Americans use 50% of petrol!

[Brickboy240]

China and India are due to out-pollute the USA in the next 5-10 years, according to the environmental experts. Apparently, not everyone in China is on a bicycle.

As I said...America was spread out LONG BEFORE the automobile came along. Really, now, I don't want to live all piled on top of one another...wheres the advantage of that? America is not the only other country that relies heavily on the automobile or is extremely spread out. Look at Canada and Australia.

To say that LA or Houston are not sustainable in the next century is really far fetched and a total pessimistic "the glass is half empty" view. Not to harp on the good people of the UK, but I find this gloom and doom pessimistic streak running very strong in you people. I honestly don't know where it comes from.

You speak of Manhattan as if its some sort of paradise. Funny, but I hate to think that the only places in the USA that the Brits know about are New York, LA and maybe Las Vegas. No wonder the hatred runs so deep. I woud never dream of living in these places. They're truly awful, crowded, polluted, expensive places to live that are riddled with crime. No thank you. Too bad you all did not see better parts of America, if this is all you saw on holiday. Yuck!

Truth is we do NOT know if the USA's spread out cities are sustainable in the future, but what do we do? Give up and start riding bikes everywhere tomorrow? What if we do that and the global temperature STILL goes up? Its 110 degrees (farenheit) in Phoenix right now...wanna ride a bike there? You'd pass out from the heat.

Heres another reason why I view the whole global warming issue with a cautious eye...back in the 1970s, they told us that threre was to be global COOLING and that we'd all be dying of thirst by the year 2000 because of huge water shortages. The Greens back then, coupled with scientists, swore up and down this all was true and we needed to change our ways.

Flash foreward: the Greens of the 1970s were dead wrong. Doubt it? Pick up a copy of the very popular 70s environment book, "The Population Bomb" and you'll howl with laughter at the predictions. Back then though, everybody was swearing this would happen and they were as insistant as the Greens are today about global warming.

Another reason for my distrust of the info for and against global warming is the fact that the "evidence" is often presented by someone with a political interest or an axe to grind. Don't think so? Well, Al Gore and his movie certainly comes from his sour grapes over the 2000 elections. The popular website junkscience.com, that tries to disprove global warming, is funded in part by Exxon/Mobil - looks like both sides of the argument have SOME SORT of angle or ideaology behind their support for or against global warming and the use of fossil fuel...does it not? Surely, this ideaology might distort their "findings" to reflect their views...come on now!

Many American universities push the theory of global warming and overuseage of fossil fuel because theres money in it. What do I mean? Well, if the professors and anaylists at these institutions say that fossil fuels are not causing the warming...they will lose funding for future global warming studies. Anyone knows that professors and those in academia are firstly concearned with keeping their jobs going...even if it means stretching or covering up the truth.

I am not saying warming is not happening and we have taken our part by not buying gas guzzling big cars, but I want more study and studies done WITHOUT a political bend or goal. Only then will we get the straight answers.

Currently, we have the anti-capitalists and anti-big business people saying global warming is caused by automobiles and big industry. On the other side are the oil companies and other large industries paying thier scientists to say just the opposite. In the middle are we the people. I am sorry, but I fail to adhere to one side of this or the other, because both sides are being intellectually dishonset, when we get right down to it.

...there...I said it.

...flame away.

- Brickboy240

[Brickboy240]

Yes, In know....your hatred for me and everything American is still strong.

Sorry, but I was reading there threads and could not believe the stereotypes, half-truths and "common wisdom" that was being bantered about and since I live here and work in ground zero for the petrochemical industry, I had to comment.

You all need to hear the other side to make informed opinions and I know you might not want to hear it, but the amount of BS flying about, concearning America and the energy industry was amazingly short on truth and I could not let it go.

Rude, typical American...right? Butting in where I am not wanted? Didn't mean to be so rude. Oh well...the truth has to be told, whether or not anyone wants to hear it.

- Brickboy240

[Sam Slater]

[quote]China and India are due to out-pollute the USA in the next 5-10 years, according to the environmental experts.[/quote]

True, in fact I'd say they're nearly 'outpolluting america' right now. The difference is 'per person'. As a polluting country, they're out stripping the USA, but in real terms an american family contributes more to pollution than any chinese, or indian family hands down. Even though america has the money, knowledge and technology to change, they won't, and dont care. Thats the difference.

[quote]Heres another reason why I view the whole global warming issue with a cautious eye...back in the 1970s, they told us that threre was to be global COOLING and that we'd all be dying of thirst by the year 2000 because of huge water shortages.[/quote]

I don't know much about that. I do however think that science has moved on since then. When we talk about global warming these days it's not just the 'greens' is it? Scientists from every country on earth have tested polar ice caps and came back with the same conclusion. They're melting at a faster rate than they ever have done before. There's absolutely no reason why america cannot abide by the Kyoto protocol. Western Europe's Carbon emissions leveled off in the early 80's and are on a very slow descent. (we could try harder). Eastern Europe's Carbon emissions have been in free-fall since the break-up of the Soviet Union. They're actually the best performers! Even China has seen a fall in Carbon emissions over the past 5 years. All these regions have bigger populations than the USA. The USA's carbon emissions are increasing more than any other region apart from India. India is a poor 'still developing country' while the USA is not, so there's no excuse at all. Maybe in 50 years we might look back as being paranoid, but we can only act on todays technology & advice. Sitting back and saying 'lets wait n see what happens' is the dumbest idea ever. Especially as 30% of coastal cities will be in severe danger of flooding within 30 years or so, due to rising sea levels.

You're right about funding, and who to trust, but the general concensus amongst the rest of the world is that global warming is 'real'. America is the best equipped country to act, yet the biggest polluter and the most ignorant of the dangers.

[strictlybroadband]

Let me clear up one thing: I'm not anti-American and I have a lot of experience of visiting America beyond just NYC, LA or Vegas.

I know that Americans are in love with the suburbs. But cities can be far more beautiful places. It's just that America has screwed up its cities and then white flight set in and left the cities as ghettos for the poor. Cities don't have to be like that - they can be much more beautiful and civilised places than any suburb. But America has taken a wrong turn in the past few decades. Visit my city London, or Paris, Rome, Madrid, San Francisco and many more to see how great cities are. Cities are the pinnacle of 10,000 years of human achievement and it's weird that America is the only major country going backwards in this regard.

Let me tell you a story... a few years ago I had to travel from Manhattan (a place I love) to Washington DC. I had the choice of renting a car, flying or taking a train. In my experience trains are the best way to travel so that's the way I went. This journey was comfortable and enjoyable but the train went an average of 60mph!!! In Europe trains go almost 200mph now. In Japan even faster. Once upon a time, America led the world in train technology. Now you have the worst train system in the developed world. It's a third-world train system. Why? Because your country has been taken over by corporate interests, your politicians (Dem and Rep) are up to their eyeballs in corruption and corporate interests favour wasteful technology over efficient technology: cars and planes waste more energy than trains so that makes more profit so that's what the people of America are stuck with.

The oil industry exists to sell oil, not to create an efficient transport system. Your country has been sold to the highest bidder - you should be angry.

[c.j.jaxxon]

Both you, Sam Slater and Brickboy240 makes some exellent points. All I have to say is I think it's better for cities to be spread out too. The projects that were built housed people on top of another and you saw what happened. Some people use public trans because they don't have a car. And ain't no way you could get me to live in a congested place like Manhattan. That's why people love the country. Because there is SPACE. I live in Chicago and comuter trains runs from the suburbs to the city and there's no need for a train to go 100 to 200 miles per hour because the stops are too close together. Now if a train was to run from Chicago to Cleveland Ohio with no stops in between I would go for that. Who ever planned these cities did alright but I'm sure they didn't plan to grow out as far as they do now so if you live out in the 'burbs you have the option to drive or take the train. As far as white flight, that's been changing since the late 1980s. Do to the so-called regentrafication of neighborhoods whites have been moving back to the city and at the same time the 'burbs have been growing as well. And blacks are increasingly moving to the suburbs both poor (by force) and middle class (by choice). One south suburb of Chicago called Country Club Hills is on it's way to becoming the new black metropolis for middle class and upper middle class blacks. Sorry if I'm of topic but now you know why things are so "spread out" and the transit system realizes this so there're expanding. (so people don't have to drive)

[Sam Slater]

I agree with you on some points. Having more space leads to less stress and lower crime. With this in mind cities should become more spread out, rather than crammed together like a tin of sardines! The catch is that the more spread out the city, the longer you travel to & from work, which in itself causes stress!

Hopefully America will invest more heavily in good, efficient public transportation, like, Taiwan & Japan. Europe's transportation is efficient & the UK's needs a little tinkering, but generally not as bad as we make out!

With rising sea levels, maybe the USA will do something when the beach is right up to the White House front lawn! !laugh!

[strictlybroadband]

You're right that people need space - and should have a right to it. Modern urban design is better than it used to be. Today, high-density living doesn't have to mean 30-storey blocks. It means smaller blocks interspersed with green space and social areas.

It's not possible to give each person their own acre of land AND provide good mass transit. One or the other has to give.

Places like Houston for example, become so spread out that it's hard to even define it as a city. Just a sprawl of housing developments, strip malls and work places. People may have their own house, garden and pool, but the lifestyle is not great when you need to get in the car to escape from where you live.

Throughout history cities, not rural communities, have been the driving force behind human culture and development. I'd bet money that most of America's great musicians for example have come from NYC, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, Memphis, SFO, Seattle... cities create great culture, then the suburbanites and rural people just follow.

So the question isn't to abandon cities but how to make them good places to live. If you ever visit Barcelona, Florence or Marrakech, you'll understand how great city living can be. The suburbs may be a great dream but the only people who really win from de-urbanisation are the oil companies.

[c.j.jaxxon]

Well the interstate highway system about two weeks ago turned 50 years old so that's news. The transportation system is improving. A comuter train line or two is extending their lines. Not too far away from me here in the south suburbs west of me there're extending a highway to start further south from where it originally started. The Chicago Transit Authority or the "CTA" is buying new smaller buses along with the suburban transit company called "PACE" which I ride the bus in the morning along with my bike. All buses have bike racks in front so you can take it with you. As far as I know other city transit systems in the states may have buses with racks as well. A day or two ago we just had a rapid transit train derailment so now as in the past our transit system maintainment issues are back on the front burner. So yeah we too don't have a perfect system either but if we try hard enough we can save gas by leaving our cars at home unless, of course, you live in the rural areas, the boonies, or otherwise wide open farmland country.

[c.j.jaxxon]

I agree. Since the 1980s cities have been what I call "beautifying". In other words they're renovating buildings, resurfacing streets, new businesses popping up, trees and greenery being planted, and housing and the less fortunate being forced to move elsewhere because rent is going sky high. The best example of what I'm talking about is what is happening there in Brixton. I had visited a site called Urban75 there in the UK and I liked it. I saw some before and after pics and some pics of some sites around Brixton of improvements being made there and it's just like what they've been doing here for years. And yeah, you're right about those famous musicians coming from the cities but remember, smaller cities as well had famous groups or musicians too. Memphis TN had the Stax label which spauned Booker T and the MGs, Isaac Hayes, The Marquees later called The Bar Kays (I saw them back in 2004) and others including Al Green. Peoria IL brought us Richard Pryor. The famous jazz drummer Louie Bellson is from Rock Falls IL. Heck, Gun and Roses (the band) is from some small place in Indiana as well as John Mellencamp (John Cougar). James Brown and most of his band members are from the south, James being from Augusta GA, the drummer for him John Starks is from Mobile AL, as well as some of our blues artist being from the south.

[mike johnson]

Keep in mind millions of the people in the U.S. using that gas are foreign-born, or the progeny thereof. The population of the USA has doubled since 1950, despite a declining birthrate. If we had a reasonable immigration policy, we'd probably be exporting oil.