Slashdot Mirror
Americans Gearing up to Fight Global Warming
TechnoGuyRob writes "Global warming has been one of the most controversial and debated issues in the political and scientific sphere. A recent poll published in the Chicago Sun-Times now shows that 'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed, a new poll shows. After years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real.'" (Jamie adds: and all it took was twelve years of overwhelming scientific consensus.)
This is clearly a situation where strong federal leadership is needed. If Americans are on board with reducing global warming, then let's make reduced fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions a reality by:
- mandating higher MPGs in automobiles
- granting huge tax credits for solar heating/electric panels on private and commercial buildings
- mandating solar equipment for ALL federal buildings
- mandating a switch to ethanol or methanol biofuels for federal fleets
- grant tax breaks for anyone switching to biofuels
- aid to cities that want to build or expand public transportation
- aid to cities to convert existing buses to biofuels
- massage research into alternative energy
- end the war in Iraq to free up the funds for the above initiatives
- Wind mill farms granted more eminent domain power (e.g., to overcome NIMBY opposition by estate owners in Marblehead, Massachusetts because "it ruins the view").
Germany during World War II switched to hydrogen for its cars when its petroleum supplies were cut off. Brazil has switched to domestically produced alcohol. It's all do-able with a strong federal leadership. This is clearly a situation where the market economy is going to favor lower prices, not (necessarily) environmentally desirable results. The federal government is the agent that can mandate the conditions necessary to make this stuff a reality.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
What else can I say?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"Politicians finally came up with a cheap, last-minute solution to control Global Warming: dropping a giant ice cube from the Halley's Comet in one of Earth's oceans every now and then. This fix worked for nearly a millennium, and so by the year 3000, Global Warming was considered by many a scientific fraud, like secondhand smoke."
~The Futurama Encyclopedia
It's wonderful that so many people are willing to say they want to make a difference. That's just as good as actually doing it! Studies also show that 74% of all Americans also say they want to start excersizing regularly, continue their education, spend time with their families, and find a cure for cancer. That's a load off my mind, I'll definitely sleep better tonight.
Regardless of that, the real problem isn't with the masses, its with the elite. My father is a plumbing and mechanics inspector in one of the richest counties in America. He recalls one house he inspected that had 7 heated swimming pools joined together with hottubs. The owner would keep them heated year-round just in case a random party broke out. He also had 10 furnace and airconditioning units in his 35,000 sqft. house that I'm sure he ran the hell out of. He also had a 6 car garage, one spot for each of his SUVs.
The real problem is, there are no limits on how much gasoline, electricity, or natural gas one person is allowed to use. Supplies are being wastefully depleted and turned into greenhouse gasses, and people are blaming the average consumer.
So when gas prices go up by 80%, this rich bastard probably won't even think twice. Meanwhile, an average person is being asked to "turn thermostats down in winter by 2 degrees, caulk around windows, combine driving trips when running errands... wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars." And this is a solution?
It's like having some large corporation lower 100,000 sub-management employee wages by $5 an hour instead of laying off one CEO who is making $500k per year.
Whoever said one person can't make a difference. --
"Man Bites Dog
Then Bites Self"
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
We've spent so long talking about global warming that I don't think anyone has stopped to consider some possibilities.
First, is it even our fault? Is global warming really a man-made disaster, or is it part of a climatic or solar cycle? It always seemed to be simply assumed that what we have documented is because of something humanity did...what if it's not? If this is a natural occurence, then wouldn't we be doing even more harm to nature by fighting it?
Second, what happens if there's nothing we can do? Action plans are great and all and we need to do everything in our power to reverse any damage we've done, but we need to get our heads out of the sand and have a Plan B. It's very possible that anything we do now will be too little too late, that we have already hit critical mass and warming will accelerate even if we climbed back up in the trees tomorrow.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
For all the BAD things the US does (ie.Iraq invasion) they are undoubtably the best in the world at selling ideas. If the US could SERIOUSLY adopt more environmentally friendly ways of living/working and in industry, is there little doubt that new technologies and practices would be exported to places such as India and China? Isn't this obvious??? And why did it take disasters like Katrina to wake people up?
...so they're still not going to actually DO it, just prepare and get ready? (that's the meaning of "gearing up" that I'm familiar with)
Rather than gear up, why not start right now? Sales of Hummers were up 174% from last year. If that's not going in the exact opposite direction, I don't know what is.
-
71% may believe global warming is an important issue but I haven't noticed
71% going out and buying efficient cars. I haven't noticed 71% of companies
switching off their lights after dark or turning down the air con / heating
a notch.
Its easy to say you're concerned about something , its quite another matter
to prove it.
"is there little doubt that new technologies and practices would be exported to places such as India and China?"
Given their current rate of industrialization, increasing demand for energy, and pollution output, I'd say there's plenty of doubt.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
"Between 80 percent and 90 percent are willing to take these energy-saving actions: wash clothes in cold water, turn down water heater temperature, buy energy-efficient light bulbs, buy energy-efficient appliances, and buy energy-efficient cars.
70 percent are willing to drive less, and walk, bike, car pool or take mass transit."
BS. When it comes down to it, people will do what is cheapest and most convenient. It's very easy to tell some pollster you're willing to do something, but when push comes to shove, forget it. There is a social factor in polls that causes people to answer the way they want to be perceived, not the way they actually are.
I take mass transit daily (by choice), and I have lost count of all the people I know who've tried it but given it up as too inconvenient.
And as for energy-efficient appliances, the sticker shock is too much for many people, even when the appliance is cheaper in the long run.
You want real reduction in greenhouse gasses from US people? End the light-truck exemption for mileage standards. Increases mileage standards for all vehicles. Bring mass transit funding levels up to highway funding levels -- if it's pervasive enough, it WILL be convenient. Reducing consumption of power by 15% at home is not going to make near enough of a dent -- it is not enough, and it's irresponsible to let people believe it will be.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I think it's great that so many people are interested in becoming better stewards of the Earth. However, voicing an opinion is easy. Actually living up to those convictions is much more difficult. I'd be willing to bet, just from my own anecdotal experience with people in general, that *maybe* half of those that say they want to act more responsibly actually will do it.
It's just so much easier to keep doing what you're doing. Change is hard.
Transistors and Beer!!
So how many are actually DOING any of those things? And did you notice they were good little capitalist consumption-enhancing options? Buy this, buy that. The idea is to *reduce* consumption.
I believe it when I see the first SUV manufacturer file for bankruptcy. There are practical things that *could* be done, like increasing tax on fuel to promote efficient usage, setting real requirements for home insulation, reducing coal burning. However its much easier to say you'll maybe think about buying a new SUV with 2mpg better economy, some point in the future.
Changing mindsets takes much more positive action than this - and I see no sign of a change there.
This was a telephone survey of 1200. What kind of people agree to be surveyed over the phone? I bet half of the Slashdot community would tell the pollster to get stuffed. So how valid are the results?
And besides, actions speak louder than words. Somehow I don't think many Americans are going to all stop driving their big cars and start taking the public bus any day soon, no matter what they tell a telephone pollster...
We're working on it. If you didn't notice, a lot of the world is kinda miffed at the U.S. right now. Just be patient.
Two words:Kyoto Protocol
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
In the 1970's, Brazil's government set up an energy plan to reduce the dependence on petroleum. They kept the price of gas high to subsidize the research and implementation of new technology to combat global warming. They now have cars that run on ethanol and passed legislation to ensure that every new buliding constructed is built with solar panels for water heating. If Brazil can do it, why can't we? It took them 30 years after the government took serious action to tackle the problem.
You think individual cold days disprove Global Warming, and you are calling who an idiot?
I don't think you get the GPs point.
Over the short term the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic. This means it takes a large increase in price before there is *any* impact on demand. Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence that large masses of people would suddenly consider giving up their cars.
All that happens in the meantime, while people convert to a longer term model, is that such an increase hurts the economy (busses, public transportation, shipping companies, etc all use gasoline in various ways) and those in the middle income bracket--since the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic, it just impacts the amount of money they have to budget into gas purchases every month, which cuts down on what they spend elsewhere.
An economic ripple effect.
For the record. I don't own a car. I get everywhere on foot or using a bicycle or, in a few cases, by taking the bus. In the US, cars are so convienient that many people--particularly those with kids--just cannot give them up easily.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
I don't know of a change one can make that does not cause at least some ripple in the economy. As far as busses and public transportation goes, they don't buy gas at your local Quickie Mart, thus not paying the extra tax. Sure you can build some fantastic elaborate tax model to hurt the fewest people and save the most fuel, but you will only end up creating loop holes. As I see it, the fairest method is the simplest method. Tax the energy consumption not the potential consumption.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
The problem with environmental issues is that, contrary to your assertion, the free market doesn't work unaided. It's an example of what economists would call an "externality", because it's a cost which doesn't fall on the players in the market, and hence cannot supply information to that market.
The notion that if we don't reduce our carbon emissions now then the world we be an ugly place in 50-100 years time simply can't be accounted for without giving the free market a helping hand, because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today.
This is specifically the situation that governments are for - they are able to apply to a cost to something and hence influence the market in a way that accounts for this externality. For example, raising the tax on gasoline is a very direct way of applying some of that external cost into the appropriate market. The free market still does it's work, we've just made the cost of gasoline what it "should" be to take account of future global warming. The market can then decide what to do about it, whether it's building more efficient cars, taking fewer journeys, or investing in alternative fuel sources.
No need for fancy tax credits or pork barrel schemes. Just make the price of gasoline (and other carbon-emitting fuels) reflect the future global warming risk, and let the usual action of the market do it's work.
Analysis of your comment:
First paragraph: knee-jerk ranting about environmentalists.
Second paragraph: You're obviously a William Dembsky fan, notorious creationist (who uses the term intelligent design). That bastard is in a feud with the University of Texas scientist Eric Pianka, and actually *reported him to the Department of Homeland Security* while misrepresenting what he said. It is a fact that Pianka was not calling for the extermination of humans, but in fact he was warning about a danger which he sees as a reality. He brought up the Ebola virus to shock his audience into thinking about his message: airborne agents that can kill 90% of the human population are not science fiction. They exist, and few people are concerned. Another part of his message was that biological systems crash when they become overpopulated, and that humans are setting themselves up for a crash. He was not calling for the extermination of human beings, and since you're saying that he was, I'm going to state that I consider you a vile sort of liar, who lies by misrepresenting what others have said.
Third paragraph: Unreasonable faith in the free market, which treats the environment as a commons that they can use up. When a company uses the environment as a dumping ground, they are stealing from everybody else. Make the companies pay the true cost of their pollution. When pollutants are injected into the atmosphere or into the ground water, I expect to see a check in my mailbox reimbursing me for the loss of a resource that I do not have any more.
Fourth paragraph: Finally, something that can be discussed. Nuclear power is definitely something that we should consider right now.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Wow, so much misinformation in one message:
The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Fund exist on paper only. About 35 years ago a senior senator from Massachusettes by the name of Edward Kennedy came up with the brilliant idea that the Trust Funds should be invested in a "safe" investment. So, what do these funds buy? Why U.S. Savings bonds, of course. Which means that every dollar that goes into Social Security is immediately converted into money in the General Fund, and the SSTF holds an "IOU".
All current benefits are paid out of incoming funds, with each recipient being paid for by between 4 and six current workers. This situation is about to change drastically with the influx of the baby boomers, meaning that you will need between 8 and 12 workers supporting each recipient, or you'll need to raise the tax rate, or the SSTF will have to call in it's $3.7 Trillion in savings bonds.
If you go for the last option, effectively tripling the deficit, then by 2035, that 3.7 trillion is exhausted, and the Social Security Trust Fund goes completely broke. To maintain current levels, given trends in lifespans and birth rates, by 2036, the Social Security tax rate will need to be 85% to cover all the recipients, with many recipients spending as many years on Social Security as they spent working.
So, your first item is more or less a lie. The fact is that the 36% of the budget that goes *back* to Social Security, Medicaid, and the like are a line item on the budget, in addition to what comes out of the savings bonds purchased by the SSTF. In fact, the fictitious "surplusses" of the Clinton Era included this Social Security Trust Fund "investment" in order to balance the budget. Now that the CBO doesn't include this extra 4-500 billion, we have deficits. Go figure.
National Defense has always taken between 18-25% of the budget, and since it's the only one of the above list specifically authorized by the constitution, I'm fine with that.
The fact that you break Social Programs into two categories shows the disingenuousness of the argument. Social programs now represent 57% of the budget. Add in the 6% spent on education and you're up to 63% of the budget spent on "public good" programs, a category created whole cloth by Alexander Hamilton... Find Social Security in the Constitution, I dare you.
The fact that we hear the tired old mantra of "Cut the Millitary" over and over is mind-numbing.
Ask yourself this. Bill Clinton bragged from 1996 on that he'd cut the Welfare Rolls by 50%. Welfare represents an expenditure in excess of $100 Billion per year. If he really cut the Welfare Rolls by 50%, then why haven't we cut welfare funding by a penny? In fact, we've raised spending something like 13% since 1996, to serve half as many people. At that rate, we could cut each welfare recipient a check for $175,000 and end poverty in the nation.
Don't you dare whine about the millitary. At least they work for their money.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
From "Aliens Cause Global Warming"
s _quote04.html
Michael Crichton
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y...the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
The US is actually only slightly above average in military spending. The only reason its spending in $ is so high is because its GDP is so huge. Once you normalize it to GDP, you can see that many other countries actually spend more than the US. China and most of the middle eastern countries actually spend significantly more, and "peace-loving" France spends just slightly less than the US.
It's the same argument used against the US when funding the UN. Countries are supposed to fund the UN in proportion to the GDP. "You have more money so you can pay more." Yet for some reason the same reasoning seems to escape people when it comes to military spending. You can't have it both ways. (Note: The US has been successful in trying to reduce its share of UN funding; partially understandable since GDP doesn't take into account taxation rate, so while US GDP is much bigger, the US govt gets to use less of it in its discretionary budget than socialist nations.)
Spain -- Land Area: 499,542 km Population: 40,341,462
United States of America -- Area: 9,631,418 km Population: 295,734,134
That's only a land area factor of, oh, 19. Yes, the US is 19X the size of Spain, but with only 7X the population. Things are nowhere near as close to one another as they are in Europe. It's not ideal, but that's the way things are in the US. You just about have to drive to get to where you need to go in anywhere less than a day, unless you happen to be right on a bus route that goes very near where you're going. But most bus routes to where I need to go would take multiple transfers, many stops, and be at least 3 or 4 times as long.
Gas is cheap and subsidized here for a reason... we need it to get where we're going. When you can walk across the street to get your groceries, it's not so bad. But the nearest market to my house is over a mile away, and I'm not lugging a couple week's worth of food over a mile. And that's just food.
I'm not excusing waste. I drive a more efficient car, I try to drive as little as possible, walk where I can, take public transport when i can (they're on strike now... that really sucks). But Europeans seldom seem to understand the actual SCALE of the United States. It's big. Bigger than most anything you've experienced. 3 hours is not a long drive in a car. 24 hours is getting there.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
1Km in US != 1Km in Europe? 1L in US != 1L in Europe?
...
Yes, there are large distances between different STATES, just like going from Spain (a state) to Germany (another state). But a city is a city. Or is there a "space warp" that makes travels longer in the US having the same distance than in Europe? And here the distance to a market can be the same as the place you live.
And for the bus travel you say, I had to take a subway, a train and a bus to get to work when I was working in Madrid. And where I live now (Majorca) isn't better, because there are only buses and more than half of the city is "blue zone". And if you don't live in Palma (the capital) you have to come by car and park "where Jesus lost the shoe" (spanish, don't know if it translates good) and then take a bus.
So, the problem you have is here too.
The real problem (here and maybe there too) is that public transport is a shit. Too much time between buses/subways/trains, too bad "drawn" the lines,
Better public transport = less people using private transport.
Over the short term the price of gasoline is relatively inelastic. This means it takes a large increase in price before there is *any* impact on demand.
No, it means that demand falls less than prices rise. If there wasn't any impact on demand then it would be *perfectly* inelastic, which doesn't happen except in contrived scenarios like the demand for water of a person dying of thirst in the desert.
Over the longer term one might see a trend towards more efficient vehicles, but I don't know of any evidence that large masses of people would suddenly consider giving up their cars.
They won't. But they might look for jobs closer to home, carpool, eliminate unnecessary trips, or voluntarily buy more fuel-efficient cars. (We've already seen the latter; SUV sales have dropped as gas prices have increased). Gas taxes give people incentives to conserve gas; MPG restrictions give people incentives to find loopholes in the restrictions. (Which incidentally is how SUVs came to exist, since they qualified as trucks for CAFE purposes).
An economic ripple effect.
You get the same ripple effect when people have to pay more for cars with better fuel efficiency. TANSTAAFL.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The poll wasn't taken by Environmental Defense, they are just reporting it. I believe the poll was done by Pew or someone similar.
I think it's pretty clear that Environmental Defense paid for the poll, however. I'm not claiming shenanigans in this case because I simply don't care, but you always have to remember that any survey firm worth their fees will be able to toy with the sample or bias the questions to end up with results close to what the survey sponsor is looking for.
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
Just FYI - ethanol/methanol IS NOT a good fuel choice. Those alcohol fuels are lower energy density than gasoline, and need to be burned in larger amounts (by mass) to generate the same amount of power. They actually tend to produce MORE carbon than gasoline does. Not only that, but alcohols are harder on various components of your fuel system (such as the rubber hoses).
What we need to do is use gasoline as efficiently as possible. A car converts about 15% of the energy in gasoline to mechanical motion at the wheels. By moving to a full-electric drivetrain, with gasoline or diesel-powered generators/gensets/fuel cells and a rechargable energy storage device, far higher efficiencies can actually be achieved. The downside is that weight and cost for a vehicle will be higher.
There are interesting battery technologies being developed now, if the consumer would accept the fact that dedicated BOVs are actually an excellent choice for municipal commutes, we could see more BOVs like the EV come back into the market. I know that electricity is generated from fuel in many places in the US, however, it's far easier to manage emissions from a few power plants than it would be to manage them in a general population of automobiles.
This is you:
Someone walks into a crowded room. He says that there are too many of X, that X is terrible. It just so happens, that everyone in the room is studying to learn how to make things that get rid of X. They stand up and cheer and say "Yes, we must get rid of X".
Upon reading about this, you agree, that yes, there are too many X, and that yes, someone should do something about too many X. But, you call yourself ok because you, as the professor writes:
I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
In this case, X happens to be humans and his audience happened to be biologists. But, if someone said, X = black, or X = jew, the world would be in an uproar.
This is my sig.
12 homes per acre?? Thats insanity.
Here in the US we'd call that high-density housing and its only where you're stuck if you can't afford any better.
Here in the Netherlands the government-enforced 'vinex' guidelines require this density in parts of the country. The size of parcels is basically related to the distance from from the large cities. If you want a big garden, you are going to spend a large part of your live in your car. Incomes in higher density areas are on average some 30% higher than in lower density areas, and the most popular areas are generally within (former) city walls.
At 12+ houses per acre, the houses are so close together that you can stand in one place and touch two houses at the same time. It means if you raise your voice or burp loudly your neighbor can hear it.
Not here in the Netherlands. Our home construction methods are completely different. We don't use wood framing. Traditionally this is because we have few trees in the country and lots of clay for bricks and roof tiles, and people look down on flimsy building materials and lightweight roof constructions. The inside/warm and outside/cold walls in newer houses don't have structural connections passing on noise or heat. US houses of the same floor area are much cheaper to build.
And I really dont get the wasteland comment. Just because the human density is low doesnt mean its an unpleasant part of the country. In fact, the more lush and beautiful the land is in your area, the more of it you'd want to have for your own and separate you from your neighbor.
It's a cultural choice. Economically speaking it's wasteland in the sense that it costs the US economy money to let people live in those parts of the country. The biggest employer in most rural states is the government and generic services, and most of the land is used for heavily subsidized, destructive, and low yield agriculture. For Americans it is apparently a worthwhile investment of money and time (spent in your car) to live far apart, but it is an expensive luxury. I agree parts of the US are spectacularly beautiful, but on the other hand the 'manmade' parts of the landscape look very sloppy with above ground utilities and stuff like that.
Considering how quickly house prices drop in proportion to population density here in a tiny country such as the Netherlands, we apparently have much less tolerance for being far away from civilization (and more for smaller living quarters). Few want to live 40+ minutes from a major city.
A sidenote: the few people who emigrate from here to the US, Canada, and Australia generally do go to sparsely populated areas, but these people usually don't have to work (anymore) for a living. We obviously don't have the choice, given that our population density is some 16 times higher than in the US. US expats who go to the Netherlands usually want to live in or near a historical town center if they can afford it.