Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!

You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!

Maps and Figures

"Hitler or Coulter?" Quiz
Map1 - Teen Pregnancy
Map2 - Incarceration
Map3 - Homicide Rates
Map4 - Drop-out Rates
Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates
Map6 - Driving Distances
Map7 - Energy Use
Map8 - Gonorrhea!
Map9 - Tax Burden
Map10 - State GDP
Map11 - DHS funding
Map12 - Adult Illiteracy.
Map13 - Abortion Bans:
Map14 - ER Quality
Map15 - Hospital Quality
Map16 - Coal Burners
Map 17 - Infant Mortality
Map 18 - Toxic Waste
Map 19 - Obesity
Map 20 - Poverty
Map 21 - Occupational safety
Map 22 - Traffic deaths
Map 23 - Divorce
Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work
Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work
Give Up Shopping guide


link to xml feed Subscribe with Bloglines




Saturday, October 29, 2005

Sprawlers Beware!
Everybody else is probably blogging about the Libby indictment, which you can read in its entirety if you like, but I'd rather talk about energy rather than shadenfreude.

Here's a scary Halloween message to the red states. You know those high gas prices? Well, they're like a selective tax on them. The red states are doomed as energy prices escalate because they represent the least efficient model of development.

Consider, red state Americans, due to their ugly sprawl and McMansions developed 40 miles out of the city, have to drive farther than other Americans.

And it's not just a matter of more fuel efficient cars, their homes are inefficient, take a look at how much it costs to heat and cool these houses that are built in the middle of nowhere. Denser, more concentrated development is more energy efficient. Sprawl will be the end of these states when the energy prices hit.

Sources, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Office of Highway information Management, Our Nation’s Highways - 2000: Selected Facts and Figures, Publication No. FHWA-PL-01-1012

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2001,


Anonymous said...

the reason red states use more energy than blue states is because of the amount of space in the middle of the country . A hundred mile commute to work is not unusual in a lot of the heartland . Contrast that with my area , boston , everything is so close , so jammed in together . Obviously we will use less fuel than someone in the west .

2:36 PM, June 22, 2006

Anonymous said...

As a Minnesotan, the blue state of the Midwest, I'd like to point out that Bostonians and San Franciscans, who enjoy moderate weather all year, cannot complain about the energy used by the people in the Northernmost states and the Southernmost states -- we have the extreme temperatures that you do not. In the winter my family keeps our home's temperature right around a 'balmy' 65 and I expect that you do the same. However, when the outside temperature hovers around or below zero for months this task requires much, much more energy consumption than it would in your home.

Additionally, in the Twin Cities it is not the people in the McMansions whose pipes freeze when the heat gets turned off -- it is the people living in the city, in the "denser, more concentrated development" you speak of. Equally, the gas guzzlers are not all massive SUVs as you imply; they are the jalopies too. What I mean to say is that it is not the rich who will suffer from rising energy costs but those of modest incomes.

I agree that we do suffer from a certain amount of urban sprawl (have you seen New Jersey lately though), but we also have a strong agricultural background that created small, isolated towns that are at least 40 minutes from any decent civilization. If you visit Argyle, WI or Ostrander, MN or even a bigger town like Hibbing, MN you will see that it is not just the suburb that creates long driving distances in the Midwest -- it is also the small agricultural town, the farm in the middle of nowhere and the Iron Range mining community. Our land provides the raw materials for American industry and our infrastructure is set up in such a way that we can continue to do so. Eat your Land O’ Lakes butter, Iowa corn syrup and Midwestern Edamame (I’m looking at you yuppies) and condemn our ‘sprawl’ before taking another bite.

I go to college in a small town in Iowa and we have to drive 40 minutes roundtrip to find any restaurant open past 9:00 no less all night. Sometimes living in a small town (10,000 - compare that to Boston) drives you absolutely mad and you just have to go find some civilization, the Indian food or tobacco store that you take for granted (for us a real city is at least an hour away and four hours if you need a city like Chicago or Minneapolis). Give us a break -- we don’t just have this massive urban sprawl comprised entirely of McMansions and prescription painkillers and Mercedes Benz's. Midwesterners are still rural people who live in rural areas and as such require more energy – even the liberals.

The problem is that conservatives have duped the heart of America into believing that the Republicans are the people’s party – the answer to the prayers of the little guy farmer fighting against the tyrannical rule of the East coast elite. We need populist grassroots liberal politics to rebuild the legacy of unions and labor solidarity. (Frank, Thomas: What’s the Matter with Kansas)

Middle America is not inherently conservative or rich. We just need to see that conservatives have shrouded their greed and deception in careful PR campaigns.

2:08 AM, June 23, 2006

Anonymous said...

I have family in Iowa. I've seen a huge amount of farmland, so I know exactly what you're talking about. However, I've also seen some pretty horrible suburban sprawl in Illinois and eastern Iowa, so I still think the original argument about neffeciency has merit. Also, your comparison to Boston is a bit flawed; I live fairly close to Boston, and I can tell you from years of experience that it has miserable temperature extremes, especially in the winter.

11:59 PM, June 24, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Again people, read the post, don't just respond to the maps.

This is an indication of who suffers from a lack of energy policy, not a moral indictment of people with long commutes. There is a big difference.

The point is, people in these states suffer from higher gas prices far more than those in others, hence voting for oil men as a citizen of one of these states is insane. Current gas prices seem to prove this point.

1:01 AM, June 26, 2006

Anonymous said...

why do you hate poor people so much?

you drank the red state vs. blue state kool-aid that the press shoved down your throat.

just say it: "I hate poor people" and you'll be able to do something besides laughing snidely behind your hands.

"I learned that I couldn't say my hate is based on skin color, but I feel better about myself hating a group. How about the poor! Yeah! Not the black poor, though, they're poor because of white people."

9:42 PM, July 07, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Interesting. I hate poor people, that's why I vote Democrat. Riiiiight.

Anyway, read the posts people. You are looking at the maps and assuming I'm saying something I'm not. This is a map showing who will be screwed by a lack of an energy policy. They are nuts to vote Republican and continue to maintain an oil based infrastructure. This is who high gas prices screw. Why do they vote Republican? Good question.

If I really hated poor people I'd vote Republican.

11:55 PM, July 11, 2006

Anonymous said...

McMansions in Wyoming. rotflmao.
You should label the 2nd map as "too fucking cold or hot & humid. Take your pick".

5:38 AM, March 04, 2007


Post a Comment

<< Home