Subject:     BIKE:  Will cars prevail?; Exxon Protest
Date:        7/6/01 1:04 PM
Received:    7/6/01 1:12 PM
From:        Roger Baker

Here is something I posted on another list about the dismal future of roads
that may be interesting. 

I'm convinced that in the long run the rails will prevail just as surely
as I'm convinced car-addictive suburbs will depopulate in favor of
higher density redevelopment. Keep only a few roads built out of
concrete to last instead of asphalt and let rails do the rest once world
oil peaks. Rails already serve all the largest cities and capacity could
be greatly expanded in most cases by double-tracking existing lines
within current ROW.

And why not jump at a local opportunity for democracy by boycotting
about the biggest and baddest oil company there is as thanks for getting
and keeping us addicted -- and now cynically trying to keep us in a
state of denial about even the existence and cause of global warming.
Much like the tobacco companies and cigarettes. -- Roger

      **************************************************


Roads themselves are a weak link within any notion that any new car
technology could allow life to go on approximately as usual. 

As students of Washington politics can confirm, the scarcity of state
and federal funds for the new highways needed to serve the oil-guzzling,
low density suburban sprawl surrounding nearly all US cities has turned
roads into a notorious US Congressional pork barrel -- until recently
under the notorious recent US House transportation committee chair Bud
Shuster of Penn. (The Austin Chamber of Commerce just sent a large
delegation of 40 up to Washington to beg for road money for a new
commuter tollroad/highway called SH 130 designed to serve future sprawl
north of Austin).

Even today (when you can still buy gasoline at what seems to me the
ridiculously cheap price of less than $1.40 a gallon in Austin, Texas)
the Texas Transportation Dept. can only build about a third of the state
roads it "needs" to keep up with current trends. Quite naturally, the
road bureaucracy is neglecting long term maintenance costs in an attempt
to keep the politicians happy by building new roads as fast as possible,
with borrowed money even. In the USA, we commonly build roads to last
only half as long as in Europe (20 versus 40 years design life, and with
no warranty).

These unsustainable trends that don't make sense even while gas is cheap
are bound to come to a crashing halt once the cost of building
maintaining all this idiotically inefficient and destructive
infrastructure becomes more apparent. Right now our political
bureaucracy is on institutional autopilot because the road lobby, which
is largely a corrupt publicly funded subsidy for real estate investment
interests, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Texas politics since
the decline of oil and won't give up without a fight. 

They'll ride this horse until it drops dead as proven by the fact that
current roadway trends are maxed out without triggering a deep sense of
alarm or tendency to shift policy among the road lobbyists. I can't
imagine things are that much different in other states with no strong
federal-level signals to the contrary. One local FHWA (highway fed) guy
I talked to told me there is no meaningful policy coming down out of
Washington right now so they are sort of  drifting.

So who is going to pave the roads for high tech cars, no matter how
efficient, once gas is and asphalt is much more expensive, and why
should anyone bother to try when the possibility of using more efficient
existing and expanded rail for truly important travel exists? 

              ******************************************


[NOTE: the protest is at 7th and I-35, NOT Oltorf and I-35.]
 
ExxonMobil International Day of Action

ExxonMobil:  Polluting Locally & Warming Globally
 
         ExxonMobil...

-Is the biggest HINDRANCE to stopping Global Warming
-Is active in lobbying AGAINST USA action on Global Warming
-Has not made a serious investment in Renewable Energy
-Is a major proponent of DRILLING in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
-Has a DISMAL Human Rights & Environmental Record

       But it doesn't end there,
       In Austin ExxonMobil is...

-The LEADING PARTNER in the Longhorn Pipeline project
-A major POLLUTER in East Austin at the East Austin Tank Farm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - -
join us for a SIGN MAKING PARTY, to make signs for the upcoming PROTEST

on Tuesday, July 10th @ 6:00 PM (pizza and beverages provided)
SEED/TCE office @ 611 South Congress, Suite 200 (1/2 a block south of 
riverside)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - -
join us in Austin for a PROTEST against the worlds largest company

on Wednesday, July 11th @ 12 Noon
Exxon Gas Station @ East 7th St. & Northbound IH-35 Access Road

endorsed locally by:

Campaign ExxonMobil - Clean Water Action - PODER - US PIRG - PIPE 
Coalition - SEED Coalition
Sierra Club - Texas Campaign for the Environment - Democracy 
Coalition of Austin
Clean Campaigns of Austin - International Socialist Organization - 
Austin Coalition to End the War Against Iraq

for more information call Alex @ 512 479 0335


             *******************************************


 
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,508444,00.html

       
ExxonMobil fights back 

The world's biggest oil firm is unleasing a PR offensive to win the
environmental war of words Special report: global warming 

Terry Macalister
Monday June 18, 2001
The Guardian 

ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil group, is planning a public relations
offensive to win back consumers and investors, confidential documents
suggest - amid fears the company is losing the war of words over climate
change which has triggered a petrol boycott. 

The public relations drive comes as the Stop Esso Campaign has widened its
action against the oil major, drawing in Germany, Norway, and New Zealand
as well as Britain, where it started. 

A briefing paper drawn up for Exxon in Britain by Insight Research and
passed on to the Guardian calls for an opinion survey to try to gauge the
depth of anger against the company. 

The oil group hopes to win back public support by asking survey
respondents to be aware "the slight warming that has occurred in the
last 50 years is likely the result of natural climate variations rather
than energy use." 

It also hopes to convince them "the (Kyoto) treaty would have little
effect on global warming because it excludes many countries which are
among thebiggest emitters of greenhouse gases." 

Arguments against those of the environmentalists have been posted on Esso
UK's and ExxonMobil's corporate website. Similar information in hard copy
has been mailed to financiers in investment areas, such as Frankfurt. 

Stop Esso campaign managers say the Insight survey suggests the company is
panicking about the effect of the boycott which has seen support from
celebrities such as Bianca Jagger and 350,000 hits on its website. 

Cindy Baxter, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said: "The questions in the
survey are loaded to give Exxon the replies they want. I think its a poll
designed to be published and they will then claim the public is unaware of
the campaign against it or that there is little support for Kyoto." 

Last night the company admitted it was worried about the forecourt action
but would not comment on whether it was having any marked effect on petrol
sales. A spokesman for Esso UK said: "We are concerned about the boycott
and are trying to make our position clearer. The main thing for us is to
put overthe facts." 

He would not comment on whether the arguments over global warming and
fossil fuels were being won or lost, but confirmed that public opinion
surveys were being used. "We undertake market surveys from time to time
and always include topical issues," he said. 

Exxon, which trades in Britain as Esso, has been targeted by green
activists because it is seen as the biggest corporate opponent of the
Kyoto treaty onclimate change. 

Anger has intensified over the last few days a US president George Bush
reiterated his determination not to support Kyoto. 

Exxon is considered a big influence on Mr Bush because, environmentalists
say, it bankrolled the Bush presidential race to the White House, though
Exxon denies this. 

Other oil majors, such as BP and Shell, have tried to avoid confrontation
over their continued commitment to fossil fuels by also investing in
renewable energy sources. The European companies support Kyoto and have
made public commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions. 

Exxon's position on global warming will gain some support today when
Professor Philip Stott of London University argues at a meeting
organised bythe Institute of Economic Affairs that Kyoto is
scientifically unjustified and politically unfeasible.

---------------------------------------------------
CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE!  http://BicycleAustin.info