Kind of humorous to be arguing the side of the right wing wackos : )

There's a mega-boom in North Dakota. Other areas. We are drilling more now than we ever had.

There are a lot of problems with fracking because of how they've done it. Exempted from EPA regulation. They don't test ground water before hand to get baseline. What they pump down the well is secret because it's "proprietary". So they pump down stuf that would probably require a super-duper toxic material waste dump to get rid of otherwise...

It could be done in a manner that didn't destroy the environment

But whatever happens, it will only delay the inevitable

But like you and I have said, it may be more curse than blessing if we just delay efficiency and alternative energy

I love it when people talk about fracking. Hilarious. It's not like it's new, been practiced extensively since the 1950s. And I swore I would never post in chaff again, but it was worth it to see the first post of Jerry's (that wasn't gear related) I agreed with.

You agree with me that fracking is a curse because it will delay us from doing efficiency and alternate energy?

Here's your "Boom " in the news.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-oil-shale-boom-puts-big-squeeze-small-182411290.html

Jerry, fracking won't affect either of those. There's a lot of it going on, but it's not going to make a enough of a difference to change the inefficiency of alternatives. They'll either fly or not, based on merits and economics. Or socialism. Ha!

"They'll either fly or not, based on merits and economics. Or socialism."

Good to see Joe sucked in : )

The government can provide money to boot up. You're right, eventually it has to fly on it's own merits.

Take GM as an example. Didn't make any sense for private enterprise to finance them so the government did. After a few years they're now doing fine without government financeing. They still have to buy back some capital investment but that will happen.

Take hydro power as an example. Private companies could not finance Hoover Dam, TVA dams,... Government did. The government still owns those, but the power they produce is cheap.

And oil and coal have huge subsidies, including the fact they're allowed to pump pollutants into the atmosphere and not compensate people that get sick or die. And most of our military expenses are to allow oil to flow from Middle East. It would be better to eliminate those, but in the mean time, we could subsidize alternate energy and efficiency improvements because those will reduce those other expenses.

And the term "socialism" is used when you've run out of real arguments. Sort of like calling someone a denier. Public education is socialism. The police and court system is socialism. The military is as socialist as it gets. Social security and medicare are socialism. If that's what you mean by "socialism" then I'm a proud socialist.

(I know, you were just making a joke, ha ha ha...)

Besides my previous attempt to be funny; "are gas prices making me cranky?"
No! My hormones make me cranky, teenagers make me cranky, aches and pains make me cranky. If I could not feed or clothe us, that would make me "cranky". To have to do a wee little bit of thinking before jumping in the car on the weekend for a joy ride....does not make me cranky. It's still one hell of a deal.
Nothing wrong with discussing oil prices and alternative energy options, but let's keep things in perspective or we come off as a bunch of spoiled brats. And I put myself in that category when I forget the rest of the world and the bigger picture and how lucky we really are.

"The government can provide money to boot up. You're right, eventually it has to fly on it's own merits."

How is the boot-up money allocated and to whom? How much? Who gets to decide? There is a large, very plush and empty building about 30 minutes from my house that is a perfect example of the folly of government investment in private enterprise.


Take GM as an example. Didn't make any sense for private enterprise to finance them so the government did. After a few years they're now doing fine without government financeing. They still have to buy back some capital investment but that will happen.

I don't agree with how the GM thing went down. That deal could have been set up where it was something more than a payoff to a particular political constituency. Shareholders and bondholders were wiped out without due process. I think that's wrong.

Take hydro power as an example. Private companies could not finance Hoover Dam, TVA dams,... Government did. The government still owns those, but the power they produce is cheap.

Irony alert - Hoover Dam and the TVA are often trotted out by the Left as examples of the good government can do, but nobody on the left would support those projects today. They would never get built.


And oil and coal have huge subsidies, including the fact they're allowed to pump pollutants into the atmosphere and not compensate people that get sick or die. And most of our military expenses are to allow oil to flow from Middle East. It would be better to eliminate those, but in the mean time, we could subsidize alternate energy and efficiency improvements because those will reduce those other expenses.


And the term "socialism" is used when you've run out of real arguments. Sort of like calling someone a denier. Public education is socialism. The police and court system is socialism. The military is as socialist as it gets. Social security and medicare are socialism. If that's what you mean by "socialism" then I'm a proud socialist.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Although for me I would add government control of the means of production as well. The education, public safety, military and judicial systems are not socialist. We see this a lot - if you hold the opinion that socialism is a poor system of government then you obviously are against teachers, cops, retirees, the sick and bunny rabbits. Silly.

(I know, you were just making a joke, ha ha ha...)

Kat...I haven't had a good hike since August. I am cranky - cranky for hiking. My legs are so ready to be back out there.......Sure it is a first world problem but I don't feel fazed by that ;-P

No, gas prices don't bother me at all. I haven't owned a car since 2003.

FWIW, I bought the $22,500 base model Prius in 2005. That was a little more than a Corolla, but less than my previous car (heh, it replaced a Subaru WRX Wagon). I've now got 102,000 miles on the clock and still get about 50 mpg. Yesterday's long commute for a day hike (up and down the Grapevine) ended at 51.5 mpg. To me that's pretty amazing engineering. I hoped for 50 mpg to start, but never would have dreamed that it would hold up for 100K

OK, question for those with no car:

Are you single and or/ a DINK?
Do you have young children?
Do you live in a city?
Do you live in an apartment or own a home?

It would be interesting to know the answers to that.

Hatchlings aside, I'd like to access more trailheads without a car. My car, rental car ... parking overnight due to vandalism and break in concerns kind of takes away from the trip, though it gives more options (esp. hate paying for a rental car just sitting at the TH).

I'm aware of some southwestern cities next to wilderness areas and forests:
- Tucson AZ; Catalinas, Rincons (east Sagauro NP)
- Albuquerque NM; Sandias
- even Santa Fe NM; if one can hoof up thousands of feet to the Peco's.

Backpacker had an article on bus-accessed trails from the Los Angeles metro area into TH surrounding mountains, and we've seen some trip reports on car-free Bay area hikes here.

If anyone else has any trailheads near major airports, feel free to post. Sorry about the thread hijack .. sorta (ed: shortened)

Edited by hknewman on 02/26/2012 15:46:58 MST.

Are you single and or/ a DINK? : Dink? What is a dink? Besides that, I'm engaged.
Do you have young children? : Nope.
Do you live in a city? : Now yes, before no. Small mountain towns.
Do you live in an apartment or own a home? : What relevance does this have to do with owning a car or not? But I'll bite, own.

To add more:

If I need to go somewhere, I walk or ride my bike. Less than 5 miles, I usually walk. More than 5, bike. I average around 75-100 miles a week. Round trip to my classes, I am going to Paramedic school at the moment, 17 miles. I do this three times a week. Groceries? I own a Surly Big Dummy. I can carry groceries for you AND I with it.

Yes, my fiancé owns a car. In fact, just recently I took the driver's test again because I let my license expire in 03 and have never needed one. Do I drive her car a lot? Nope. The last time I remember driving it was taking her to the airport and picking her up.

Edited by reacttocontact on 02/26/2012 14:33:15 MST.

DINK = double-income, no-kids.

What? No drivers license?

The anti-terrorism police will pick you up and put you in jail

And you shouldn't be able to vote either

some of us cannot drive less. I commute 25 miles from the Santa Cruz area to San Jose daily. I am in sales and have to drive from account to account. I drive about 80 miles per day. It sucks to be honest and I can see gas going up to $5 or more this summer. Along Hwy 395 it will be more like $6 this summer. I drive a Honda CRV that gets I think 29 mph on the hwy. So I get fairly good gas prices.

Not all wealthy folks drive the big SUV's that was posted on the first page. I see many folks that drive huge vehicles and cannot for the life of my figure out how they afford to drive these beasts...

they must have CHEAP rent :)

That is just ridiculous Jerry. More people should not have licenses. It's a privilege too, not a right.

City living allows easier living with no car - things are closer in, mass transit exists, walking is easier. Being single (or married) with no kids allows more freedoms as well.
Sigh, when I run errands I have ti time them around two naps, eating times and being back home in time for my oldest to come home - I don't have all day to run them. When we walk errands I do them at nap time but even doing groceries is 5 miles rt so I can avoid a dangerous main road (no sidewalks).
And frankly.....carrying groceries for 5 people while transporting 2 under 2 doesn't happen easily.

It is a luxury of those without children in many ways....

We used to own 2 cars now only 1, that's OITK (one income, two kids). I use a bike and car pool as much as possible. Work sometimes requires me to drive but I just plan with my wife the use of the 1 car. I try to pick work and where I live with use in mind, currently in 1 mile from trains, school is 1 mile, Trader Joe's 1 mile, etc.

Ironically, the work which doesn't need me to fund my car usage is flying, I can walk or scooter (Xootr Roma) to the airport and then expenses funds the flight and any transport at the other end, but that is still guzzling aviation fuel so is part of the cause of the problem.

There are some benefits and some downsides. I was working in Sunnyvale and I'd either bike or bike/train/bike from San Mateo, and sometimes get a ride from someone from work, my presence letting them use the multioccupancy lane. Sharing transport is a chance to talk. My bike is a Brompton and fits anywhere on train/car.

As to getting to trailheads well you can use carpooling, helping pay the driver for car costs, if you can get 4 of you then it can become quite low cost per person again, BUT you then have the issue you need to stick together OR agree a rendezvous time back at the car, co-ord pickup times, etc. Not impossible obviously but more detailed planning required.

This issue of car-less though is part of why the last few years I've not been backpacking much, because what to do with the bike at the destination? I've found I've been biking from my home and bike/train/bike/camp/bike/train/bike and just look at the hills from a campspot near the road, with a little bit of loss. I did once find some undergrowth and hide the bike, it was still there when I returned but I was worrying about the bike the whole time.

I sometimes go with others in car, they'll shop or stare at a museum and I'll bike around, I've had some good days out like that although there was one incident I said I'd bike in the direction they were driving, told them to look out for me, I thought they'd be 1-2 hours, but some 8 hours later, I'd done 125 miles by then and dehydrated worried if I popped into a store would be the second they drove past, so its can be a little problematic at times.

Even those who don't have high gasoline costs are impacted ultimately as it drives up cost of food (unless its grown locally), and drive up the cost of practically everything else, and a major part of why gasoline is higher cost is the planet is getting richer, owning more, driving more (1B Chinese, 1B Indians, Brazil, etc), BUT the USA is not keeping up with global wealth because much of its growth recent decades has been consumer and debt driven, and so USA now is relatively feeling the higher gasoline costs.

Best view of that is that the last decades of relatively energy costs has ended.

There is a strong relationship in all of man's history of wealth coming from burning the fuel around, the free energy accumulated over the planet's history such as wood, coal, oil, etc.. As human population increases and per-person average consumptions increases, then that free energy is relatively becoming diluted, manifest by high gasoline costs.

So either ween off energy to a totally different type of economy, or.....

Its interesting, when you fly over southwest, USA has so much unpopulated land, if it got its act together it could make the electricity, and hence hydrogen fuel it wanted from solar from a small part of Nevada/Arizona and pump the fuel around for it to end up in cars with fuel-cells inside which make water exhaust. Water can be desalinated at sea using electricity and then split into oxygen and hydrogen by electricity and so the end of water shortage, end of salination of the soil via tapping water from the bedrock, end of energy shortage. The technology exists but the will doesn't. If the Romans could build viaducts and even older civilisations building irrigation, with all the technology around why can't USA solve its energy problem?

So why doesn't the will exist, that's a more involved discussion best not done in open forums.