For every extra dollar taken from drivers' pockets at the pump in the form of higher prices in recent years, low-cost exporters from China and elsewhere have put roughly $1.50 back in the form of cheaper retail goods. Even at today's near-record prices, U.S. households today spend less than 4% of their disposable income at the pump, vs. over 6% in 1980.

Like the coupon for 20% off on your next purchase, the Wal-Mart Effect doesn’t actually put money back in our pockets.  It relies on the reality that we are manic consumers with holes burned in all of our pockets.  Sadly, our consumption-fueled indifference may even buffer us against $100 a barrel oil.  Imagine how well insulated we would be if we reexamined our need to consume cheap imported “necessities.”  We could even coin a name for this revolutionary theory.  How about the “I Already Have Plenty Effect?”

The fact is that most of us aren't going to forgo travel. If you're reading this issue, you, like us, probably count travel just behind food and water as a life necessity. And so we find ourselves in the familiar realm of compromise, in which we make realistic choices, paying slightly more for a hybrid rental car, for example, in an attempt to assuage our guilt at having single-handedly contributed one ton of carbon dioxide in the course of our cross-country flight. Or we give in to temptation and book a slightly extravagant room equipped with 400-thread-count sheets, comforted by the knowledge that the hotel uses only environmentally sound cleaning products and washes everything in cool water, rather than energy-guzzling hot.

I feel much better about the future of the planet after reading this contorted rationalization.  After granting absolution to all of its readers, the Tribune proceeds to highlight a few supposedly eco-friendly trips, including this trip to rural Maine where the author spends as much time in the car as outside.  According to fawning travel writers, who are blindly allowed to contradict the environmental conscientiousness of the editors that employ them, as long as you consume plenty of high end organic food, all of the carbon emitted during your trip is excused.

Implicit in the arguments for high density, transit-oriented development (TOD) is the assumption that a noticeable percentage of people who move to these neighborhoods will either forgo a car entirely or keep it parked in a garage or on the street for long periods at a time.  Dense, mixed use developments close to transit are supposed to allow for hassle free carless living – all essential destinations can be accessed either by foot, bike or public transit.  When properly designed, these developments should also actively discourage car ownership through limited parking space and narrow, pedestrian friendly streets.  The reality is that these developments aren’t outlawing car ownership, but relying on the logic and good intentions of the people who live there.  Even if you are a supporter of TOD, it is fair to wonder how many residents of such neighborhoods will actually live the dream.  This debate is occurring in Los Angeles, where the city has explicitly promoted residential development in the downtown core, near multiple subway lines and an array of bus routes.  Some critics claim that, rather than decrease traffic, the addition of thousands of new housing units downtown heightens already crippling congestion.   Counter to the naïve assumptions of planners, the argument goes, each of these new residents will bring along at least one car, and, instead of living in a smart growth utopia, downtown residents will find themselves strangled by congestion worse than what afflicts people in the suburbs.

A major component of the Democrats’ energy legislation and the Democrats’ answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle…

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don’t like it, ride a bike. If you don’t like the price at the pumps, ride a bike.

McHenry’s statement has received much-deserved ridicule by the alternative transportation crowd, but I believe his views are shared by more than a fringe minority.  The average American has nothing against the bicycle, but still doesn’t view it as a serious alternative to the car.  The lack of credibility or respect given to the bike as a transportation option has as much to do with our deluded view of the car as with our dismissive opinion of the bike.  Compared with the luxurious accoutrements of the car, the bike is nothing but a toy. 

…245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?