Depression Bicycling, Or How To Find Two Cheap Wheels

In my last post I described how I became a bicycle commuter, and the cost of the learning curve I experienced as I searched for what I consider to be the best and most reliable bicycle for a durable ride. My learning experience was pleasant and quite interesting for the most part, and I can remember the many hours I spent searching the Internet and doing research on the best type of bike for utilitarian transportation.

Such research and experimentation is almost always pleasant for those who have the time and money to engage in such activities. It is said that women enjoy shopping and men don't; however, I think that this statement is inaccurate. I believe that everyone enjoys shopping for things that are of personal interest. Thus one can find people who collect nice clothes and shoes, but one can also find people who collect hand tools, guns, books, guitars – and bicycles. (I never quite became a bicycle collector; I have bought only three bicycles since 2005, and have since sold one of them.)

I repeat: if one has the time, money and interest, researching and experimentation with various bicycles can be quite fun, and one can build up an impressive collection of complete bikes and spare components in the process of searching for the “dream” bike. But there is now a large and growing number of people for whom such a pursuit is entirely out of the question. These are the victims of the present slow-motion collapse of the American economy, people such as the employees of Circuit City, which recently filed for bankruptcy, or the employees of General Motors, which is on the deathwatch list right now, or employees of Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut, which are cutting jobs. Such people are now awaking or have been awaking over the last several months to find that a new and unexpected day has dawned on them, and that they have to make rapid readjustments. Bike commuting can help such people save money, but they need reliable, cheap and readily available bikes if bicycle commuting is to be a help in readjusting to a frugal lifestyle.

There are resources to help people who want or need to get quickly into bicycling on the cheap. One resource near where I live is the Citybikes Workers' Cooperative, located very near the downtown area of Portland, Oregon. I had the opportunity to interview a couple of their staff today, and I asked the following question:

Let's assume that there has been a sudden reduction in the amount of oil imported by the United States, a sudden spike in the price of oil and of petroleum products such as gasoline, a sudden worsening of the economy (perhaps a full-on crash), and a sudden lack of availability of foreign-made metal and rubber parts. Assume that all of these events happen at the same time. Let's also say that you live ten or fifteen miles away from where you work, and you wake up one morning to find that all these things have happened, and you have over $10,000 in credit card debt, a mortgage, and a gas-guzzling SUV, and your boss calls you in to his office and tells you that your company needs to cut your hours in half. Assuming that one of your first ideas for coping is to commute by bicycle in order to save money, what could you do to get on two wheels cheaply?

Tim Calvert of Citybikes had many things to say in response to my question. He began by pointing out the central role played by the bicycle in everyday life in Cuba shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed and Cuba was deprived of inexpensive imported oil. He also mentioned Vietnam and its bicycle industry – an industry which builds incredibly simple, yet hard-wearing utilitarian steel-framed bikes which are used by the majority of the population. He suggested that the bicycle “culture” of Cuba and Vietnam might become widespread in the United States in the event of an extended and severe economic downturn.

He had the following suggestions for people who suddenly found themselves in the situation I outlined in my original question:

First, there are two ways to go when buying a bike. One can buy a cheap new bike from Wal-Mart, Target, Fred Meyer or Sports Authority for as little as $150.00. Or, one can search for a good cheap used bike. There are many sources for used bikes, such as classified ads, garage sales, Goodwill, the Salvation Army and Craigslist. A desirable bike will have a simple frame and be capable of carrying heavy loads. In Tim's opinion, it doesn't matter much whether the frame is made of aluminum or steel, as long as a person in economic difficulty can get his or her hands on a functional bike.

However, there are bikes to avoid. Tim warned against getting a bike with a suspension fork or any suspension components, since on an inexpensive bike, such components tend to break easily. Moreover, the suspension components make it hard to mount racks or baskets to the bike. Also, lightweight racers are a no-no (especially the carbon-fiber kind), since the act of riding such bikes day-in and day-out while carrying loads will quickly tear them up. The basic strategy, no matter what bike a person gets, is to get whatever you can with the limited amount of time and money you have, then simplify it.

When buying a used bike, invest in yourself as well. Specifically, learn basic maintenance up to and including the fixing of broken wheel spokes. The more a rider knows how to do for himself and the more he knows how to improvise, the less he will have to spend paying someone to fix his ride. Riders who learn maintenance should also invest in a handy set of tools. And speaking of wheels, one should get the strongest wheel and hub he or she can find, and the thickest tires. Thick tires may not be the favorites of the wanna-be racers, but in the event of severe economic troubles, rubber products may be quite scarce and thick tires will last a long time. (I remember a recent ride I undertook with a few people who had racing bikes and thin tires. They were easily able to go quite a bit faster than I could on my Surly LHT. But two of them got pinch flats during that ride, whereas I haven't had a flat in a few months (may the Lord continue to have mercy on me).) There are other tricks that can extend tire life, such as cutting the treaded middle from a tire that's worn out and using it as a liner inside a new tire. This increases the life of the new tire and reduces the likelihood of flats.

Baskets are good and handy, and can carry more cargo than most pannier bags. (I personally have seen many bikes equipped with plastic milk crates used as baskets and secured to bike racks with bungee cords or zip ties.) In a severe pinch, improvised racks can be made from a variety of materials, including wood and rope, if the need arises. Improvised bike trailers can also be easily fabricated.

But let's say that a person still has a job, yet has suddenly become aware of the precarious state of the economy and wants to prepare for hard times. Let's say also that bicycle commuting is a big part of that person's preparations, and that the person is willing to spend up to $500 toward getting a good set of wheels. Tim also had suggestions for persons in this category: first, get a bike that's comfortable and as strong as possible. A used steel non-suspension mountain bike is a good choice. Then equip it with fenders, racks and baskets. Next, buy tools and a good floor pump.

The last thing that Tim mentioned is that the homeless population in Portland (a significant portion of the total city population) is on the cutting edge when it comes to using bicycles as basic utilitarian transportation. They are the ones who display great inventiveness in building their own trailers, outfitting their bikes for comfortable long-distance journeys and hauling heavy cargoes by bike. One thing they don't do is to carry the small “portable” lightweight bike pumps sold in many shops, preferring to carry full floor pumps instead.

I talked next with John, another Citybikes co-op worker. His answers to my original question closely paralleled Tim's answers. He agreed that a person in sudden economic distress would do best by buying a used bike, especially if such a person did his own maintenance. He believed that in a sudden economic downturn, there would be shortages of tires and tubes, scrounging of used parts to make up for the unavailability of foreign-made new parts, the increased use of patched tubes and tires rather than throwing punctured tubes and tires away as is the case now, and an increase in the number of people who were interested in learning basic bike maintenance. A big part of bike maintenance of course is keeping one's bike out of the weather when it is not being ridden, and keeping its parts clean and well-oiled.

He also believed that a major economic downturn would hurt big manufacturers such as Giant and Trek, due to the fact that so many of their bikes are made overseas and shipped to the U.S. The failure of their business model would lead to the rise of more small-scale local American manufacturers. There are already some American manufacturers of components, whose products, while expensive, are very durable.

When it comes to frame materials, John believed firmly in steel, since it is much simpler to build a frame from steel tubing than from aluminum or carbon fiber. John had a very negative view of carbon-fiber components and carbon-fiber bikes, believing that such bikes cannot stand up to the rigors of daily use as utilitarian bicycles – especially if they must regularly carry large loads. (After my experience with a carbon-fiber seatpost, I must say that I agree with him.)

John agreed with Tim that a bike for hard times should be as simple as possible. This rules out disc brakes in his opinion, since they are expensive to fix and the brake rotors can be easily damaged. A good cantilever or linear pull brake is much simpler and more reliable. Also, friction shifters are simple, easy to fix and very long-lasting, as opposed to the expensive clicking “index” shifters popular nowadays. For night riding, a generator-powered set of lights would be ideal, as there would not be a need to purchase batteries. The generator for such a lighting system could be an inexpensive, tire-driven “bottle” type, such as the Busch & Muller Dymotec or something similar.

Like Tim, John also mentioned various inventive ways of setting up a bike to carry things, and he mentioned racks and homemade bike trailers. Citybikes also sells a product they call the “Bike Bucket,” a pannier container made out of a recycled detergent bucket. One can buy a Bike Bucket for $25 from them, as opposed to spending $75 to $100 for an Ortlieb pannier bag. Or, one can buy a used 5-gallon bucket and some hardware and make a “Bike Bucket” oneself.

John also had ideas for those who saw an economic collapse coming before it actually happened and who wanted to buy a bicycle as part of their preparations. He suggested that such people buy a steel-framed bike with cantilever brakes, double-walled heavy-duty aluminum rims, rear rack, and a seven or eight-speed rear cassette for those wanting a multi-speed bike. He did not recommend more than eight speeds for the rear cassette, since too many gears would make the drive train more fragile. He also suggested that such a bike be fitted with basic Shimano components, since if something broke, it would be easier to scrounge for a replacement. One bike that we both discussed is the KHS Urban-X, a steel-framed bike with many touring-specific features that is also quite inexpensive.

Both Tim and John provided very good advice for people who suddenly find themselves facing hard economic times and who choose bicycle commuting as part of their strategy for adaptation. One key that was common to the advice of both men is to get a simple, durable bike, and to stay away from lightweight, complicated racing machines. Unfortunately, the light/fast/racing culture is prevalent among many sellers of bicycles in the United States. I shall have more to say about this in my next post, where I discuss hindrances to bicycle commuting.

Hopefully my question and the answers that were given will be helpful to many people who are being forced to consider adaptive strategies for their own personal hard times. Below are some pictures from the interview. Enjoy!

Rear view of a "Bike Bucket"

A stack of "Bike Buckets" for sale

Here, John is refurbishing a used 1980's vintage Specialized steel mountain bike.

This is a picture of Tim next to his bicycle. He bought it used and customized it to fit his style of commuting. Note the "Bike Bucket" attached to the rear rack on the right side of the bike.

How I Became A Bicycle Commuter

Nowadays my eyes are wide open and my ears finely attuned to news of the daily progress of the ongoing collapse of our present economic and social systems. I am thinking particularly of a report I read today titled, “Burning Violins,” from the Barclays Capital Oil Sketches, November 2008 edition. That report analyzed the present decline in non-OPEC daily world oil production and the likely effects of the present global financial crisis in shrinking global oil supplies, including OPEC supplies, even further in the near future. For anyone interested in reading the report, here's the link: https://ecommerce.barcap.com/research/user/article/attachment/hn95v3jbd9nmgrjjdtlmaq8/0/Oil%20Sketches%20Monthly%205%20Nov%2008.pdf. It is not good news.

Yet I was not always so aware of the signs of our impending economic, energy and environmental troubles. There was a time when I was a registered Republican. In fact, I had voted for President Bush in 2000 and in 2004. By 2005, the Iraq war had begun to miscarry and there were a few disturbing signs of the true nature of the Bush administration's policies, yet these things provoked little more than a flicker of unease in me.

Then June 2005 came. I had been assigned by my company to a consulting assignment working in downtown Los Angeles, and thus I was able to ride the Metrolink to work every day with my company picking up the tab. The office in Los Angeles had an engineer who had been given a long-term assignment to do construction inspections at a water treatment plant that was being built in the San Fernando Valley. This engineer had relatives overseas and wanted to visit them, so he asked for a three-week vacation during part of June and July. I was “volunteered” to fill in for him while he was away.

From my old house to the water treatment plant, the distance is around 42 miles. Unfortunately there was no convenient way to get there by mass transit, so every workday during those three weeks I endured a commute of an hour and a half or more each way, stuck behind the wheel of my vehicle along with thousands of other land-locked commuters while listening to KFWB or KNX for any traffic-related news. Just before I started the inspection tours, regular unleaded gasoline was selling for around $2.29 a gallon. While I was assigned to the daily inspections, I had to pay for the gas myself.

Something strange started happening as the three weeks progressed – regular gasoline rapidly became ever-more expensive, until during the last week of my inspection tours, it was selling for over $3.00 a gallon. The Los Angeles Times carried a front page picture of a disgruntled motorist filling up an SUV at a station whose sign read $3.22 a gallon. And this was weeks before Hurricane Katrina.

Different people awaken from sleep at different levels of sensory arousal. $3.00 a gallon was enough to begin an awakening in me. It got me thinking of how most Americans were forced to rely on automotive transportation in order to get anywhere, and how vulnerable our lives were when there were disruptions to any part of our automobile-based transit system. $3.00 a gallon was a significant disruption. How much of my money – money that I had counted on using for other things – was now being literally burned up? How much of my livelihood was being taken from me, never to be seen again? How much further would the price rise? These questions were in my mind, along with the realization that I had no control over the supply or price of a “necessity” I considered to be as basic as gasoline.

I don't like being dependent on large, faceless systems for my basic needs, especially when the owners of those systems do not have my best interests at heart. Moreover, for a long time I had placed a high value on physical exercise and staying in shape. So even before my co-worker got back from his vacation, I started thinking about turning to bicycling for basic transportation. I remember the Saturday when I walked into a local bike shop and started checking out potential prospects. I entered that shop knowing very little about bicycles except that they had two wheels, spokes and handlebars, combined with memories of riding a bike to go places when I was in high school.

One of the bike shop employees noticed me, and we struck up a conversation. I said something like, “I'm looking for a new bike, and I was wondering...what sort of bike would be good for basic transportation? I'm trying to escape high gas prices.” When I told the bike salesman that I was not thinking of spending more than around $300, he proceeded to very enthusiastically sell me a Giant Sedona and a helmet.

I was very proud of my new purchases, and of my determination to escape the “system” in some small way. But I was a bit nervous about riding to many places, since the farthest distance I had ever ridden on a bicycle was six miles one way, and since those who drive the streets of Southern California are not known for their charity. Therefore I started off slow, riding from my house to a nearby YMCA on the weekends, and riding from my house to the local supermarket. The YMCA was about 4 miles from my house, and I discovered that I could ride that far without dying. Therefore I became bolder and rode one weekend from my house to the Metrolink station and back again, a round-trip distance of around fourteen miles. Once I realized that I could do even this much distance, I was liberated.

I began riding from my house to the Metrolink station every weekday as part of my morning commute. I also did almost all of my shopping by bike. At first I knew very little about the tricks of the trade. For instance, I would ride to the train station in my work clothes. This meant that, depending on the weather and how much I perspired, by mid-afternoon I would start smelling a bit like a dead carp. I also carried everything I needed (lunch, books, groceries, etc.,) in a backpack which was quickly beaten up by overuse and cramming oversized cargo into its pouches.

Then one day a female epiphany on two wheels rolled by me as I was coming home from work. She had a rear rack on her bike, on which two black mesh cloth “baskets” were attached. (Later I learned that the proper name for these is “panniers.”) That weekend I rode down to the shop from which I had bought my bike and demanded a rear rack and “baskets,” which they happily sold me for $150. Now I was really riding in style!

As summer waned and fall approached, the days grew shorter and the nights came ever earlier. I knew it was time to think about lights for my bike. So off I went back to the same bike shop whose employees were happy to sell me a Cat Eye front “safety” headlight and rear taillight. I was sure that now I was fully equipped to ride in all conditions. There was only one problem with these lights, however. They were powered by AAA batteries (three for the headlight, two for the taillight), and their packaging promised run times of up to 60 hours. What the packaging did not tell a rider was how much dimmer the lights were at the end of the 60 hour run time of their batteries. There were many nights when I found myself cut off or nearly hit by cars while believing that those puny lights were actually protecting me. Of course, it didn't help that I was frequently wearing dark clothing. It would take several months before I “saw the light” about rechargeable lighting systems and reflective vests.

I remember riding to work during my first Southern California winter rainstorm. My Giant Sedona had been sold to me without fenders, as was common practice among bike sellers. This resulted in a muddy stripe up the front of my jacket and muddy splashes on my pants when I rode to the train station. I was able to purchase a front fender after a bit of searching, but the fender was rather less than adequate, and showed the state of bicycle culture at the time – the perception that bikes were toys for kids and sometimes for adults, and that no one would ever ride a bike in the rain or use a bike for serious transportation.

I started hanging out at the bike shop, asking questions about bikes in general and commuting in particular. The staff was not very helpful, as they had not met too many people who used bikes as basic transportation. But they did have some interesting magazines and these aroused my curiosity. I read about clubs which got together for long rides of over 20 miles. Some even did hundred-mile rides, called “centuries,” and this astonished me. I wanted to try riding my Giant Sedona to a faraway place. By that time I had transferred back to our company's office near Santa Ana, and it was 17 miles from my house to the office. One weekend when I needed to go in to the office, I decided to ride all the way. That experience – undertaken at the height of a heat wave – taught me the limits of the Giant Sedona as a commuting vehicle. It was the only time I ever tried a ride of that distance on that particular bike.

As I recovered from that ride, I found friends and acquaintances at work who had done long-distance rides or who had tried bike commuting, and I asked them why a ride such as I had undertaken should have been so hard. I was also doing a fair amount of Web research into the general subject of bike commuting and what was the best bike for commuting. I discovered that many people did not recommend mountain or “hybrid” bikes for regular long-distance travel, because the upright sitting position, shock-absorbers and knobby tires made a rider have to work too hard to maintain a high speed for any length of time. The sources I was consulting almost all agreed that the best bike for commuting is the classic “touring” bicycle – a bike made for long-distance cross-country travel while carrying basic camping necessities such as food, tent and sleeping bag.

At the time I made this discovery, I switched employers and found myself commuting to an office twelve miles away from my house and not located near a train station. During the first week at my new job I went to REI and checked out their selection of “touring” bikes. I was greatly intrigued by the Novara Safari, because of its putty color, disc brakes and otherworldly handlebars (I had never seen handlebars like that before). I wound up buying a Safari and selling my Giant Sedona to a neighbor across the street from my house. I also bought a CygoLite rechargeable headlight and a pair of Novara panniers. And I had fenders installed on my new Safari.

That Safari was a joy to ride. When the wind was right I could easily do 22 miles per hour for extended stretches. It was a good thing, because there were a few narrow parts of my commute where I had to “take a lane” in order to avoid having traffic squeeze me off the road. It wasn't wise to ride slowly through those places, especially down Western Avenue near Lincoln Avenue in Buena Park. I also went on a Saturday 33 mile bike ride with a cycling club in mid-Orange County, and lived to talk about it. The difference between the Safari and the Sedona was very apparent. As 2006 passed and the seasons cycled through summer and back to fall again, I picked up a DiNotte rear taillight, because I didn't want to trust my life to the wimpy Cat Eye light I had, and I had been looking for a good bright rechargeable taillight. The DiNotte is powerful enough to light street signs a block away. I knew that if I got hit, at least the lawyers would not be able to argue that motorists could not see me.

The Safari was a good bike, but it had its limitations. Its rear rack was proprietary and was rated to carry only 25 kilograms. Its disc brakes squeaked almost constantly at times, and removing and replacing the wheels was tricky because of the discs. Also, it was very difficult to find a front rack that did not interfere with the front disc brake. Therefore at the end of 2006 I started looking around for another bike. I was originally just thinking of getting a cheap backup bike to ride during any times when I might have to put the Safari in the shop for repairs. But then I discovered the Surly Long Haul Trucker. The rest, as they say, is history.

I now own a Surly LHT, one of the few that Surly painted in maroon. I ordered it during the time that Surly was just selling the LHT frames, before they began selling complete bikes. Unfortunately I'm not much of a gearhead or do-it-yourselfer, so I had to have a bike shop build up the frame into a complete bike. The shop that built the bike was recommended to me by two sources who spoke highly of its owner; yet I have to say that even he did not completely grasp the idea of a bicycle as basic transportation as opposed to a bike as a recreational toy. He tended to make suggestions about component choices to make the bike light so that I wouldn't be “slowed down.” (Imagine that – concerning a bike that's designed to carry up to 300 pounds!) One thing he did that I later regretted was to install a carbon fiber seatpost that failed after a year. (Fortunately the failure was not catastrophic.) Another thing was his choice of narrow 1.5 inch Schwalbe Marathon tires instead of the more generous 1.75 inch Schwalbes. He almost neglected to install front and rear reflectors (even though these are required by California law) and installed them only after I insisted that he do so.

My Surly now has SKS fenders, 1.75 inch Schwalbes (yes, I replaced the narrower tires), Surly Nice front and rear racks, rechargeable front and rear lights, Salmon Kool-Stop brake pads and Ortlieb panniers. I've put over 6700 miles on it over a period of nearly two years. It is my main steed, and I ride it to work every weekday unless I have an assignment that takes me out of town or unless there is ice on the roads where I now live. I have replaced the carbon fiber seatpost with a genuine honest-to-goodness steel seatpost, and I now have a Brooks B-17 saddle.

Oh, and I still have a Novara Safari. I may convert it into an Xtracycle one of these days.

My bicycle commuting journey had a number of twists and turns, and I spent a fair amount of money along the way – money that I could have saved if I had known what I was doing at the start. But there are many people who are now being squeezed or who are about to be squeezed by rising prices and economic distress, and who are in need of low-cost transportation options. My goal is to try to save you from some of the mistakes I made, and to save you money in the process. You can go much more cheaply than I did. Therefore in my next post on bicycle commuting, I'll give some general recommendations and opinions regarding inexpensive bike commuting, what sort of bicycle to use, and general bike commuting resources.

A Safety Net Of Alternative Systems - Non-Automotive Transportation

I have to admit that sometimes I am intimidated at the thought of writing this blog. There are others whose background on key topics related to adaptations to Peak Oil is much stronger than mine. I think of Sharon Astyk, who can (and has) written volumes on small scale agriculture, food preservation and home economics; or Jeff Vail, who writes extensively on the effects of resource constraints on the global geopolitical scene and relations between nations. There are also geologists and other scientists and mathematicians who explore the actual geology of oil discoveries and extraction in great technical detail, as well as discussing the social and technological impacts of resource constraints on modern society. Most of these people have been writing about these issues for years. My awakening has been rather recent, by comparison. Yet there is one thing I know about intimately, and that is non-automotive transportation, especially bicycle commuting. Therefore I am happy to throw in my two cents' worth on this subject.

But before I begin, I think it's appropriate to give a few reminders of why alternatives to our present economic and social arrangements are necessary. So I will give a few highlights of news I have read in the last few weeks. First, the International Energy Agency (IEA) September Oil Market Report states that world petroleum production fell by around 1 million barrels per day in August 2008 – before any hurricane-related production problems. The October IEA Oil Market Report states that global petroleum supply decreased again in September, by over 1 million barrels per day. The current IEA estimate of global daily oil production is 85.6 million barrels per day. I think that the IEA estimate is overly optimistic, and that actual global petroleum production is lower. Still, the most recent IEA figures show a drop of over 2 million barrels per day within the very recent past.

Secondly, the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly petroleum inventory statistics show that gasoline stockpiles in the U.S. have started dropping again, and that the growth in crude stocks is slowing dramatically. It would not be surprising if next week's report showed a decrease in American inventories of all categories of petroleum products. If the U.S. starts rapidly and deeply drawing down its crude and refined petroleum stocks again, this may lead to a choice between another spike in prices or the re-appearance of shortages such as those we saw in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Prices are low now because of the perception of greatly reduced demand, not because of new supplies of oil. The trouble is that these low prices may be starting to increase demand for petroleum products, putting pressure on American petroleum stocks.

Next is the discovery by scientists at the University of East Anglia that manmade climate change is affecting every continent on earth, including Antarctica. The changes seen in the Antarctic are impossible to explain by any other means. And according to scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the atmospheric concentration of the potent greenhouse gas methane rose sharply in 2007. Here are two more pieces of evidence that our modern lifestyle of high-energy overconsumption is destroying the earth.

Lastly, there is the financial crisis and the efforts by rich elites to pass the cost of this crisis onto the poor. The present financial crisis was caused by a number of factors, the biggest being that the rich seized the lion's share of the fruits of productive economic activity while paying their laborers the lowest possible wage. In order to keep a “consumer” economy going in the industrialized West, the rich offered the poor the opportunity to buy things on credit, since very few working-class people could afford to pay cash for many of the things they needed or that they were taught by advertising to want. Then the loans made to these poor and working-class people were bundled into certificates of “worth” and used as investments to borrow ever-larger sums of money.

The only trouble is that the spike in energy and food prices caused by energy and resource constraints wiped out many poor and working-class people and made the investments of the rich – their certificates of “worth” based on loans – worthless, as poor and working-class people started to default en masse on those loans. Now the rich in several countries, including the U.S., have persuaded the governments of those countries to turn most of their citizens into “collateral” for the worthless paper certificates of the rich, by means of government-backed “bailouts” that will never be paid back. The rich created a system by which they could get something for nothing, forcing the rest of us to bear the cost of operating that system. Now that the system is breaking, they seek to use the poor and the working class to grease the wheels of that system for one last run before its almost certain breakdown.

Yet there are signs that some of the lifestyle choices of the poor and working class are causing that system to fail a bit faster than the rich had expected. It seems that increasing numbers of Americans are becoming frugal, learning to delay gratification, and learning to live more simply. This is a threat to the consumer economy and to the fortunes of a significant number of large corporations, lenders and rich executives, as noted here. And there are bloggers who are making the connection between poor or working class people learning to be self-sufficient and the weakening of the “official” economy. Do you want to be a street-legal revolutionary? Disentangle yourself from relying on the “official” system and build alternatives for yourself. Learn to live more simply; learn to live on less. Let those in particular who call themselves Christians learn to live for something other than acquiring lots of material possessions. And everyone, regardlses of religion, start by killing your TV. Don't let your appetite be swollen by advertising to a size larger than the biceps of some major league baseball slugger.

And now on to alternative transportation. My discussion of this topic will fall into a few broad categories, namely, bicycle transportation, walking and public transit (both bus and rail). In my next post I will discuss how I became a bicycle commuter, as well as tips and tricks I learned (and how much fun it is!). I'll also talk about my bike (of course!) and the kinds of equipment I like to use, as well as traffic laws and survival strategies for cyclists. I will then analyze the cycling culture in the United States and discuss whether that culture is a help or a hindrance to the adoption of cycling as basic transportation in this country. I will finish with a discussion of the hindrances and dangers which our present system presents to cycling as alternative transportation.

Other non-automotive transportation options will also be discussed, as well as the car-free culture and the present worldwide car-free movement. For those who are looking at dollars and cents, I will be sure to tell you how much you can save by going car-free or “car-lite.” And I will provide plenty of references for those who want to read about these things in more depth. This will be a fun subject to talk about. Stay tuned!

Portraits Of Alternative Transport

Now is the time for some of the pictures I promised I'd post on this blog. All of these pictures portray people who are finding and using alternatives to automobile-based transportation. But I also have a few comments to make, comments provoked by a New York Times piece I read today.

That article, titled, “Completely Unplugged, Fully Green,” contained descriptions of the lives of several people who are trying to radically reduce their carbon footprint by living simply and self-reliantly. The article revealed a few interesting details about each of the people interviewed; yet the tone of the article implied not-so-subtly that these people were (at least mildly) freaks. One of those interviewed was Sharon Astyk, author of the blog, Casaubon's Book, who with her husband Eric Woods is raising a family of four boys. The Times writer, Joanne Kaufman, described how Astyk's boys were prevented by their mother from joining a Saturday Little League baseball team because joining the team would involve making an unnecessary trip by car, as well as how her boys slept together to conserve body heat in the winter. The article also described a man by the name of Jay Matsueda, who lives in Culver City, California, and who does not use heat or air conditioning for his condominium.

The tone in which the actions of Astyk and Matsueda are portrayed suggests that these are highly unusual lifestyle choices which fall far, far outside the mainstream. In fact, a Google search for the article reveals that it is also titled, “Extreme Approaches Toward Living A Green Life.” But the Times article goes further, coining a new word, “carborexia,” to describe those people who are radically and deeply limiting their consumption and dependence on the present economic system in order to reduce their carbon footprint. And with the introduction of this new term, which sounds suspiciously like the psychological disorder known as “anorexia,” the Times writer also includes interviews with psychologists who discuss the “unhealthy” side of those who devote themselves “excessively” to a sustainable lifestyle.

I think the Times article is childish, immature and inaccurate. For one thing, Sharon Astyk is Jewish and that's why her family does not participate in league sports on Saturdays. Is that so unusual? But when I think of the near shock expressed by the Times concerning some of the other lifestyle choices described in their article, I have to laugh out loud. Consider how the Times writer wrote about Jay Matsueda's decision to forego air conditioning and heating for his Culver City condo.

Culver City is in Southern California, about five miles from the Pacific Ocean and around, oh, 30 miles away from where I used to live in North Orange County. Don't tell anyone this, but I only used my heater twice during the year and a half before I moved out of California. And my home did not have air conditioning. Were there days I would have liked A/C? Sure! But my point is that I didn't die or suffer irreparable harm. Is Matsueda a freak? Not in my book. Of course, I also became a bicycle commuter in 2005, when California gasoline prices first rose above $3.00 a gallon. Maybe that makes me a freak; I don't know.

The biggest flaw of the Times article is that it both trivializes a serious issue and seeks to marginalize those who are trying to address this issue by a more simple lifestyle. This is entirely understandable, since the Times gets most of its revenue from advertising and because the Times is part of a global economic system whose aim is to foster ever-increasing growth of that system and ever-increasing dependence on that system among the general public. It is only natural for the masters of such a system to feel threatened by those who are trying for the sake of principle or conscience to disentangle themselves from the system. It is only natural for the masters of the present system to try to demonize those who are seeking to break free from the system.

Such demonizing is not only inaccurate, it also neglects the fact that increasing numbers of people are cutting back on their consumption and moving toward simpler lifestyles by force and not by choice, as the system known as the “official” economy continues its breakdown. Already there are hundreds of thousands of families in the United States whose children have been forced to forgo not only Saturday league sports, but iPods, GameBoys, big screen TV's, sleepovers, extravagant birthday parties, hanging out at the mall, the latest clothes, new cars, and much more – all because of the evaporation of their parents' livelihoods during the last several months. Whether we like it or not, the growth economy is in serious – perhaps terminal – trouble. The well has run dry. We will all be forced to live more simply.

Since that is the case, the intelligent people are the ones who are taking steps now by choice to adapt to a simpler life rather than waiting until the choice is forced on them. I therefore present pictures of some intelligent people I have met over the last several months. There are many such people here where I now live. Notice that they all seem to be having fun; at the very least they don't seem to be deprived souls, nor are they freaks. Also check out some of their cool rides!

Here's a picture of my odometer today after returning home from work, just so you know that I practice what I preach.

This vehicle is known as a "Bakfiets," and is a Dutch invention. I saw a lady riding one to a grocery store a few weeks ago. Her son was riding inside the wooden carriage. Unfortunately I didn't have my camera at the time, or you all could have seen a Bakfiets in action...

And here's a picture for those of us who ride public transit on occasion. See how serene and stress-free your commute can be! Take a hint from these kids...

Future posts on this blog will continue the theme of alternative systems, focusing on bicycle transportation. Stay tuned!

Of Thieves and Elections

Over the last few weeks, there have been alarming reports of voter registration “irregularities” taking place in swing states in the days leading up to November 4^th. Most of these irregularities involve the questionable purging of hundreds of thousands of registered voters from official records in several states, including many voters whose home mortgages were foreclosed. It appears that the Republican party has been behind the push for these voter purges. Here's a short list of purges and of secretaries of state responsible for maintaining voter rolls:

Colorado: Secretary of State – Mike Coffman, Republican. Number of voters purged from Colorado registration rolls within the last six months: 37,000 according to the New York Times. There is also word that state election officials told some college students that they could not vote if their parents claimed them as dependents (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/uselections2008.democrats)

Michigan: Secretary of State – Terri Lynn Land, Republican. Number of voters purged from Michigan state rolls in August: 33,000. (In all, over 200,000 names have been removed since January 1. Source: http://www.freep.com/article/20081013/NEWS15/81013077) Michigan also purged voters who lost their homes to foreclosure, and voters who had drivers' licenses from other states. By contrast, only 7,100 people died in Michigan in August, and only 4,400 moved out of state. For additional information, see http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/09/18/aclu-sues-michigan-over-voter-purge-program-saying-it-hurts-college-students.html

Louisiana: Secretary of State - John Leigh Dardenne, Jr., Republican. During the five weeks after July 23, at least 18,000 people were dropped from voting rolls. On June 15, 53,000 voters who had been displaced by Hurricane Katrina were threatened with removal from voting rolls unless they could prove that they were not registered in another state. The voters were mostly from poor black parishes. For more information, see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-naacp-louisiana_N.htm and http://www.alternet.org/democracy/92695/?page=entire.

Indiana: Secretary of State – Todd Rokita, Republican. According to a recent Guardian article, up to 100,000 people are potentially at risk of losing their opportunity to vote (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/20/republicans-voting).

It would be instructive to do a bit of digging to see what states have conducted massive voter purges within the last several months, and especially since August 4. Those states which conducted purges after August 4 are guilty of violating Federal election law. It would also be interesting to see how many of these states have Republican secretaries of state. I'd do the research myself, but I have to get to bed early because I have an early meeting tomorrow at work. One thing I'll say: watch the exit polls – especially from foreign media sources – on Election Day, and see how much of a discrepancy there is between them and the “official” tally.

And for a bit of very ironic news on a completely different subject, Bloomberg ran a story this week with a headline that reads, “Turmoil May Make Americans Savers, Worsening `Nasty' Recession.” It appears that the rich masters of our present economy are worried that Americans might start living within their means, thus gravely endangering the profits of the rich.

The $700 Billion Wall Street Bailout and the Oregon Elections

I just got my mail-in ballot this weekend. Now what to do with it?

First, although I have criticized Barack Obama in the past, I intend to vote for him. My criticism of Obama has centered on my suspicion that he may not fully understand the radical nature of the fixes required for the mess our country is in. But I believe that I know McCain and Palin all too well. Four years of McCain/Palin would just create a bigger mess, one which we might not survive.

Second, in the days just before the Congressional authorization of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, I called and e-mailed both my senators and the congressman for my district to express my opposition to the bailout. I was by no means the only one who did so.

Representative Earl Blumenauer wisely voted twice to oppose the bailout. Therefore he gets my vote.

On the other hand, Senator Gordon Smith voted in favor of the bailout. I hope he doesn't need my vote to keep his job. Otherwise, he'd better start looking.

Global Warming for Evangelicals

On one of my final posts on my blog, TH in SoC, I promised to write a post on global warming. This subject is one which I am somewhat reluctant and ashamed to tackle. You see, when I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior many years ago, He never forced me to have a prefrontal lobotomy or give up the use of my critical thinking skills as part of the bargain. This meant that I was free as a Christian to notice the events, trends and phenomena in the world around me, and to draw reasonable conclusions from them.

However, I noticed many years later the hijacking of the Faith to serve the ends of earthly economic and political power elites. One major way they accomplished this hijacking was by distorting Biblical Christianity so that it was turned into a justification for the actions of the elites. Thus there were such things as “Christian patriotism” as manifested in both England and the United States; the idea that certain nations were “Christian nations” because of their laws or constitutions; the notion that it was the right or duty of these so-called “Christian nations” to conquer and exploit all other nations and peoples on earth; the idea that God's only chosen economic system is laissez-faire capitalism and that all other economic arrangements are from the Devil; and the idea that it was the duty of Christians everywhere to support the elites (governments and corporations) in their actions and their wars, since it was by this that the world was becoming “safe for democracy and prosperity,” and the elites were ridding the world of people who “hate our freedoms and our faith!”

Those who teach such things say that it is the duty of Christians to unquestioningly believe all of these things, and to unquestioningly reject all other points of view, regardless of the evidence. Any notion or idea or teaching or observation which indicts the practices of Western elites is also to be dutifully rejected as well. Thus there are many parts of the Bible which are de-emphasized or glossed over or explained away by teachers of this point of view, people who are well-known as leaders in the American Religious Right. But the Bible has many things to say about the actions of the members of the Western elite class, and much of what it says is not good news for them. (In fact, they may want to take out fire insurance against the day of judgment.)

There is also strong evidence of the harm caused by the practices of these elites – evidence which proves the rightness of the Biblical condemnation of these elites. And just as the spokesmen for these elites have sought to gloss over the Biblical condemnation of their practices, they have sought to gloss over the evidence of the harm caused by their practices. Some of them, such as James Dobson and Tony Perkins, have gone to the extreme of saying that it is our Christian duty not to believe that harm is being done by these elites. The events of my personal life over the last several years have caused my eyes to be opened to the games being played in our society by economic, political and religious elites, and therefore I can see quite clearly the fallacies of those who have hijacked my faith. But I have noticed over the last several months that there are people who call themselves evangelicals and Christians who are still unquestioningly accepting the teaching which I have described above.

One example is a high school kid on my street who asked me if I believe in global warming (it was during an unusually hot day in the Pacific Northwest). When I asked him what he thought about it, he said, “Well, I'm religious – and that's why I don't believe in global warming. My pastor told us that man can't destroy the earth – only God can...” While I was outwardly polite and patient in listening to this kid, inwardly I was very angry. Why? Because it is the unquestioning promotion and acceptance of teachings such as this in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence that makes Christianity look like the faith of village idiots. This is not the Christianity of the Bible, nor is it the Faith of such intelligent men as Dr. Paul Brand, C.S. Lewis, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Therefore I write now to set the record straight on at least one subject – global warming, also known as climate change – even though it is a shame to have to do so. (By the way, I like the kid I was talking to. I think he's a good kid, and bright. He's just a bit misinformed.)

Theological Arguments against Global Warming (and a Biblical rebuttal)

First, let's tackle the theological arguments against global warming. This section will be relatively short, because the job will be easy. (For those of you readers who are not Christians, I say welcome to my blog. I appreciate your readership. You may find this part to be informative, but if not, feel free to skip ahead to the scientific case for global warming.)

Spokespersons for the Religious Right use theological arguments to try to debunk global warming. Their arguments usually run thus: “People who believe in global warming say that it will cause polar ice caps to melt and flood the earth. But that can't happen, because God promised in Genesis 8:22 that He will never destroy the world by a flood again.” Or, as my teen-aged acquaintance said and as agencies like the Institute for Creation Research say, “Man can't destroy the earth; only God can.” Or if one wants to go to extremes, there is the late Jerry Falwell's statement that global warming is “Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus from evangelism to environmentalism,” and that “the Bible teaches that God will maintain the earth until Christ's second coming.” (Source: “Falwell to Arms: Christians Being Duped By Global Warming,” Treehugger, 27 February 2007, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/falwell_to_arms.php)

But the issue with anthropogenic global warming is that it is not about what God is doing to the earth. It's about what man is doing to the earth. Thus the first argument against global warming is a logical fallacy. It makes as much sense as saying that “God has promised in Psalm 121 to keep me from all evil. Therefore I can't be hurt if I play on the freeway!” The fact is that there is nowhere in the Bible that says that humankind cannot make a mess – even a mess of Biblical proportions. The Bible repeatedly states how the moral defilement of a people can pollute a land, and it also prohibits physical practices that can ruin a land. For instance, see what the Bible had to say about letting land lie fallow during sabbath years, and how Israelites were not to destroy all the trees of a land in which was a city being besieged by Israel. (It's in Deuteronomy.) Actually, the Old Testament has a fair amount to say about environmental stewardship.

The fact that humans can certainly make big messes is stated in Revelation 11:16-18, speaking of the Lord's final judgments at the end of this age. The passage reads, “The twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God's throne, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying: 'We give You thanks, Lord God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because You have taken Your great power and reigned. The nations were angry, and Your wrath came, as did the time for the dead to be judged, and to give Your bondservants the prophets their reward, as well as to the saints, and those who fear your name, to the small and the great; and to destroy those who destroy the earth.'” (Emphasis added.) Here we see the clear Biblical acknowledgment of the harm mankind can do to the earth, as well as the promise of God's judgment on those who deliberately do that harm.

When faced with such a rebuttal, the only thing the Religious Right can do is to somehow argue that modern industrial society – especially modern Western industrial society – is not destroying the earth. Their spokesmen claim that the anthropogenic nature of global warming is just a theory, and that no one can prove that industrially-produced CO2 emissions have anything to do with recent weather and climate shifts. I shall therefore talk about the scientific case for global warming. (By the way, regarding Jerry Falwell's statement, I can only say that he has made many such statements over the years. It's a funny coincidence how any position of conscience which threatens the richest members of our society must be “from Satan.” I wonder what Falwell thought of James 5:1-6, or what he thinks of it now.)

Global Warming – The Scientific Evidence (A very simple explanation)

The warming of objects – whether food, houses or planetary atmospheres – involves the transfer of energy. Heat energy is transmitted from one object to another by one of three processes: radiation, convection or conduction. When those objects are separated from one another by a large distance and both objects are in a vacuum, the only means of heat transfer is by radiation. Consider two such objects: the Sun and the earth.

The Sun is a yellow dwarf star (spectral class G2 V). The earth's surface receives most of its energy from the Sun in the form of visible light. Most of that energy is not absorbed by the atmosphere, since it is transparent to visible light, although clouds do reflect light back into space. (Other spectral components such as ultraviolet light are absorbed by ozone high in the stratosphere.) Once visible light strikes the earth's surface, it is absorbed to varying degrees by the earth's surface, causing the surface to heat and emit infrared radiation.

The major components of the earth's atmosphere are transparent to infrared radiation. But certain gases absorb infrared light. These are gases such as methane, water vapor and carbon dioxide. As these gases absorb infrared light, they become hot (increased molecular energy) and re-radiate that infrared light in all directions, in addition to transferring heat to the rest of the atmosphere by conduction and convection. This raises the temperature of the earth's surface and of the surrounding atmosphere. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the earth would be -0.4 degrees F (or -18 degrees C).

The earth's temperature is maintained by a balance between the energy absorbed by the earth-atmosphere system and the infrared energy re-radiated by the atmosphere into outer space. As the atmosphere is heated by greenhouse gases, its upper layers are heated by convection, and it is these layers which radiate infrared light back into space. As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, the zone of re-radiation moves higher in the atmosphere, because more heat is trapped and absorbed by the lower layers of the atmosphere. In addition, the earth's surface temperature increases, until an equilibrium state is once again reached where the heat gain from incoming solar radiation is balanced by the heat loss through re-radiation.

For the last 800,000 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 270 ppm just prior to the Industrial Revolution. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, activities such as the burning of wood, coal and oil, the deforestation of land and the making of cement resulted in the liberation of large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Much of this CO2 was absorbed by the oceans, and much of it was turned into plant matter by photosynthesis, liberating oxygen in the process. However, as the Industrial Revolution quickened its pace and the burning of fossil fuels increased exponentially, the increase in atmospheric CO2 began to outpace the rate at which natural ecosystems could dispose of it. Thus atmospheric CO2 levels increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to over 385 ppm today.

The effect of varying the amount of greenhouse gases in a planetary atmosphere can be modeled crudely by multivariable calculations involving multiple integrations and spherical coordinates. The math is relatively simple for those who know calculus, though it is somewhat involved. The effect of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions was first postulated by Svante August Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, in 1896. Though his calculations were shown later to require refinement in order to match observed phenomena, his original conclusions were remarkably close to what is now being observed by climate scientists. The observed average temperature of the earth rose by 0.75 degrees C between 1860 and 1900, and temperatures in the lower atmosphere have increased by between 0.12 and 0.22 degrees C per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. 1998 and 2005 were two of the warmest years on record, worldwide, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. According to the NASA GISS, the 14 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.

Effects of Global Warming

This is a complex subject; however, the effects of global warming are real and are already being felt, from the increasing size and severity of wildfires in the forested regions of the United States and other countries, to the increasing length and severity of heat waves experienced in populated areas. Other effects include increases in severity and number of storms, shifts in migratory patterns of birds and other animals, loss of plant and animal habitats, shifts in crop growing seasons and growing conditions leading to loss of harvests (such as in Australia), and melting of glaciers.

One particularly dangerous effect is the beginning of the thawing of Arctic permafrost. This permafrost contains billions of tons of trapped methane, and methane is a greenhouse gas several times more powerful than carbon dioxide. If thawing were to release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect would be greatly amplified, leading to very destructive and chaotic changes in global climate. Evidence exists that in 2008, large releases of methane from the Siberian tundra had begun to occur.

Is global warming then a sign of the coming end of the world? I don't know. Nobody knows. After all, the Good Book says of that question, “But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.” – Matthew 24:36. It may be the end, or it may simply be the beginning of a really big mess that we will all have to live with for a very long time. (How many of you have ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz?) One thing I do know, however. Global warming is a sign that mankind is making a mess of this world. The perpetrators and perpetuators of this mess are the rich elites of the First World. Living responsibly and lightly upon the earth is required of those who would be good stewards of God's creation, yet this sort of life is an affront to the rich masters of our present system, because it endangers their bottom line.

These rich masters have done all they can to persuade most of us to continue our present lifestyle of dependence on the breaking system known as the “official” economy, and have even attempted to use religion to legitimize that dependence, by telling us that it is our God-given right and duty to live this way, and that “Christians must not believe in global warming!” Such propaganda may well serve to help people justify lifestyles of excessive and increasing consumption by persuading them that there are no earthly consequences to such a lifestyle. Yet believers in such propaganda may well find themselves one day being held accountable for helping to destroy the earth.

Sources:

• World English Bible, http://ebible.org/web/, a public domain translation, from which all Scriptures quoted herein have been taken, for which no royalties are owed, and which may be freely quoted in all settings, public and private.

• PhysicalGeography.net, a Fundamentals eBook, http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html

• “Scientists warn thawing Siberia may trigger global meltdown,” Wikinews, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists_warn_thawing_Siberia_may_trigger_global_meltdown

• “Effects of Global Warming,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

• “2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year,” Science Daily, 17 January 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm

• “NOAA: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane Rise Sharply in 2007,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 23 April 2008, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html

For further information, read the publications of Dr. James E. Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Pushker A. Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Their contact information is on the NASA GISS website. Also, feel free to visit the website of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And for more simple, understandable explanations, there is always Dr. Jason Bradford of Global Public Media at http://postcarbon.org/about/fellows.