addicted to oil

president bush claimed in his state of the union speech monday night that the united states is 'addicted to oil.' wow! i never thought i would hear him say that because i see him as a pro-oil president who for family and business reasons is a friend to the oil industry. i don't, as some people do, read the whole invasion of iraq as a consequence of our desire to secure its oil reserves for our use. but i didn't see him as so strongly stating this obvious blind spot we have in the united states regarding the fantasy that we can have cheap oil at no consequence either in geopolitical or environmental terms. in the speech president bush announced the 'advanced energy initiative' that will increase research spending focused on two major areas: how we power our homes and offices, and how we power our automobiles. on the former, he highlighted zero-emission coal plants and alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and (in my opinion an oxymoronic phrase) 'clean safe nuclear energy.' on the latter, he pushed both for better hybrid and full electric, as well as hydrogen powered cars as well as better means of producing ethanol.

this at the same time that various climate change stories are circulating in part because of british prime minister tony blair's introduction to a newly published book titled *avoiding dangerous climate change*. in the forward , he writes: "Climate change is the world’s greatest environmental challenge. It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable. That is why I set climate change as one of the top priorities for the UK’s Presidency of the G8 and the European Union in 2005. Early in the year, to enhance understanding and appreciation of the science of climate change, we hosted an international meeting at the Hadley Centre in Exeter to address the big questions on which we need to pool the best available answers: 'What level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much?' And 'What options do we have to avoid such levels?' It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought. At the same time it showed there is much that can be done to avoid the worse effects of climate change."

frankly, while blair seems to be facing reality on climate change and is willing to commit the uk to internationally agreed means to achieve change, bush (and americans) seem generally slower to accept reality and even slower to commit to international goals, usually claiming that it will be bad for economic growth. let me tell you, if the greenland ice sheet melts or if the global ocean circulation system collapses it will be bad for economic growth as well.

i have in the past blogged about biking as a question of how i think about discipleship in relation to the stewardship of creation. i would push the question ron sider and others have raised, that is, what would jesus drive, and say the question is, would jesus drive? well, of course it is not that easy, but the point is, as president bush puts it, our culture (and increasingly others, too) are simply impossible to imagine without oil-driven (literally) means of production, transportation, and livelihood. but i feel called and i think christians ought to feel called--out of gratitude and joy, and not moral duty--to find ways to honor god's creation by limiting our impact. i do this in part by trying to have a life in which i can often walk or ride bikes with our kids to their neighborhood school and commute 15 minutes to work. we chose where to live partly on this basis. i don't think many others do this, however, even in new haven where one might expect more bike commuters. this was confirmed for me a couple weeks ago when our bikes were stolen out of our garage and i was faced with shopping for a new bike for the first time in a decade. when i bought my trusted gt i didn't know about commuter bikes (bikes that, like those in europe, are made to ride daily).

but with a bit of internet searching i quickly learned about breezer bikes which are exactly that. they are made with 'transportation features' like a fully integrated light system, kick stand, fixed fenders with mud guards, an oversized carrier on the rear, and the like. I thought 'great'. but no one carries them because they don't sell! who commutes to work?" one dealer asked me. i finally found one that was a year-old model that was on sale for 30% off, a good thing for me but the reason did not make me happy. here it is, in its full glory, and despite what vice president cheney said in an energy policy speech, may personal virtue become an inspiration for social policy. how about a commuter bike tax break? how about real street reform to add bike lanes? lots more could be said here but I'll step off my soap box.

anon, and peace

Comments

[Bryan]

I have my eye set on a Liberty, too. It's great that a company in the US is focused on just making great commuter bikes. Hopefully in the next couple months I'll be riding one. :-)

[mahrt]

I have a liberty, following inspiration from a neighbor who has one as well. Great for rides in all weather, where I ride year around in S.E. wisconsin. Fantastic bike for both commuting as well as weekend and afterwork exercise.
Do what we can to support a great company.

[Andi]

I've had my Liberty over a year now and the only thing I've needed to replace on it are brake pads tires and a LOT of tubes. (The blackberry thorns here are worse than broken glass!)The biggest difference between it and every other bike I've ever had is how easy it is to work with - especially changing a tire.It's worth every penny :D