Policy: It's Like Making a Cake

For some time now, I've been writing a weekly column for an LGBT blog. My column, Dispatches from Left Field appears on Wednesdays on The New Gay. I write on a variety of subjects there and my content is not limited to LGBT issues, although I do try to focus on topics of interest to the gay community. This post was written for TNG, but has been cross-posted here because of its relevance.

A new administration has come to Washington. After eight long years of Republican control of the executive branch, Democrats under the leadership of President Barack Obama are taking over. In that regard I'd like to consider the implications of policymaking.

If you’ve ever baked a cake, you know that a successful recipe depends upon getting all of the ingredients right. If any of the parts are spoiled or if any of the incorrect ingredients are mixed in, the cake won’t turn out the way you intended. Policy is the same way.

There is often a lot of talk about Education Policy or Transportation Policy or Environmental Policy. These are all red herrings. In reality there is only one Policy (capital P). Now I know this sounds strange. I can hear you saying, “of course there is such a thing as Education Policy,” and you’d be right. There is something called Education Policy. It’s how we address schools and curriculum, among other things. But it is often doomed to fail by other policy areas, Transportation and Housing Policies for instance. This is because the way we view policy (lower case p) divides public policies into silos. Essentially, we insist on continuing to think of the egg as an egg, even long after it's become part of the cake.

If for example, we’re baking a cake (Policy) which seeks to further the aims of a chef (administration), it would include ingredients such as eggs (Education), flour (Transportation), sugar (Environment), and much, much more. Even if the eggs are fresh, the cake might turn out badly if we forget to include the flour.

Let’s consider Education in more detail. Our last President pushed for a bill called No Child Left Behind. This act was to improve our education system by doing things like punishing underperforming schools, offering choice, and holding teachers accountable. It placed lots of emphasis on standardized tests and other measures such as attendance and graduation rates. But schools are in largely the same shape they were eight years ago. Why didn’t No Child Left Behind significantly change schools?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s forgo the criticisms of the Act itself. Instead I would like to focus on how other Policy areas affect educational outcomes. Studies show that neighborhood poverty has a huge impact on educational attainment. But because we have “silos” for policy, fixing neighborhoods, while integral to fixing schools, is not considered part of Education Policy. In that regard, we’re leaving out part of the recipe.

When it comes to Education, we’ve been dooming urban schools since the 1930s at least. Many of the same things that created the Gayborhood contributed to the decline of our schools. Housing Policy encouraged suburban housing construction, while covenants limited that development to whites. Transportation Policy, beginning in the 1950s, gave (white, middle-class) Americans the ability to leave the city, while still being able to commute over freeways to work. At the same time the destruction of urban transit systems split many lower income people from their jobs. As policy decisions in other policy areas encouraged the creation of urban ghettos, our schools started a nosedive which they’ve yet to recover from. Just last week, I saw that school segregation is increasing in the United States.

I don’t want to belabor the discussion on education, however. My thinking about this Policy/Cake concept started when the Obama Administration left the Secretary of Transportation off of his Green Team. This group of high-level officials consists of the Energy Czar, Secretary of Energy, Director of the EPA, and the Secretary of the Interior. And while these department heads certainly run agencies which have a large role to play in solving the climate change dilemma; without seriously changing the way we approach transportation, we won’t be able to stop greenhouse gas accumulation.

According to Growing Cooler a report on the relationship between urban development and climate change, "Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States" (page 2). This report refers to the "Three-legged Stool" of Fuel Economy, Carbon Content of Fuel, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Any policy that fails to address all three legs of the stool will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far enough to reach targets. Because the Department of Energy projects that increases in VMT will outstrip improvements in fuel economy and carbon content, any emissions savings from those two legs will be outpaced by increases from the third leg, VMT.

So even if we are able to transition cars to cleaner sources of fuel and make them more efficient, we can really only solve the problem by encouraging walkable communities and public transit in addition. Luckily, this reimagining of the urban environment gives us the opportunity to rethink the selfsame policies (like housing) which have resulted in a failing education system and a gridlocked transportation network.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once said:

"The best cure for destructive sprawl is to build cities people don't want to abandon, places where they can live healthy, fulfilling lives in densities that don't devour our landscapes, pave our wilderness and pollute our watersheds, air, and wildlife. To achieve this, we need to invest in urban schools, transportation, parks, health care, police protection, and infrastructure that makes cities great magnets with gravity sufficient to draw back the creeping suburbs."

In other words, in order to save the city, we have to focus on all of the relevant policy areas--from Education to Transportation. We can't confine our Policy to just one silo.

I’m reminded of an example from Atlanta. As the region was building a MARTA (metro) extension to the Northeast, the Georgia DOT was widening the adjacent gridlocked Interstate 85. Not surprisingly, ridership on the Doraville train never reached what planners had hoped. Here in Washington, on the other hand, a series of freeway battles helped ensure that Metro would be successful by limiting freeway construction. So while Mr. Obama has promised transit investment during the next few years, he has also promised road building. And his stimulus gives more money to roads. One wonders if his Policy (capital P) will be end up truly being “green” or if policy silos will leave the frosting off the cake.

LaHood Tapped as DOT Head

It's official. We finally have a nominee for Secretary of Transportation. Unfortunately, the potential future leader of the nation's transportation program is a relative unknown in transportation circles. 

The nominee is Ray LaHood, a congressman from rural Southern Illinois. He has represented Illinois' 18th District since 1995 in the United States House of Representatives. Representative LaHood is a moderate Republican whose record on transportation seems to be neutral, although certainly more liberal than most Republicans. Unlike Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer, whose sponsorship of transportation bills has dramatically improved the situation for transit, or James Oberstar, Congressman from Minnesota, whose support for bikes and transit is well known, Mr. LaHood has no transportation bills to his name. Other than the occasional break from the party to vote in support of Amtrak, LaHood hasn't focused on transportation. 

And I'm afraid Mr. LaHood's nomination does not bode well for America's transportation policy. By selecting someone with little transportation experience, Mr. Obama is indicating that he does not place much emphasis on the importance of transportation on his policy agenda. 

While I don't necessarily think that Mr. LaHood will have a negative impact on transportation policy, I don't think that he's the person who is going to bring change to Washington. I think it most likely that he will keep the status quo, at best--and right now, that is one of the last things we need in transport policy. 

As I've pointed out before, now is a pivotal moment for transportation in America. Among other things, we're up for reauthorization of the transportation bill in 2009. Additionally, transit ridership is higher than it's been for decades while VMT is dropping. The last thing we need right now is business as usual. I sincerely hope that Mr. LaHood will not bring that kind of leadership to DOT. 

Honestly, I am disappointed in Mr. Obama. He seems to be serious about energy independence and fighting climate change, but does not seem to see the transportation component of either of those goals as important. And while his platform called for transit-oriented planning, his policies seem to be headed toward the kind of road building of the sort catalyzed 5 decades of sprawl.

For now, I'm waiting to learn more about Ray LaHood. I truly hope that he will bring change to Washington, but I don't have too much hope anymore. With all Mr. Obama's talk of infrastructure spending, I'd hoped he was serious about rebuilding America. It seems I was mistaken.

Please make sure to see my other posts on the topic:

Building America, Building a Cabinet

Disappointment

Building America, Building a Cabinet

In the month and a half since the Election, President Obama's cabinet has slowly been announced. For those of us into policy, it's an exciting time while the cabinet takes shape. Change is certainly in the air after 8 years in the hands of Republicans.

So far, most of the cabinet has been announced. Here's who's been chosen so far:

Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel

Sec. of State: Hillary Clinton

Sec. of Treasury: Timothy Geithner

Sec. of Defense: Robert Gates

Attorney General: Eric Holder Jr.

Sec. of Interior: Ken Salazar

Sec. of Agriculture: Tom Vilsack

Sec. of Commerce: Bill Richardson

Sec. of HHS: Tom Daschle

Sec. of HUD: Shaun Donovan

Sec. of Energy: Steven Chu

Sec. of Education: Arne Duncan

Sec. of Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki

Sec. of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano

EPA Administrator: Lisa Jackson

Director of OMB: Peter Orszag

UN Ambassador: Susan Rice

Still left to be decided:

US Trade Rep.

Sec. of Labor

Sec. of Transportation

For an administration so intent on rebuilding America's infrastructure I find it slightly disingenuous to have Transportation left as one of the last two Departments without a Secretary. Granted, this is a transportation-type blog, and I know everyone has their own pet issue, but still I'm on pins and needles waiting to hear who will be leading DOT for the next 4 years.

Another thing that I find unnerving is that the Transportation Secretary is not going to be part of Obama's Environmental Team. The team, which Obama has picked to lead America into the new energy economy is certainly well-qualified, and Mr. Obama seems dedicated to working to stop climate change. According to his website, Change.gov:

"The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy," President-elect Barack Obama said at a Chicago press conference today announcing the leaders who will guide his administration's policy on energy and environment. "The team that I have assembled here today is uniquely suited to meet the great challenges of this defining moment. They are leading experts and accomplished managers, and they are ready to reform government and help transform our economy so that our people are more prosperous, our nation is more secure, and our planet is protected."

The nominees include Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy; Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator; Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; and Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.

President-elect Obama acknowledged that he is not the first leader to promise dramatic efforts on climate change and American energy independence--but "This time must be different," he said. "This is not a challenge for government alone - it is a challenge for all of us. The pursuit of a new energy economy requires a sustained, all-hands-on-deck effort because the foundation of our energy independence is right here, in America."

This is especially disturbing because of remarks that the President-Elect made last week, calling for "the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s." Now, Mr. Obama has not said that he's planning on building a new Interstate Highway System, but he has made reference to it. He has not made reference to transit since being elected--and we certainly need to invest in transit.

There's been a lot of talk of fixing it first--and that's a great policy. But there are projects other than highways waiting to be fixed. Transit systems across the country (and Amtrak, for that matter) have been underfunded for decades, and most have serious infrastructure issues. Here in Washington, Metro has billions in unfunded needs over the next decade, but I haven't heard of any stimulus headed our way.

But on the environment, Mr. Obama is correct about the all-hands-on-deck effort that is needed to solve the climate change puzzle. But, his plan is missing at least one key piece--alternative transportation. He's talked quite a lot about alternative fuels, but they will not solve the energy or climate problems alone.

According to Growing Cooler a report on the relationship between urban development and climate change, "Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States" (page 2). This report refers to the "Three-legged Stool" of Fuel Economy, Carbon Content of Fuel, and VMT. Any policy that fails to address all three legs of the stool will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far enough to reach targets. Because the Department of Energy projects that increases in VMT will outstrip improvements in fuel economy and carbon content, any emissions savings from those two legs will be outpaced by increases from the third leg, VMT.

It is readily apparent that we must take the first two steps (alternative fuels and fuel efficiency), but not everyone is sold on reducing VMT. Growing Cooler makes it clear that we must address how much we drive. And things are looking up. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that transit ridership across the country is way up, despite falling gas prices. But we're not doing enough. In every city in this country, transit is underfunded. In many places, even with high ridership, the economy is cutting into revenues. Atlanta's largest transit operator, MARTA, announced this week that major cuts are necessary, even in the face of an 11% increase in riders from last year.

President Obama must address this crisis, not only for transit operators, but from an urban design perspective. We must, as he promised in his platform, address livability and transit-oriented communities. His stimulus must go to cities, as advocated by Streetsblog, and it must go to transit agencies, as well as states and DOTs.

I worry about Mr. Obama's stimulus because roads are not the way to go. They should not be the future of American transportation policy, at least not the cornerstone. I'm not against funding for roads, and I understand that they will play a major role in American society for years to come. Fixing it first is certainly the best way to invest in roads, but Mr. Obama is calling for a major investment in our national infrastructure, on the scale of the Interstate System.

But we cannot afford to build another Interstate System. America is still recovering from all the unintended consequences of the 1956 bill that started all of this superhighway business, and without the suburbs that Interstates facilitated, we wouldn't be having this climate crisis or this energy crisis.

From Growing Cooler, page 2:

The growth in driving is due in large part to urban development, or what some refer to as the built environment. Americans drive so much because we have given ourselves little alternative. For 60 years, we have built homes ever farther from workplaces, located schools far from the neighborhoods they serve, and isolated other destinations--such as shopping--from work and home.

To spend money on highways will only encourage these wasteful trends--what James Howard Kunstler calls the "largest misallocation of resources in history"--to continue. Subsidizing drivers encourages them to make economic decisions that cause sprawl and crowd roadways.

The federal government has never been involved in land use, and it shouldn't be now. But policies such as the Interstate System have supported auto-centric suburban development. As long have subsidies and regulations that favor suburbia over urban areas, they will be indirectly involved in increasing America's dependence on foreign oil and carbon output. While the 1950s might have called for that type of subsidy, the 2010s certainly don't. It's time to refocus America's energies on truly making a dent in the climate question--and revitalizing cities at the same time. Transportation policy is one key component of that kind of change.

Without a sustainable transportation policy, not only will Mr. Obama's climate/energy policies have a major gap, they will have a fatal flaw. It is imperative that he include the transportation secretary, whoever that might be, on his energy team. It is even more imperative that we refocus our transportation resources, whether in the stimulus or in the reauthorization, on other modes. Automotive transportation has been overfunded for years, and a more balanced formula is needed.

Transportation is only one part of a comprehensive investment in stopping climate change, but it is an essential part. I hope Mr. Obama realizes how important is. I also hope he has the political willpower to make sure that change is manifested in transportation policy. We cannot afford 6 more decades of sprawl to result from a ill-thought plan to address the economic downturn. Transit can also help the economy, and the economy will be much better off when compact development, centered on transit, allows Americans to live with a reduced dependence on the automobile, foreign oil, and with cleaner air to breathe.

Soon, we will hear Mr. Obama's pick for Secretary of Transportation. Let's hope he or she is as dedicated to change as the President-elect's platform. And let's also hope that they're tough, because they will have one of the hardest jobs in Washington.

Dead Week/Disappointment

It's a busy time of the year for everyone, I suppose, and so the past few days have been light on blogging and blog reading for me. Next week is the last week of the semester at Maryland, meaning that my final classes are this week. When I was at Georgia Tech, we called the week prior to finals "Dead Week." It certainly will be dead for Track Twenty-Nine, although I'll try and get back to blogging more next week as my class obligations end.

But despite my lack of time this week, I want to express some frustration. I'm not the only one around to be doing so, either.

You see, on November 4, I stood in line in the cold and voted for change. While I waited with my neighbors and fellow disenfranchised citizens (in DC), I thought back to the first time I voted for Barack Obama, on a snowy day in March, during the Potomac Primary. It was cold then, too. But I felt that I was casting a ballot which would help to thaw America from the icy clutch of the Republicans. For 8 long years, they stood with the reigns of power, and created public policy in the transportation, energy, and urban policy areas which made me want to vomit.

So on November 4, I was out in the streets cheering when CNN called the election for Obama. It was raining, but we didn't care here in DC. Getting wet that cold November evening didn't matter. We had won! After 8 years of strife, victory was at hand. Change was in the air. In a matter of months, a new era would start in America--an era of growing environmental consciousness, of reinvestment in our cities, of policies for the people--instead of for corporate executives.

Now, I'm not so sure that I got what I voted for. To be certain, Mr. Obama has not yet taken office, and much is still unknown about his policies, but I am worried.

In a speech on Saturday, the President-Elect called for investment. But I did not hear a call for anything remotely like the Second System. Instead I heard a call that hearkens back to the Eisenhower Administration.

"We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in
our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in
the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and
we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to
invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

Granted, Obama did not actually call for investment in the federal highway system. But he did use it as an example. Where are his calls for high speed rail? Where are his examples of the UMTA transit program of the 1970s that gave us BART, Metro, and MARTA? The program that gave us LRT in San Diego, in Pittsburgh, in San Francisco?

In a world where highway building has been the status-quo for over 5 decades, the lack of mention of transit does not bode well. For the last 7 years, Mr. Bush has called for Americans to reduce their dependence on foreign oil in each of his States of the Union. Not once did he ask Americans to try transit--nor did he do much to increase the supply of transit. Do we face another 4 years of the same?

Mr. Obama says that if communities don't invest in roads and bridges, they'll lose federal dollars. I fear that if they don't invest in transit, they'll lose their communities. But where are Mr. Obama's pledges of money to fund transit projects that are in design?

According to today's Washington Post, Maryland and Virginia have new hopes for road projects cancelled by the recent downturn. Excuse me? What about the major cuts to MARC service proposed by MTA? Shouldn't we be hoping for a stimulus that would at least keep transit service at today's levels, especially in the face of vast increases in ridership?

Just yesterday, the Post ran a story about transit ridership across the nation--it's up, way up. In heavy rail, LA leads the pack with a 14.1% increase over last year. Baltimore's light rail leads with an increase of 19.6%. The Railrunner in Albuquerque leads with a huge increase of 35.8%. For the Post's editorial board, the evidence is clear and convincing. They're calling for investment in transit. The Post rightly points out, that any fast-acting stimulus penalizes transit because of the hoops we've created for those projects to jump through. And while Obama might be the likeliest candidate to change that situation, he has so far shown no inclination to fund a transit stimulus.

Even though VMT is dropping and transit ridership is increasing, Mr. Obama wants to give states money to widen highways, like I-66 and I-95, but doesn't see fit to give a few federal dollars to stop the elmination of already-crowded commuter trains running alongide these corridors.

Indeed, with all this talk of infrastructure spending to rival the New Deal, why haven't we heard about his pick for Secretary of Transportation? If we're really going to invest in our transportation infrastructure like Eisenhower did, why isn't Mary Peters' replacement already drawing up plans?

I'm still holding out hope for a Transportation Secretary like Jim Oberstar or Earl Blumenauer, but with Obama's talk of highway spending, I'm afraid we'll get someone more like Robert Moses.

I haven't yet given up hope for change. But I also haven't heard much since November 4 to suggest that change is really coming, at least to transportation policy. And in this time of high ridership and demand for government infrastructure investment, that would be a shame. This is the chance of a generation to change the way our cities are structured--we cannot afford to squander that opportunity just to build more highways. Not if we have any hope for redesigning cities to survive into the 21st century--a century guaranteed not to be the century of cheap oil.

Texas Tea

Lately, oil prices have been falling like a rock. Gas, too, has been dropping. As of November 17, the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded was down to just $2.07. I can still remember when I had a learner's permit, you could get it for $0.79.

I was under the impression that most Americans understood that the recent price drop was due to a reduction in demand, but I've heard some comments in the last week which have liberated me of that opinion. The truth of the matter is that because the economy is in the toilet, people are driving less. Once the economy recovers, we'll have the same supply issues as before. This is no time to stop our efforts at reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Still, reduced gas prices seem to have at least partially contributed to the defeat of transit ballot measures in Saint Louis and Kansas City on election day. The oil crisis is not over, it's just on hold because of the recession.

And that fact needs to be communicated to the American consumer. Right now, most are not in a position to make major structural changes in their lives. They're not going to go out and buy a new car, and they're not going to move further out into the suburbs. But they are liable to stop supporting transit-friendly and walkable community-centered policies if they think that life will go back to normal as soon as the economy improves.

I posit, however, that this is not a time like the early 1980s. In the 1980s, after high oil prices, Americans were treated to two decades of cheap energy, and they sprawled more and more. We need to realize that there aren't going to be two decades of cheap oil henceforth.

Even if oil stays cheaper than it was this summer for a while, it is going to trend upward in price. Failing to restructure our society for expensive energy only makes us even more vulnerable to the next oil shock.

While oil prices did not cause this recession, they certainly didn't help the situation. But it isn't oil that's the culprit. It would be nice to blame OPEC or China's (formerly) fast- growing economy, but the blame really lies at the feet of our lawmakers here in Washington.

By continuing to endorse sprawling development, by continuing to fund roads at a much higher rate than other modes, and by failing to tell the American people what they need to hear, the government has failed to prepare our economy for oil shocks like the one of Summer 2008. Now that the economy is tottering on the edge of recession, it makes it harder to create the necessary structural change. Certainly a New Deal type of program could create green infrastructure, and perhaps that sort of legislation will be in the works under the new administration, but this crisis in policy is something that has been in the making since the 1970s.

Unfortunately, America hit the snooze alarm after the first oil crisis in 1973, and failed to heed the wakeup call again in 1979. We allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of energy security by the gas prices of the mid-1980s. We cannot afford to let that happen now.

While oil prices are currently about 1/3 of what they were in July, they won't stay this low forever. Oil closed at $54.95 on Monday 11/17. I remember the first time it climbed above $50 in my lifetime. I was a sophomore in college at the time. I thought it would be temporary, but shortly thereafter it passed $60. I was hopeful that it would mean major change in this country, both politically and geographically.

Since that date, back in March 2005, oil has not dropped below $50.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want oil prices to hurt Americans, but I saw no other way of affecting settlement patterns. Americans respond to economic incentives, as was indicated by the shocks of 2008. Transit ridership was higher in many places than it's been in decades and national VMT dropped for the first time since 1979. Suddenly, in the face of the mortgage and housing crises, we discovered that houses near transit retain their value better.

Americans value mobility, and were beginning to realize that the car was not the only way to get around--in fact, with high gas prices, being isolated in a car-dependent suburb was suddenly not as popular as it once was.

Of course a spike is bad. A gradual increase in oil prices would give Americans a chance to adjust, but a spike on the order of what happened this summer occurs too fast to allow adaptation.

Anyway, one of President-elect Obama's most long-lasting legacies could be a reduction of America's dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise). But it will take a huge effort to change the way Americans think about energy. Carter tried and failed. However, if anyone has the ability, I think it's Obama.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect.

Good to the Last Drop?

Yesterday was carfree day here in DC. I hope some of you out there were able to commute in a carfree manner. Of course, if you weren't able to take the train or bus, everyday is a good day to start so it's not too late to reduce your dependence on oil.

Ironically, enough, across the Southeastern United States, people are being forced into reduced-car diets. Damage to our oil infrastructure by hurricanes Gustav and Ike has created oil shortages across the Southland. CNN showed gas lines in Alabama, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported many stations across the state of Georgia without gas. My parents, who live about 40 miles north of Atlanta, reported that they were paying over $5.00 for gas, and that it was hard to come by. Some gas stations have even limited the amount of gas one can buy.

Gas Buddy reported prices as of

midnight, September 23, 2008

CNN seems to think that the problems are a result of panic coupled with short supplies. The main pipeline serving the Atlanta Area, Colonial, is not operating at full capacity due to the hurricanes that recently did damage in the Gulf. Additionally, gas supplies in the Atlanta area are less flexible due to restrictions on the components. The Environmental Protection Agency requires cleaner burning fuels be sold in Atlanta due to the chronic air pollution problems plaguing the city.

And while the current situation might be due to a run on gasoline in the region, the overall situation is one caused by unsustainable policies. Atlanta is one of the most sprawling regions in the country, and alternatives to driving have long been neglected. Additionally, gas taxes in Georgia are the lowest in the nation, a fact which encourages driving (while robbing the government of funds that could be used for transportation improvements).

I have pointed out before that higher gas prices will benefit Americans in the long run. Until our policies can shift to accomodate a new era in which the role of the automobile is de-emphasized, we will continue to be reliant on a non-renewable, polluting resource which comes mostly from unfriendly parts of the world.

Even publications like Time have pointed out that high gas prices aren't all bad. But a radical shift will not help the country at all. If gas prices rise (artificially or otherwise) gradually over a long period, the market will adjust and the government will have time to take up the slack with alternatives. Additionally, people will be given the opportunity to change their behavior, however, when the price change is abrupt, the economy and individuals can be seriously harmed.
This is why it is even more important that we take steps right now to shift away from oil. I talked about the candidates' positions on energy a few weeks ago, and I'm not terribly impressed with either. In the long run, however, drilling won't change much. It won't even put a dent in the trend, so I'm not worried that it will slow the transition away from oil much. What it does do, however, is focus our political attention away from the issue. It gives people false hope that they won't have to change, and that is a bald-faced lie. We deserve better from our politicians, even if we don't expect it.

I debunked the idea of the summer gas tax holiday a while back, and even though that proposal has dropped of the radar, I don't think the energy debate is any more informed than it used to be. At least not according to the rhetoric being spouted by most of the candidates out there.

But if you're still wedded to the idea of drilling (go buy a typewriter, they're the wave of the future), you should at least check out these numbers.

My home state, Georgia, will survive the firestorm of gas shortages. This time. The question is not if Georgians can make it through this price shock, it's whether they can make the changes necessary to survive the end of the oil era. Will Mr. Perdue commit to making substantive policy changes (such as transit funding and a gas tax geared toward demand reduction) or will he take his traditional tack and pray for divine intervention?

"History's Gonna Change"

I'm sure we've all seen Back to the Future. Indeed, it's one of my favorite trilogies of all time. One of the reasons for that is it's treatment of the city through time.

For those of you who haven't seen the movies, the characters are time travelers whose situations keep getting them stranded in the wrong year. The range of the movies stretches from 1885-2015, with the Doc and Marty visiting 1885, 1955, 1985, 1985 Alternate, and 2015. All of the events take place in the fictional Hill Valley, California, a small town, presumably on the edge of a metropolitan area (at least by 1985).

If you look carefully at scenes from Hill Valley in 1955 ("they've really cleaned this place up"), you can see how vibrant the town square is. By 1985, they've paved over the square itself for parking and most of the businesses are run down. The bench on which Marty and Jennifer sit near the beginning of the film (#1) advertises that Zales is 'now in Twin Pines Mall'. In 1955, it was on the square. By 2015, however, Hill Valley's downtown is experiencing a renaissance. The shops are occupied, there is a little cutrification (Cafe 80s, the Antique Shop), but it appears vibrant. The square is now a reflecting pool for the Courthouse and houses an underground shopping mall.

It is certainly interesting to the town transform. We see the prototypical 1950s town square through the eyes of a child of the baby boomers. A kid growing up in the 1980s, who has no idea of what his town used to be. While his parents' generation hung out at Lou's Diner on the square and frequently walked or biked home, Marty's generation presumably hangs out at the Mall and have a much greater attachment to their cars (hence the drag races).

And even the costs of sprawl are noted. We discover after Marty makes it back to 1955 for the first time, that in 1985 Doc is living in his garage. If you read the newspapers framed on the walls, you'll note that Doctor Brown sold the Brown estate to developers, presumably to finance the Delorean. That explains why in 1985, Marty leaves the Doc's place, and steps right into the parking lot of a Burger King. The typical suburban strip is visible in the background.

But what is most interesting is the movies' prediction of the future, only 30 years distant from the movie-present, 2015 is drawing nearer. And it seems that the writers predicted gentrification and reurbanization. While I don't think we'll have flying cars within the next 7 years, it's not too far-fetched to see the continuing tide of revitalization in our urban areas (including small towns).

And that brings me to my question:
What does the future hold for America's Cities and Suburbs?

I recently commented on a post at Atlanta Fifty-Forward about increasing diversity in the suburban counties. Atlanta Fifty Forward is a forum about Atlanta's development over the next 50 years. It was started by the Atlanta Regional Commission to serve as a discussion of the issues facing the region. But the issues facing Atlanta are not unique to Atlanta. While I regard increasing diversity (in the suburbs or elsewhere) as a good thing, I sometimes wonder if it's too late for the suburbs. Anyway, I've included my comments on Atlanta Fifty-Forward below:

Kudos to Gwinnett for its diversity.

I have long valued living in the city for the diverse nature of the populace, and Gwinnett’s homogeneity is one of the reasons I wouldn’t have considered living there. I still won’t, but it looks like even cookie-cutter, sprawl-poster-child Gwinnett is on the right track.

Or is it?

In 1998, Tom Toles, cartoonist for the Buffalo News, drew this cartoon:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/95438294/

Titled “The Plan,” Mr. Toles editorializes it as “The Vast White Ring Conspiracy.” The six step plan is as follows:
1. Whites live in cities, saying “The growing glory of civilization.”
2. Minorities move into cities. They say “hello,” whites say “goodbye.”
3. Whites flee to suburbs, saying “Ah, this is better.”
4. Whites move into second-ring suburbs, saying “Cities are dead, this is better still.”
5. Minorities move into first-ring suburbs, saying “This is better — I guess.”
6. Whites move back into cities, noting that “It worked!”

And that seems to be precisely what’s happening. Recently it was reported that Atlanta is growing whiter. The article, published in Governing Magazine, shows that while the *City* of Atlanta is growing whiter as a percentage, the *Region* of Atlanta is growing less white. And Atlanta is leading the nation, with only Washington even close to a similar rate.

And let’s look at the suburbs. For the first time in decades, VMT is dropping. People are driving less, Gwinnett turned down MARTA in a 1-1 vote, quite a bit smaller of a margin than the 1990 3-1 no vote. With new urbanist developments sprouting across the country, the rolling hills of North Georgia’s suburbs are no exception.

Because while the suburbs are finally becoming diverse, they’re also becoming less popular. They’ve always been unsustainable, it’s just that before now, Americans didn’t care.

Loudoun County, Virginia is not dissimilar to Gwinnett. In the Washington Region, it is characterized by single-family estates and strip shopping centers. And, until recently, it was one of the nation’s fastest growing counties. But an article in yesterday’s Washington Post is very telling. In the first half of 2008, Loudoun’s number of foreclosures was only slightly less than the number of new houses approved.

The mortgage crisis, economic downturn, rising fuel prices, and (I believe) a dissatisfaction with the urban form of the suburb is leading to a change in where Americans want to live.

The question is, I suppose, is Mr. Toles 1998 prediction coming to pass?

In a similar vein, the Freakonomics Blog at the New York Times has a quorum up regarding the fate of the suburbs (Hilldale, you are my density). James Howard Kunstler opens the piece with his predictions for the end of life as we know it. Other writers are not so pessimistic about our future, with some writing just about demographic shifts and the like. Some predict a more urban suburbia with better transit.

What do you predict? What do you think the suburbs will look like in 40 years?

A Waste of Energy

It's still really too early to start reviewing the platforms of our presidential candidates, in my opinion. However, last week had both candidates talking about energy and I think the discussion is worth bringing up here.

I believe that the single most important issue facing this country right now is Energy Policy. While I mention energy quite often in this forum, I am, as you know, primarily focused on transportation and urban growth issues. These, while worthy of their own discussions, are really a subset of energy policy and they merit discussion by the candidates.

At this point in the election cycle, the candidates are still firming up their positions, and certain aspects of their policy goals may change (as happened last week), I will probably look back over energy later in the campaign along with other policy areas.

Right now I am very disappointed. I understand that people running for public office have to first be elected before they can influence policy, and that sometimes they have to be soft on certain issues in order to win.

At the same time, I feel that Americans need some straight talk from our public officials and candidates. Many here have been living the American (pipe) Dream made possible by cheap oil and bad policies in the post-war era. They regard the recent energy shocks as light turbulence. It's time for the captain to interrupt the in-flight movie, however. We haven't gotten to the point where we deploy the oxygen masks yet and if we act soon, we might not have to; however, if we continue to pretend that it's business as usual, we will soon find ourselves in an even worse predicament.

That's why I was proud of Senator Barack Obama for calling out Senators Clinton and McCain on their suspend-the-gas-tax proposal. Not only would suspending the gas tax not lower gas prices, but it would also increase consumption and hasten the date of crisis, but the suspension would also forfeit $1 billion in revenue. Incidentally, just two weeks ago, the US Department of Transportation announced that the highway trust fund is going to run out in October due to lessened gas tax revenue from the drop in demand. I'm certainly glad that we didn't forgo that revenue; we would have run out even sooner.

But the Junior Senator from Illinois is beginning to seem less prescient. The New York Times reported last Tuesday that Obama has proposed releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and has softened in his opposition to offshore drilling.

The quandary for progressive politicians like Senator Obama was pointed out by the Washington Post's cartoonist, Tom Toles, on July 30th. In his cartoon, two Uncle Sams are sitting on a see-saw. One is trying to reduce global warming, the other is trying to reduce gas prices. For some strange reason, the see-saw isn't moving in either direction.

Senator Obama is under extreme pressure to reduce gas prices, and their height is certainly a major problem for most Americans, but as we are seeing, the market is causing them to drop as we speak. As of August 10, CNN was reporting that gas was down for the 24th day running. CNN also points out that the drop in oil prices is a mixed blessing, blaming the drop in prices on reduced demand due to the recession. According to the article, the drop in May was the third largest drop in prices since 1942.

But despite that pressure, I had hoped that Mr. Obama would tell Americans what they needed to hear rather than what they wanted to hear. Still, it's not all bad. Mr. Obama has many progressive elements in his energy policy, and while I disagree with a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, his policy is still much better than maintaining the status quo as proposed by Senator McCain.

The esteemed Senator from Arizona wants to increase off-shore drilling of oil--a move which wouldn't have an impact before 2030, and whose benefits would not significantly reduce the price or be long-lasting, according to a report by the US Energy Information Administration.

The only way America will be able to permanently solve its energy problem is by reducing its demand for fossil fuels. The only way we will get Americans to reduce their usage (demand) is to use market forces, which means that in the long run, high gas prices are better. Even Time Magazine has pointed out that high gas isn't all bad.

So, to compare the candidates:

Senator Obama's Energy Policy
(list is not exhaustive)
Reduce Demand for Oil:

1. $150 billion over 10 years to develop clean energy sources.
2. Put 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015.
3. Increase amount of energy from renewables.
4. Greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system.
5. Increase fuel economy standards.
   
6. Create tax credit for purchasing "advanced" vehicles.
7. Increase energy efficiency.
8. Weatherize 1 million homes annually.
9. Develop clean coal technology.
10. Support Amtrak funding.
11. Develop high-speed freight and passenger rail.
12. Invest in public transportation.
13. Greater incentives for transit usage.
14. Strengthen metropolitan planning.
15. Ensure that transportation planning process considers Smart Growth.
16. Require energy conservation be considered as a part of transportation planning.

Increase Demand for Oil:

1. Release oil from SPR.
2. Promote responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.
3. Cut down on traffic congestion.

Senator McCain's Energy Policy
(list is not exhaustive)
Reduce Demand for Oil:

1. Tax break for buying clean cars.
2. Prize for Commercially viable battery.
   
3. Encourage automakers to manufacture more flex-fuel vehicles.
4. Expand alcohol-based fuels.
5. Enforce existing CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards.
6. Advance clean coal technologies.
7. Build more nuclear power plants.
8. Tax credits for renewable energy production.
9. Create a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.
   

Increase Demand for Oil:

1. Open up areas for off-shore drilling.
2. Support for gas-tax holiday.
   
3. History of animosity toward transit.
4. History of animosity toward Amtrak.

What do you think of the candidates on energy?

Addendum, 11 August, 9:45 AM:
Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed
for the New York Times which was published Saturday. I just discovered it this
morning. It's certainly a more concise way of saying what I've said over several
posts here. It's well worth a read.

Fringe Benefits

No one will argue that high gas prices aren't causing Americans grief, but that isn't to say they aren't without some good aspects. Time Magazine recently released a list of 10 Things You Can Like About $4 Gas. It's definitely worth a read.

As they point out in their opening paragraph, one reason that Amercians seemed so unrepentant when it came to driving is the lack of alternatives:

"We truthfully didn't have lots of options. Unlike Europeans, we didn't have
jobs we could bike to or convenient public transit."

But we did at one time. And we could have it now. Imagine what America would look like today if all of the monies spent on the Interstate Highway System had been instead invested in public transit. Places like Rochester wouldn't have sacrificed their subway (Light Rail) to build a freeway right-of-way, and perhaps places like Los Angeles would have had a Metro long before theirs finally opened in 1993 (currently America's newest).

The writers of the article point out that transit ridership is at a 50 year high. If we subtract 50 from 2008, we get 1958. Two years after the passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and already transit use was being affected. Now, after a half-century, we are starting to put the right foot forward and if Time is correct, we might just come out of this oil crisis ahead.

That, however, will depend on how good we are at adapting to a new reality, one where $4 gas looks like a bargain. It's time to move into the 21st Century, and I applaud Time for not sinking to the gloom-and-doom stories most of the Media are putting out about petrochemicals these days.

Here's the list:

1. Globalized jobs return home
2. Sprawl stalls
3. Four-day workweeks
4. Less polution
5. More frugality
6. Fewer traffic deaths
7. Cheaper insurance
8. Less traffic
9. More cops on the beat
10. Less obesity

Can you think of others?

Now Here's an Idea

You know those pesky chain emails you get sometimes? You know how they go. They tell you they've got this really great way for you to save on gas and stick it to the oil companies at the same time. All you have to do is get all your friends not to buy gas on a particular day.

The theory, so the email says, is that if there is a sudden drop in demand, prices will fall. And while this concept is economically sound on the surface, the hypothesis breaks down if you still drive the same amount on the given day. You see, the problem with this proposal is that people just buy twice as much gas the next day, which drives prices back up (if they went down in the first place, which is unlikely anyway).

Unfortunately, demand is not really decreasing. Demand for gasoline only really goes down if you, well, don't demand it. It's not about how much you buy at each trip to the gas station or how many times you go to the gas station, it's the total volume of consumption that really matters.

So that brings us to the idea that should work: Dump the Pump.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), is hosting this annual event for the third time on Thursday. It encourages Americans to beat high gas prices the only way they can: by not purchasing gasoline. Locally, WMATA is giving away a $100 SmarTrip card to the rider who can guess the number of riders who will use the system on June 19.

Nationally transit ridership is up, up, up. This is certainly a good thing, but local officials are quickly realizing that their policies have not funded transit enough in the past. Now demand for space on the train and bus is increasing faster than the supply of space can. Even here in Washington where it already seems like everyone takes the Metro, even more people are crowding on.

Some transit officials at WMATA are suggesting that Washington might need to go to mandatory staggered work schedules, reports Planetizen. It seems like trains are going to be so crowded with $5 gas that they will literally be in danger of exploding and spewing commuters all over the nice station architecture.

Ok, so maybe the Metro isn't that bad, but if $5 gas is going to be bad, how are we going to cope when it gets even higher? Can we even cope? I don't know if $5 gas is one of the signs of the apocalypse, but Sonny Perdue, Governor of Georgia, supporting transit expansion is. And that's just what he did shortly before pigs were seen flying near Jonesboro last week.

That's right, Mr. Perdue, who has been doing as much as possible to ignore the problem since he was elected in 2002 as Georgia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction (1872), has agreed to the idea, saying that he "fully supports" the commuter rail line to Lovejoy, south of Atlanta. And why is this so shocking? Because the federal government had already earmarked some $87 million in funding, along with $106 million in programmed state DOT funding. The only component missing was operating expenses (more info). But the state chose not to build. Repeatedly.

So instead of having the foresight to build a commuter rail line five years ago, when he took office, Mr. Perdue waited until the project was urgently needed to throw his support behind it. Now it will take some time to prepare the project for operation, meaning that gas might be nearer $6 a gallon by the time the train pulls into the station. And while I applaud the governor's decision to get on board, he (and many other politicians around the country) need to be chided for waiting until a crisis occurred before taking action.

So the long and short of it is that we commuters may have to deal with standing room only for now. Transit fixes take time to work out. We can't afford to wait any longer to start addressing these problems. We need action from our elected officials, and that action has to start with you, dear reader. Write your elected officials. Tell them how you feel.

And tell them to dump the pump on Thursday.

Let's Defuel America

Streetsblog is reporting on Chrysler's plan to defuel America. If you plan on driving a lot, you should just go ahead and sign up for a brand new Aspen and get their Pricelock program. By locking the price at $2.99/gallon for 3 years, Chrysler will encourage its owners to drive more, thereby making fuel more expensive for everyone else.

It will also deplete America's energy resources at a faster rate than it would if Chrysler owners just let the market decide. I wrote at length about the supply and demand issues involved last month just after Senator Clinton urged a suspension of the gas tax.

One of the phrases which I did not use was moral imperative. Throughout that post, I talked about the value of each gallon of gasoline. Since oil is a finite resource, we will run out of the recoverable bits of it one day (although it will stop being cheap long before then). Therefore, I think it is appropriate to say that we have a moral imperative to use alternatives every chance we get.

As I have pointed out many times on this blog, everyone in America benefits when transit wins a new convert. Senator Coburn, one of Oklahoma's Republican Senators, is blocking a bill that will fund the Metro, even though the local jurisdictions have proposed a match of funding. According to Mr. Coburn, funding the Metro is the same as "stealing from our children."

On the contrary Mr. Coburn, transit funding is not stealing from our children, it is crazy gimmicks like Chrysler's and the proposed suspension of the federal gas tax that really steal from our children. Every time someone here in Washington choses the Metro over their car, they leave several gallons of gasoline for the rest of America to use, and that includes Oklahoma's children. They have a particularly raw deal--after all, Oklahoma doesn't have any rail transit alternatives, so they have to drive all the more.

And the good news is that we've finally managed to get people to ride transit. Seats are filling up and oil consumption is going down. Remember America, every time you choose an alternative mode of transportation over your car, you extend the deadline before which we must either come up with alternative fuels and/or redesign our society.

You also reduce the price of oil. I'm sure you've all seen the chain email that goes around encouraging Americans not to buy gas on a certain day in order to drive down oil prices. It doesn't work. At least it doesn't work if you still buy the same amount of oil. It does, however, work if you choose not to drive on a given day. So America, do you really want to stick it to the oil companies? Do you really want to hurt the terrorists? Do you really want to drive down oil prices?

Then take the train or bus.

Do your part to help ensure America's energy future. I know that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have assured you that there is no need to sacrifice, but the truth is Americans are already sacrificing. They are cutting back on charity, they are cutting back on driving, and they are cutting back on spending. Go on, help out your fellow Americans--it's easy. I'm not asking you to give up your car, just give it a try and take the subway to work one day.

And Chrysler, if you really want to refuel America, you'll hand out transit passes with your new SUVs.

My Senator Takes the Morning Train

Ok, so I don't know if my Senator takes the morning train, but you can say that if you're from Delaware. In a speech earlier this week, Senator Thomas Carper (D, Delaware), the junior senator from Delaware told his colleagues that he takes the train home, almost every night.

And why shouldn't he? The end of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is only 2500 feet from the Senate Chamber. The Senator needs to walk less than a half mile up (ironically) Delaware Avenue to Burnham's masterpiece, Union Station.

So yesterday, while we bloggers were lamenting the lack of leadership on this issue, Mr. Carper was on the floor of the Senate saying this (excerpt):

I ride the train back and forth most days. I live in Delaware, and I go back and forth. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows, I go back and forth almost every night to Delaware. A strange thing is going on with respect to passenger rail ridership in this country.

I used to serve on the Amtrak board when I was Governor of Delaware, and every year we would see ridership go up by a couple of percentage points. We would struggle, try to raise money out of the fare box to pay for the system and the expansion of the system. Well, the first quarter of this fiscal year, ridership at Amtrak is up 15 percent. Revenues are up by 15 percent. People are starting to realize that maybe it makes sense to get out of our cars, trucks, and vans and take the train or take transit. Transit ridership is up again this fiscal year more dramatically than it has been in some time.

Americans are beginning to literally buy homes in places that are closer to opportunities for transit--for rail, for bus, for subways, for the metro systems. As we have seen the drop in home prices across the country--in some cases, very dramatic--among the surprises, at least for me, is to see housing prices stable and in some cases actually going up in places where people can buy a home and live and get to work or wherever they need to go to shop without driving to get there.

I don't know how gullible we think the American voters are to suggest to them that we are going to have this holiday on gas taxes, Federal gas taxes, for 3 months or for 6 months, maybe to get us through the next election, and then when the elections are over we will go ahead and reinstate the gasoline tax to what it has been even though in doing that we might be depleting further the money available for transportation improvements. I don't know how foolish we think the American voters are. They are a lot smarter than that. They are a lot smarter, maybe, than we give them credit for being.

I think in this country people are crying out for leadership. They are calling out for Presidential leadership, whether it is from our side of the aisle or the Republican side. People want leaders who are willing to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune, and I would suggest that the wrong tune is to suspend the Federal gasoline tax and at the same time not replace the dollars that would otherwise go into the transportation trust fund to fix our dilapidated, our decaying transportation system. Voters in this country deserve better leadership from us. I am determined, I am committed to making sure we provide and pay for that.

Before I close, there are a lot of good ideas for things we ought to do. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, that we ought to provide more R&D investment for a new generation of lithium batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles. I say, tongue in cheek, we ought to use the Government purchasing power to commercialize advanced technology vehicles. We are doing that. I said with tongue in cheek we ought to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy highly efficient hybrid vehicles and very low diesel-powered vehicles that are efficient. We are doing that.

There other things we need to do too. We need to invest in rail service. We can send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. I will say that again. We could send from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA, a ton of freight by rail on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. But we as a government choose not to invest in freight rail and, frankly, to invest very modestly in passenger rail. It is a highly energy-efficient way to move people and goods.

(Emphasis mine)

And just to prove that politicians can do more than pander on energy policy, he closed by saying:

I will have a chance to come back later in the week and talk about this some more. Sometimes we underestimate the wisdom of the voters. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said: If you tell the American people the truth, they won't make a mistake. I will do my dead level best to make sure, during the course of the debate on this notion of waiving the gasoline tax or having a holiday on the gasoline tax until after the election, I am going to make sure, I hope with a number of my colleagues, the American people understand the truth and the full picture and that they will make the right decision. Hopefully, we will too.

(Emphasis mine)

This is the kind of leadership we should get from our elected officials. I wish I could call Mr. Carper my Senator.

Thanks to JW for the heads up on this speech.

Doors Opening, Candidates Please Step On

Earlier this week, I reported that Mr. McCain was calling for a suspension of the gas tax this summer. I also remarked on Senator Clinton's potential support for that policy. She has now followed through, and has also made calls for the suspension of the gas tax.

Many are saying that this will cost America $1 billion that would otherwise go to fix our decaying transportation system. It is likely that gas prices will not be significantly reduced, and this tax break will, in all likelihood, end up benefiting the oil companies.



I am glad to hear that at least one of the candidates is refusing to pander to voters on this most-important issue. Senator Barack Obama, Democratic front-runner, is calling a spade a spade. While I don't necessarily agree that pandering is the natural state of Washington, I can certainly understand where he's coming from, especially with regard to the blatant disregard for good policy that is coming from the Clinton and McCain camps.

Still, Mr. Obama's message leaves a little to be desired. He recently reiterated his support for Amtrak and for building a better high-speed rail network in this country, but he has not yet asked Americans to change modes, nor has he promised to significantly change the way we build transit in America.

In all of President Bush's States of the Union, he called for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Not once did he ask Americans to try the bus. Not once did he promise a spending package that would start a wave of new transit construction across the nation. Instead, he called for new fuels (to be delivered sometime in the future) and a switch to biofuels (also to be delivered sometime in the future).

Asking Americans to switch to transit would produce an immediate reduction in oil usage, especially if it was coupled with subsidies to reduce fares and the construction of new lines.

I encourage Senator Obama to continue his fight to reduce America's dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise). I also encourage him to think strongly about a real transit policy. No developed country in the world has so many big cities and so few subways.

With oil supplies being used at an ever-increasing rate, now is the time to change our transportation policy. The next president will preside over the reauthorization (or lack thereof) of the next transportation spending bill. As yet, none of the candidates has satisfied me with a decent transportation/energy plank. It's time for that to change.

The question is, is it a Change Mr. Obama can believe in?

Hoping for Divine Intervention

When the Founding Fathers laid out this now-great nation, I doubt they had any idea what it would have become. Still, they exercised amazing foresight in designing our system of governance. Benjamin Franklin tells us that "God helps those who help themselves." This advice flies in the face of recent calls for The Divine Presence to intervene in America's energy crisis by lowering gasoline prices.

While I can certainly understand the desire for assistance that comes with these tough times, it strikes me as inappropriate to have a pray-in at a gas station. How selfish can we be when it comes to our economy? While my religious views are complicated, at best, my upbringing was Christian, and I can not imagine something as offensive as asking God to intervene on my behalf at the expense of others.

What do these prayers sound like? Perhaps, if we were honest with ourselves, they would sound something like this:

Almighty God, for You all things are possible. Please intervene economically in Your divine and limitless wisdom to lower oil prices so that we, Your children, will be able to continue in our life of abundance and environmental degradation. It was you, oh Lord, who taught us that we were to have dominion over all the Earth. Oh Lord, please grant us the low gas prices which will enable us to continue to be bad stewards of your Creation. Lord, let it be Your will that we be able to get gas for less than $1.50. Without cheap foreign oil, we may be unable continue be wasteful of the resources entrusted to us, and use oil which might otherwise go to your less fortunate children. God, it was Your divine providence that enabled us to obtain the cheap oil requisite to trace our Manifest Destiny and spread forth vinyl siding and stucco over the woodlands of North America. For without Your bountiful gifts of cheap oil and cheaper land, we would have not been free to escape the forsaken urban environment. Oh Lord, through Your generous gifts, we the unworthy, were able to abandon our brethren minorities to a life of poverty and crime. And oh Lord, in Your infinite wisdom, You set us forth and provided us Hummers when our gas mileage was high, You widened our freeways when they were congested, and You set forth Divine zoning regulation to prohibit our relapse into an efficient urban society. We beseech You, oh God, to enable us, your humble servants, to continue in our American lifestyle. It is not in our nature, oh Lord, to sacrifice and take the unholy bus or the blasphemous subway. Oh Lord, please do not allow us to sink into the sacrilege of a shorter commute and deliver us from the temptation to purchase the pagan, fuel-efficient Prius. Let Your Will be done on Earth as it is in the Pearly-Gated Community in Heaven. Amen.

We do not absolve ourselves of guilt by praying in such a manner. Nor do we remove the urgency of action by petitioning God. Benjamin Franklin would have been ashamed to hear of people who pray for God to intervene in their unsustainable lifestyle without making changes to help themselves.

The fact of the matter is, that whether fossil fuels were put here by God or whether they are purely the product of natural processes, they are finite. We have chosen to use them in a manner which will exhaust them before the end of the century if we continue to use them as we do today.
If you believe that God intervenes in the world, perhaps these gas prices are His way of encouraging us to be better caretakers. Imagine what it must look like to the Creator. He gave us a pristine planet, a bountiful garden; and while He watches from the sideline, we are using all of the resources up, polluting the air and water, and continuing to live in a manner which creates massive economic and social inequity across the globe. (If you don't believe in a corporeal God, just imagine yourself as the observer.)

Prayer is a call for action. The actual etymology of the word "Amen" means 'so be it.' It means asking God for guidance before setting out on a task. It does not mean asking God to do it for you. I think Ralph Waldo Emerson hits the nail on the head when he says that

Prayer that craves a particular commodity, anything less than all good, is vicious. Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view. It is the soliloquy of a beholding and jubilant soul. But prayer as a means to effect a private end is meaningless and theft. It supposes dualism and not unity in nature and consciousness. As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He will see in prayer all action.

As humans, we have an obligation to take care of this one Earth. This responsibility comes not from a deity, but from the fact that we all share a small, small world, after all. Or, to quote Martin Luther King, Jr., "We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." The people of this planet will sink or swim together, and right now, the West is in the best position to lead mankind into a sustainable future.

So, with these thoughts in mind, perhaps we should have pray-ins at gas stations. Perhaps we should say something like this:

Almighty God, to You the future is as plain as words on a page. Grant us the wisdom and strength to make the requisite changes in our lifestyles in order to glorify your Creation. It was not our intent to lay waste to Your garden, nor was it our intent to separate ourselves from Your less-fortunate children in our pursuit of happiness. Yet our addiction to cheap energy has had that affect. We now know that we cannot continue to live the same way we have been living, but the changes will not be easy. We ask for the courage to make sacrifices as your Son did for us. It was selfish of us to presume that our affluence was an excuse to escape from the byproducts of our industrialized society, of which this energy crisis is one. We ask you to provide for us a more selfless path so that we may be able to achieve a true Jubilee, a time when all your sons and daughters will break bread together in Your verdant garden. Amen

*Note: This prayer is meant to be non-denominational. I certainly do not presume to place one religion above another. There are many paths to God, including some that are not signed as such. If any religion/philosophy is glorified more than others in this post, it is Humanism, but without humanism (note, little 'h'), religion is meaningless. Breaking bread, in this instance, refers not to Holy Communion but rather to an international peace, when all may live together. The reference to the Jubilee is Biblical, but it represents, in this case, the equality of all people, as prefaced in America's Declaration of Independence.