
""Jimmy Carter will suddenly appear without fanfare or entourage in this tiny hamlet that has been his life's wellspring. It might be at Mom's Kitchen for lunch, or in a hallway of Maranatha Baptist Church before Sunday school, or peddling (sic) up Main Street on his burgundy Rivendell bicycle.
""And the newly anointed Nobel Peace Prize laureate insists the award won't change that. During a Friday press conference in Plains, he was asked if the Nobel would change him. His answer: 'I'll be teaching Sunday school Sunday morning, and this afternoon, after this big crowd leaves, I'll be riding back down town on my bicycle. ... I'll be — as I always have been — a citizen of Plains and doing my share for the community. It didn't change my life when I became a state senator, or governor, or president or a defeated candidate for re-election, and I don't think this will change my life either. My roots are too deep here to be changed, and I'm too old.'""
It's interesting to compare the cycling style and philosophy of the citizen of Plains, Georgia, and the rancher of Crawford, Texas. It's a reflection of their characters."
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 7:51am
#27
gwb and gasoline prices
it's interesting that such hullabaloo comes from self appointed pundits. peter is quite right when he mentions that refining constraints (largely a function of NIMBYism) is one of the principal issues affecting gasoline pricing in the US. domestic crude stocks are at their highest levels in yrs and refineries are operating at 90%+ (93.5% last wk, 95% the wk before) of capacity and have been doing so for some time. refiners currently are enjoying the best margins ever (ie delta between inputs and outputs) unlike just a scant 3 yrs ago when some were in danger of filing for bankruptcy protection. efforts to build new refineries generally fail for environmental or more practical reasons such as inaccessible supplies of oil. further, what all the above pundits are missing is the significant increase in so-called third world demand, ie china and india. just to put asphalt on the roads that china is building would consume approx 5% of current GLOBAL crude oil production. so demand for oil is going up, refining capacity is stretched in the US due to various constraints and you guys are whining. just think if you lived in the UK where the equivalent of a gallon is $6.09, germany $6.17, etc. we are definitely not as high as some and while these higher prices incorporate more taxes, perhaps we should be doing the same in order to better approximate the true cost. anyway, enough ranting. gwb may be responsible for a lot of things but i would be hard pressed to blame him for the industrialization of china and india, for example, and their concomitant increase in energy demand.
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 8:46am
#28
China, record car sales and causal/correlated relationships
"Frank, China and India was previously touched upon in the myriad sea of posts in this thread. The lack of refining capacity can be directly attributable to the new and rapid emerging growth and demand of oil from these two countries (plus other SouthEast Asian countries).
Additionally such countries and other ""emerging economies"" consume oil less efficiently. While increasing EPA standards is something nice to implement and I fully agree with as well as the idea of less cars on the road, the fact is that (matured) Western industrialized contries consume less oil per GDP. Again, I'm not endorsing either that efforts to improve should not be made either in this ocuntry.
And regarding less cars on the road... July was a record setting month for new car sales. Yes, I'm well aware that the American car makers are basically selling cars slightly above cost. But July was also a banner month for sales of premium priced Japanese car makers.
http://tinyurl.com/cqv5w
http://tinyurl.com/8rwgn
And if oil becomes say $12/gallon, folks will still be driving cars fueled by corn oil, nitrogen, electricty, recycled power bars, etc. or whatever the new found technology is.
I don't claim to be an oil pundit, far from it - just some general interest. On the other hand, I do have some understanding of identifying causal versus correlated events."
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 9:17am
#29
it's not just about oil
"Although he's stealthy about it, Bush will go down in history as the most anti-environmental of modern presidents. He's bankrupted Superfund, gutted the Clean Air Act, dismantled Clinton's rule limiting the discharge of mercury... He's appointed lawyers, lobbyists and hacks who previously were employed by or largely funded by the biggest polluters to be ""stewards"" of our environment.
"
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 9:26am
#30
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Or the price of oil and GWB's supposed responsibility for it's rapid increase? Aside from venting your obvious disgust for the president, you're really interested in seeing how far to the right of your web browser this thread will drift, eh? ;-)
Fri, 08/19/2005 - 5:17am
#31
coincidence?
"Oil companies are experiencing ""the mother of all booms."" Bush is a former (failed) oil man. He is supported and surrounded by former oil (& other fossil fuels) energy men. Since January 2002, the stocks of major oil companies have gained 88 percent; during the same period , the S&P 500 index has gained less than half as much. Coincidence?"
Fri, 08/19/2005 - 1:32pm
#32
Yeah, that must be it
"And the Texas Rangers have yet to win a World Series. Coincidence?
I'm sure if John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Joe Torre or your neighbor's mom were in office, oil prices would be lower, right? It's called the ""just because"" law.
Time to go ride my bike.
"
Thu, 08/18/2005 - 1:41pm
#33
actually, refining capacity in the far east is not quite the problem. there is a significant amount of capacity available there. instead, our issue is a domestic one. i guess i missed the pt on india and china but as you rightly point out consumption there is less efficient. however, just to show you that supply and demand still work, gasoline futures dropped today with the expected end to the driving season. now it's time to worry about distillate/heating oil supplies for the winter heating season. so, if you have oil heat, you can start worrying about that. i am sure that gwb will be blamed for that as well....
Sun, 08/21/2005 - 7:20am
#34
Lance's ride in Crawford yesterday
"A story about Lance and George's ride yesterday:
""Bush tests his mettle in bike ride with Armstrong""
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050820/2005-08-20T202757Z_01_SCH073558_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-ARMSTRONG-DC.html
my favorite line from the story:
""White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Armstrong was careful to respect ""the first rule of biking,"" a hint that he did not overtake the president.""
"
