![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganursulaMy cold has been giving me breathing issues, so i took the bus yesterday and today.
Yesterday was annoying because i'm not on a schedule for taking the 'nice' bus, and the stupid bus, is, well, stupid. If i get up in time to take the commuter line it comes on time, and gets to work quickly. If i leave late enough to take the same i also get predictable schedules and a short ride. But, yesterday i left a couple of minutes late and couldn't stay late enough at work, so i had to take the dumb bus, which gives me a 45 minute or more commute, vs. the 20 on my bike. Today i left work early enough and am staying late enough that the time is less onerous. I even finished reading a paper while i was on the bus!
Also, i seem to have lost my id card, with my bus pass stuck to it, so i had to pay with money. That sucked. I'll need to replace the card, i guess - i can't even remember when i last used it, except that is was probably to get into work right before my thesis was due.
At any rate, thank heavens the cold is abating, and by Thursday (the next day i come to the office) i should back on my bike!
I wanted to mention, though, that capitalism is working on our oil issues. This summer gas prices finally got high enough that people started responding. Bike stores are sold out of bikes (used bikes are particularly hard to come by), and the buses are packed. People are really starting to figure out alternatives to driving their single occupancy cars. The most wondrous thing is that economics are also working on the supply, and oil prices have started to drop.
I've been saying for a while that what we need is to increase gas prices, not decrease them. People need to start thinking about alternatives, and clearly they need the financial incentive to do that. I'm rather thrilled with these developments.
(And, yes, i know, its a regressive demand issue. There are people out there who really are being hurt by the higher oil prices, and who don't have the option to modify their cars or commuting options. People are being hit by higher costs for food and other consumables related to gas prices, and some of those people can ill afford those increases. I get that. Still, i'd rather see those people be helped out by a capitalist driven decrease in oil prices, or other means entirely, than an artificial influx or more oil.)
Especially given all of that, I am vehemently against increasing our oil supply by opening up new oil reserves. I think that would be a temporary solution to a huge problem. I think it would harm our environment directly, while only delaying the need for different solutions to our energy issues. I think forcing people to become creative to find those solutions by allowing the oil prices to stay high has very little downside (exception noted in parenthesis above). The higher gas prices mean that people are walking or biking, which is a healthy habit for most people to adopt. It means they are using transportation options that are less harmful to the environment, and that they are more likely to support or adopt newly developed technologies. This is all good.
Honestly, even if oil prices come down, i'd like to see auto-fuel prices remain elevated. Although i know that is a pipe dream only likely to be supported by a city-dwelling bike enthusiast like myself!
In short, though, this issue of oil is important to me. It is a big reason that i favor Obama over McCain.
Yesterday was annoying because i'm not on a schedule for taking the 'nice' bus, and the stupid bus, is, well, stupid. If i get up in time to take the commuter line it comes on time, and gets to work quickly. If i leave late enough to take the same i also get predictable schedules and a short ride. But, yesterday i left a couple of minutes late and couldn't stay late enough at work, so i had to take the dumb bus, which gives me a 45 minute or more commute, vs. the 20 on my bike. Today i left work early enough and am staying late enough that the time is less onerous. I even finished reading a paper while i was on the bus!
Also, i seem to have lost my id card, with my bus pass stuck to it, so i had to pay with money. That sucked. I'll need to replace the card, i guess - i can't even remember when i last used it, except that is was probably to get into work right before my thesis was due.
At any rate, thank heavens the cold is abating, and by Thursday (the next day i come to the office) i should back on my bike!
I wanted to mention, though, that capitalism is working on our oil issues. This summer gas prices finally got high enough that people started responding. Bike stores are sold out of bikes (used bikes are particularly hard to come by), and the buses are packed. People are really starting to figure out alternatives to driving their single occupancy cars. The most wondrous thing is that economics are also working on the supply, and oil prices have started to drop.
I've been saying for a while that what we need is to increase gas prices, not decrease them. People need to start thinking about alternatives, and clearly they need the financial incentive to do that. I'm rather thrilled with these developments.
(And, yes, i know, its a regressive demand issue. There are people out there who really are being hurt by the higher oil prices, and who don't have the option to modify their cars or commuting options. People are being hit by higher costs for food and other consumables related to gas prices, and some of those people can ill afford those increases. I get that. Still, i'd rather see those people be helped out by a capitalist driven decrease in oil prices, or other means entirely, than an artificial influx or more oil.)
Especially given all of that, I am vehemently against increasing our oil supply by opening up new oil reserves. I think that would be a temporary solution to a huge problem. I think it would harm our environment directly, while only delaying the need for different solutions to our energy issues. I think forcing people to become creative to find those solutions by allowing the oil prices to stay high has very little downside (exception noted in parenthesis above). The higher gas prices mean that people are walking or biking, which is a healthy habit for most people to adopt. It means they are using transportation options that are less harmful to the environment, and that they are more likely to support or adopt newly developed technologies. This is all good.
Honestly, even if oil prices come down, i'd like to see auto-fuel prices remain elevated. Although i know that is a pipe dream only likely to be supported by a city-dwelling bike enthusiast like myself!
In short, though, this issue of oil is important to me. It is a big reason that i favor Obama over McCain.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 05:23 pm (UTC)Long term, an increase in the availability of rail transport can also improve efficiency and consumer prices. That's one of Obama's platforms that first drew me to him: he openly supports federal investment in rail lines.
I too have noticed more buses, walkers, and bikes. Microsoft now runs the largest private bus fleet in the country with their Connector system and its adoption really spiked when gas prices went over $4. Combine that with the free bus passes for temps and full time workers and I feel good about working for them.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-09-09 06:43 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 06:50 pm (UTC)Not to mention creating whole new problems of pollution a habitat destruction.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 05:23 am (UTC)Lot going on here.
A few thoughts:
1. Oil prices were going to drop. Not anymore. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/business/worldbusiness/10oil.html?scp=3&sq=OPEC&st=cse)
2. Saying that it costs less to turn a barrel of crude into diesel then gasoline is somewhat disingenuous. Any given barrel of crude contains fractions that make up both gasoline and diesel. Through some interesting refining technologies, you can tinker with the output (to some degree) to effect the proportions you get out (by post-refining, blending, etc.).
3. Depending on the market, both refining capability, style and local tax structure are set up to support (and sell the maximum possible amount of) the locally dominant fuel. (Petrol here, diesel in Europe and much of Africa)
4. Following that note, demand for diesel has gone through the roof. Worldwide demand that is. Europe has shifted in a big way to diesel autos over the last ten years and diesel autos are starting to become popular in the US. And a by-product of our relentless appetite for goodies from elsewhere and our Amazon.com society is that the amount of goods shipped in the US has continued to go up at a rapid pace. Finally, the US has little diesel-centric refining capability, severely limiting local supply.
5. The shift to ultra-low sulfur diesel added up to $.25/gal to diesel.(estimates vary) The majority of this shift occurred in 2006/2007 making it hard to untangle from the rise in crude oil prices.
6. I don't know if winters have been bad, but any hard winter drives demand for fuel oil, which directly drives price for diesel (they use a lot of the same fractions).
7. The thing that annoys me about the "Drill and Pay Less" is that it's absolute, utter BS. The world oil market is not high school econ no matter how much some *cough, politicians* may want the voters to believe it. If we had done all the exploration, drilling etc in advance, and had merely sat on that capacity until now, that itty bitty fraction of not the world, but the US' oil demand would go on the market. At world market prices. Doing jack snot to the market. I don't think there's a Republican around that would say that inflating our tires would effect oil prices at all, but the delta is the same.
8. I agree that driving innovation for new energy sources is critical. But as a member of the 'haves' I'm not really comfortable with saying that I should tell someone who's net income is a fraction of mine and has dropped by a non-trivial amount due to rising commute prices, who's also facing a significantly higher food bill (fertilizers, transport, etc.) and tell them that it needs to stay that way "for their own good." I'm much more on board with Obama/Gore's "Apollo-style" approach.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 02:34 pm (UTC)I've actually been discussing politics a little with this group (since the Japanese prime minister just stepped down and the US elections are a popular conversation topic here) and this is basically one of the conversation topics I want to raise with this class as part of the economy stuff.
(no subject)
From: