Generic wrote:Caravan Ray wrote:
Throwing your hands in the air and saying "A fundamental reason for this is the layout of our cities" is just plain dumb. That is what you need to change. That is what you need to aim for. Not a pointless and ineffective goal of "in the next decade, we will be 100% off foreign oil."
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the goal that Gore set, and which the Democratic Party (i.e. Obama) has gotten on board with, was not to be 100% off foreign oil, but rather, to be 100% free of fossil fuels entirely. And that's not ineffective. That's solving the problem. Not in the same way you've got in mind, CR, but still solving the problem nonetheless.
What, by the way, would be the problem with owning personal vehicles that don't run on fossil fuels and don't produce unsafe emissions? We're not there yet, but we're working on it. If there were a high-speed personal vehicle with the same ecological footprint as a bike, that would be fine, right?
I have no idea (nor any particular interest in) what Al Gore has ever said. I was addressing Sober's comment. But as for your question - read Spud's posts above for a brief primer on why you are on the wrong track. While there is definitely merit in reducing reliance on petrol as a fuel for personal motor vehicles - it is far the whole ball game. Modern cities and their infrastructure have not been designed for sustainability.