A few other reasons it won't happen are that the lobbys, politicians, bankers, & multinational corporation boards involved in any manner however indirect will ensure it won't happen until they have unloaded their shares onto an unsuspecting public & transferred their fiscal interests first; and also the sad fact that most US (& probably Canadian as well) communities are just NOT geared to a non-automotive lifestyle; they were designed & built that way by developers, & are still for the most part following that same outmoded 1950s suburban design. To get groceries, go to school, go to work, etc. all require individuals have cars. Further, enough people are spread out such that public transit is not an option. I would take public transit, but there is no service between the community I live in and the community I work in, except a rail line which has its stations several miles on both ends of the trip from where I would have to get on & get off - meaning I'd have to have a car anyway, just to get to & from the stations.

I used to live directly on a bus route that took me from where I lived to my job only 4 miles away. Time to transit 4 miles by bus: 50+ minutes. No one in their right mind is going to want to spend that kind of time commuting, when a car can get them there in 10 minutes or less.

I agree something needs to be done, but I suspect it lies more in forcing the energy & auto-manufacturing companies to switch over to non-fossil-fuel technology - which already exists, BTW, & patents of which are ALL already held by these same corporations. Considering the screaming, weeping & predictions of dire results & threats of destruction of the American lifestyle by these same companies when they were required to do something very minor as far as making changes in the past to improve safety or efficiency in their products, plus the fact that this US administration is a whore for any multinational operation or the best interests of the very wealthy over the general public, I'm not holding my breath.

I know a few environmental scientists and researchers and most of them want Alaska to be drilled. That part of Alaska, although greatly pristine, is mostly a frozen tundra, which has nothing on it. Our technology has advanced to the point where drilling wouldn't be the main problem (for spills or wildlife effects), but the transportation of it, which has always been the problem everywhere. That needs more change and improvement than anything else. Make some use of the land. Why not?

I don't think your solution would ever work. Americans love their cars and hate using public transportation.

The big question is, will technology give us renewable fuel resources in time to make a switch from oil to other fuels before the oil runs out? If there is a time lag, or if such technology doesn't pan out at all in the forseeable future, something like the future you envision must come true.

Sure, Americans love their cars, but when we can't afford to drive them any more, we'll just have to make other arrangements, won't we? Perhaps it's more likely the general public will be priced out of personal auto use than forbidden by law, but the effect will be similar.

Something's gotta give, I agree; but I can guarantee it won't happen til the corporations & pols figure out how to milk it for every nanocent.

Tan. The thing I'm most concerned about would be accidental spillage and the noise involved with physical aspects of the drilling. The land we are talking about has been migratory territory for herds of caribou who have had their numbers already drastically recuced through habitat loss etc.

There has been no impact study done on how this affect their migratory patterns, and then their birthrates. These herds are still a primary source of livlihood for Inuit of Canada, so I would be concerned with the impact on their lives as well.

I know it's pretty much wishful thinking. Even in Europe where the culture of the car is not as ingrained as it is in North America, resitance to surrendoring cars is high.

Some cities like Athens have banned cars in their downtown cores for the preservation of antiqueties, but most of them have invested far more in public transport then we have.

Governments need to step up to the plate with serious investiments in pulbic transit investment for this sort of scenerio to work. It really is wishful thinking.

I think I read a study once where they found that there were higher birthrates for an animal who lived near an oil pipeline than one herd that didn't. Gosh, I hope I can find that link again.

Let's remember that spillage occurs mostly from the transportation of oil. And also, let's remember the statistic that the road oil run-off from cars total in one year is greater than that of the Exxon Valdez spill. Everyday use of oil is more harmful than the rare spills that occur.

We can afford to have cars, it's a question of whether we want to keep paying high prices. I remember 4 years ago when gas in Berkeley, CA was less than a dollar. Well, adjusted for inflation, I think that would equal or be greater than what we pay now ($2.60?).

I personally am rooting for fusion to alleviate our energy needs.

Fusion is the future, but there's no fusion now. Right now the best available energy source is solar.

Intelligently constructed arrays of solar collectors at strategic locations on the Earth's surface could easily replace all other forms of electrical generation, supplying the needs of entire continental power grids.

Of course it's a bit trickier to power a car with solar energy, but that technological hurdle is probably easier to overcome in the short term than building viable nuclear fusion power sources.

Solar? Wow, that's optimism at its best. The efficiency in solar panels is too low for it to be viable. There is too much pollution in the air and the panels (although plastic panels and spray-on panels are intriguing) don't process fast enough for it to work to our needs. Hydrogen seems more practical, but the energy needed to produce the hydrogen mostly comes from our coal burning plants - talk about irony.

It's fact, Tan, not optimism. Solar cells are more than efficient enough for power grid generation, if we build large arrays in desert areas with reliable sunlight. The power generated by such facilities would cover the construction costs in short order.

As I already acknowledged, the very small surface area on a vehicle prevents solar cells from being a good power source for them. However, there is absolutely no reason for that to stop us from feeding solar power into our electrical grids.

Once solar facilities are in place, we can use the electricity they generate to produce hydrogen, which may turn out to be a viable fuel source for vehicles.

Maybe I should be clear... what I meant to say was solar wasn't efficient enough for our needs. If we wanted to replace coal with solar, it wouldn't be enough. There isn't enough room on the earth to put all of those solar panels needed. I might need to research the efficiency rate of solar panels but I think it's around 20%?

We don't need anywhere near the whole planet's surface area to meet our current energy needs with solar power. We could meet the whole world's energy demand right now with one solar panel array in the form of a circle with a radisu of about 85 miles. A small corner of the Arizona desert would do nicely for that.

Of course we wouldn't want to rely on just one location, since even the deepest deserts get cloud cover occasionally, and of course there's also the small problem of the night-time.

That's why I said we'd need an intelligently designed network of arrays distributed across the planet. But it wouldn't take away huge chunks of the planet's surface. Only some small chunks of desert land that currently have no other use.

Typo there: that was a radius of 85 miles. And that is at 20% efficiency, well within the ability of current solar cell technology. If we can build cells with better efficiency, we'd need even less area to meet all our needs with solar power.

Tan and Victor:
When I started blogging it was with the hope that what I wrote would be the basis for discussion between people of differing view points.

It heartens me greatly to see two people have a reasonable, intellagent debate about an issue. If more people could be like you we would as a species acommplish a whole lot more.

Thanks guys.

gypsyman