By Hugh Parkhurst
I spent almost two months without a car earlier this summer, getting around by bike, the Long Island Rail Road and rides from friends. During this time, I put around 300 miles on an old Schwinn 3-speed bicycle, gathering local census information and doing grocery shopping and other activities. I’d like to share some of my thoughts on this experience.

300 Miles on a 3 Speed Schwinn

In early spring I began working for the Census Bureau as an enumerator, going door to door to obtain information necessary to complete a comprehensive picture of America’s population. A week into the fieldwork, my car began to operate erratically. Fortunately the census work was local. Out came my trusty old 3-speed Schwinn. I adapted quickly to going door to door with the bike and in many respects, the bike proved more convenient than the car. For example, the bike took me closer to mail boxes and I was able to go by more slowly, without holding up traffic, while I looked for addresses. In addition, I also was able to park quickly and exactly where I needed to be. The weather cooperated and I completed the remaining six weeks of census work on the bike.

Buying groceries was another important task. I had a set of panniers—bags, like saddlebags, which fit on either side of a carrier rack on the rear of the bike. Using them and a small knapsack, I was able to carry a week’s necessities from my favorite grocery store, a round trip of approximately 13 miles. I could have shopped closer, but I came to enjoy the trip. Frozen vegetables doubled as “ice” to help keep meat cool. Fruits and vegetables were strongly preferred over snack food. The snack foods contained empty calories and simply took up too much valuable space. During this period, I lost over 10 pounds, which I attribute to the increase in exercise and a healthier diet.

The bike was also used for 9 mile round trips to my allergist, running to pick up parts for the car and even a couple of scouting trips for a newer car, with most of the distance covered by the LIRR. I live in Greenlawn on the North Shore just east of Huntington and traveled as far southwest as Merrick (23 miles each way) and as far southeast as North Bellport (27 miles each way).

What happened to the car? Eventually it was fixed, without any apparent long-term damage to the engine, so the hunt for a newer car was called off.

During the time I was without the car. I saved 8 weeks worth of gas and avoided leaving a carbon footprint of over 200 pounds of CO2. It also felt good that I had reduced my petroleum consumption during the BP oil spill. I was also pleased and grateful that friends shared rides.

Riding a Bike

To me, the three most important rules for riding a bike are:
1. Know the roads on which you will be traveling and do not ride anywhere you don’t feel comfortable. For a beginner, start by considering where you can ride your bike as you walk or drive around the neighborhood.
2. Always wear a helmet.
3. Observe all motor vehicle laws, especially the requirement to drive WITH the traffic.

Lots of other good tips are available at http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/.

If you use the bike to run errands, so much the better. For a run to the local drugstore, supermarket or library, a simple knapsack can easily accommodate prescriptions, numerous books, a few odds and ends, several grocery items or even a half-gallon of milk or OJ.

For more experienced riders, a reasonable pace is 10 to 14 miles per hour, depending on the type of bike, trip distance and strength and endurance. 10 miles round trip is a reasonable distance and generally adds 10-30 minutes travel time. Scout the route first, looking for the side streets you can take and shoulders you can use on those main roads you can’t avoid. Google Maps provides a tool for planning bike routes. Another handy feature of Google Maps is that it gives both instructions and distance to the destination.

Read the article on the proposal:

More Points of View on LIPA’s New South Shore Wind “Farm” Proposal

Beverly Visconti
I knew it as soon as I heard the new plan was to locate the turbines 13-17 miles south of Long Island. A hard bottom on the ocean floor is needed on which to build the structures. 13-17 miles south of Long Island is exactly where Cholera Banks is located, exactly where ASIG had planned to build the now-defunct Safe Harbor LNG Island.

Cholera Banks is the only rugged, rock hard-bottom surface area in this region of the ocean, which is mostly made up of sand and silt. And that’s why marine life has developed there so profusely.

And now, of course, the LI Commercial Fishing Association is starting its fight, as it should. We can’t agree to sacrifice the vast marine life that thrives in that area or the fishermen whose livelihoods depend on Cholera Banks, just like the Louisiana fishermen depend on the Gulf.

Wind turbines are a wonderful idea, in keeping with our need to invest in green energy sources. As much as I hate to say this, perhaps 3 miles south of Jones Beach would be the better choice. Preserving the view does not stand up as a good enough reason to oppose the plan as preserving sea life.

Phil Heckler
Yes We Can! Long Island did not support the LNG Island for several reasons, one of which was the impact on Long Island’s fishing grounds. However I do not think that individual windmills with small footprints can be compared to the Impact of the 60 acre LNG island. In fact windmills in other countries have been found to attract abundant sea life.
In addition the LNG Island offered no benefits to Long Island or the environment. That is not the case for windmills. They are a necessary step to stop climate change and help provide energy independence and green jobs. Thus I do not think we should take a knee jerk opposition this windmill project.

Neil Yeoman
For a variety of reasons, which we all know all too well, LIPA must be supported in its effort to substitute wind for fossil fuels as a source of energy for Long Island. Yes We Can! Long Island and every other responsible organization and individual, must support whatever makes the best long term technological and economic sense.
The public needs to be educated about the realities of the world; they must understand that there will never be perfect solutions to any of the world’s problems; and they must permit, indeed, encourage those responsible for Long Island’s energy future to do their imperfect best for the people they serve.
The current project is a response to the needs of the community and the successful opposition to the closer in project mounted by people who claim to have been environmentalists but were anything but.
Stopping that first wind project was an environmental tragedy, a virtual crime perpetrated against the people of Long Island and the people of the world. LIPA must do what is best, and we all must support them. That may be an expanded version of the closer in project or some combination of the two projects. We must no longer allow people and groups who are insensitive to reality and accountable to nobody to continue to interfere with what needs to be done in the best interests of the community.

More opinions from Yes We Can! Long Island activists will be posted as they are submitted.

This entry comes by popular request. A lot of people have been asking what they can do to use less oil, and reduce demand for the sticky stuff ruining beaches everywhere. Here’s my top ten, feel free to add to it in comments:

1. Carpool, cycle or use public transport to go to work.

2. Choose, when possible, products packaged without plastic and recycle or re-use containers.

3. Buy organic fruits and vegetables (fertilisers and pesticides are based on oil more often than not).

4. Buy beauty products (shampoo, soap, make-up) based on natural ingredients, not oil.

5. Choose when possible locally produced products (less transport involved).

6. Buy clothes made out of organic cotton or hemp – not from oil derivatives.

7. Use non-disposable items in picnics and summer festivals.

8. Quit bottled water.

9. Fly less.

10. Demand that your government encourage renewable energy instead of subsidizing oil.

Richard Kessel, president and chief executive officer of the New York Power Authority, said the turbines, up to 400 feet high, would be so far off the coast they would be all but impossible to see from land with the naked eye. A 40-turbine project proposed off Jones Beach tanked in 2007 after opposition arose, but those proposed turbines would have been 3 1/2 to 5 miles off the coast. – Newsday

The true cost of the project is yet to be disclosed and will certainly be scrutinized as much or more than the last proposal.

Clean renewable energy reduces our dependence on foreign oil which reduces cost associated in foreign policy and war fighting. Many American and foreign lives are saved by reducing armed conflict associated with energy policy that is incompatible with other nations policies. Let’s face it, we would not be at odds with Middle Eastern cultures if we did not need their oil so desperately.

Whether or not you believe global warming is a threat, this technology is better for the environment. You don’t have to be a meteorologist to understand that the fewer pollutants we put into the atmosphere the better of as humans we are and the better off the planet is without large quantities of these contaminants. It should be noted that these contaminants which only exist in these quantities because of human production.

The last Long Island coastal wind farm project I remember had its problems with proving a worthwhile return on investment. Without being sure what comprised of the cost and funding I would be willing to bet that we have never factored in the true cost of not building renewable energy sooner and in a more ample supply. While it is not advisable to build at any cost I think that even if this project is in the red it should be built with federal aid. Federal aid could be justified because it is an investment in reducing the cost of foreign policy and war fighting as well as saving American lives lost in foreign conflicts.

This project is a clean energy project that represents the newest in emerging technologies which can be deployed in large expansive areas and produce large amounts of energy. Although wind production can produce large amounts of energy it cannot be our soul source for the obvious reasons one of which is when the wind stops blowing the turbines stop producing.

We are at the early stages of developing a comprehensive renewable energy policy using technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and others. A good renewable energy policy will have to strike a balance between the variable applications and true cost of each technology. Only when we can achieve this balance will we re-emerge as a new world energy leader in control of our own foreign policy and environment.

A judge has lifted the moratorium on Gulf oil drilling, but few realize that the moratorium affected fewer than 1% of Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Here’s a look at that, and 14 other BP oil spill myths.

2. Boycotting BP Gas Stations Boycotts BP

Myth. Lady Gaga is among the leading proponents of a BP boycott, as musicians on summer tours shun the stations, along with Public Citizen and tens of thousands of Facebook fans of a boycott. But while the brand may be offensive and permanently tainted, BP disinvested in its U.S. gasoline chain in 2007, leaving independent owners invested most heavily in local stations. They pay BP a licensing fee and may (or may not) be more likely to carry BP gasoline, but the economics of wholesale oil and gas is such that BP, Britain’s largest company, is unlikely to suffer much from a retail gas boycott, but BP the local station owner could. Anyway, what’s the better alternative? And unfortunately, oil ends up in a lot of products other than gasoline, under a lot of different brands, making it difficult to avoid one company’s product.

Read the full list here: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bp-gulf-oil-spill-myths-0622#ixzz0sL7tkJhx

Music by: Duane Eddy, Bright Eyes, Buffalo Springfield and Willy Mason.
Video by: Ben Brodsky

This Saturday’s HANDS ACROSS THE SAND event will be duplicated throughout Long Island, across the entire U.S. and around the WORLD!

This is an important happening! We can influence elected officials by showing UNITY and STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.

WE CAN DO THIS! WE NEED TO DO THIS!!

SATURDAY, June 26, The BOARDWALK at Neptune Blvd., Long Beach. Begin to gather between 11:00 and 11:30AM. We JOIN HANDS at noon.

Share and RSVP using our Facebook event
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136081013069561

HANDS ACROSS THE SAND is a “national movement to oppose offshore oil drilling and to champion clean energy and renewables.” It is a peaceful protest against intrusion into our waters for the development of fossil-fuel facilities.

Like Yes We Can! Long Island, the Hands Across the Sand event is issue-driven and crosses political affiliations. It is “a movement made up of people of all walks of life. It is not about politics; it is about the protection of our oceans, our coastal economies, marine wildlife, and the fishing industry.”

Keep in mind that like all the proposed off-shore drilling plans, as well as BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf, the Atlantic Sea Island Group’s proposal to construct the “Safe Harbor Energy” LNG Island off the coast of Long Island, 13.5 miles south of Long Beach is another such intrusion into our waters intended for the development and use of more fossil-fuel, instead of renewable energy.
Read more about Yes We Can! LI’s opposition to the LNG Island by clicking here.

Merrick Patch Article on LNG Island

BE THERE!! AND BE COUNTED!!!

There was a time when populists could readily distinguish between corporations and government. When a catastrophic event happened we were able to separate the guys wearing black hats from those wearing white ones. Bai writes, ‘…voters perceive both business and government as part of and interdependent system, and it is hard for them to separate out the culpability of either.’ When you throw the Supreme Court into the mix, it’s virtually impossible to differentiate the good from the bad.’

I’ve been paying a lot of attention throughout the health care debate, more recently as the financial protection package has evolved (devolved!), and over the past fifty or so days of the catastrophe in the Gulf. We no longer live in a capitalist culture. There is (was?) a necessary and productive balance among interests in capitalism. We live increasingly in a corporatist society where any semblance of balance is continuously destroyed by CEO’s, politicians (mostly, but hardly all Republicans), and–worst of all- Justices who are expected in every conceivable way to act fairly in the interests of the people and the Constitution (Gore v. Bush, corporate political spending, –don’t get me started).

Minute by minute reaction to President Obama’s response to the BP affair suggests he is virtually complicit. This is all politics. Eric Kantor faults the president for ‘using’ the destruction of the Gulf as a political move. Is Kantor actually on record that the President of the United States ought not to be seizing an opportunity to push for an energy policy that weans us off our fossil fuel dependent lifestyle?

President Obama has remained attentive, responsible, and thoughtful from the moment the BP explosion and leak occurred. He remains compassionate and committed. So he does not remove his shoe and bang it on the table a la Nikita Khruschev. I do not seek or want a leader whose emotions distort reality so that he/she can create an emotional tie to events.

All legislation–regulatory and otherwise is reactive. Governments are hardly ever proactive. The Bill of Rights was a response to an existing and intolerable set of conditions. The right and necessary reaction at this time is to seize an opportunity for real change to the ways in which we all use and abuse energy sources and to beat the drums for alternative consumable sources. President Obama is, to the extent that a president can be, “in control” of the situation.

It’s just getting harder and harder to differentiate between corporations and government. The president as the central figure is seen to be a mix of black hats and white hats. Mixing black and white results in grey. And greyness is what he is inappropriately being blamed for.