Benefactor
Beneficial
Tax is so high on fuel in the UK I think it works out at roughly $10 a gallon. £1.20 ($2.40?) a litre.
The Planet and the Pumps
- Thread starter Thorvald of Lym
- Start date
That article was written with a message based upon tunnel-vision. The general principle is correct for those who aren't a "jackass" -- but not necessarily does it include the rest. There are many ways to solve a given problem.
Or about $8 to the US gallon. Still pretty high.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
And has all that high cost and tax spurred the English into a technological search for an alternative fuel source?
Not really?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Yet they are still reliant on gas...hmmmm?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Two very different threads and two very different discussions.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
The answer is absolutely not. Biofuels was a great mistake . But i don't think you will find many who would disagree .
Now i have debated what i would prefer for my interests to happen. What Humanity should do is to not sacrifice performance and necessarily be using different energy sources . They should however try to research in these areas as much as they can by programs that are sposored by the goverments so we can find ways to make an alternative energy more efficient.
Diying through starvation has a bigger effect than what would global warming have.
A Global warming would have much different effects than , a local warming of course. But even so i live in a country that in the two latest years it has rain as few , as it has for a century. The temperature is very high also.We have to import Water in addition with the gas,fuels etc. Granded it is a small country that lives by it's economy so it is easy to import what it needs to.
But i don't think that Humanity can't cope with the effects a potential Global warming will have on the planet. I think as always in these scenarios the more developed countries will cope this face but the third world will suffer a huge blow. But it is always necessary to take precautions without shooting one's self in the leg. So starving them now to not die later due to global warming isn't the smartest move.
I'm not sure if I buy the premiss that higher fuel prices = proportionally less consumption. Yes they discourage SUVs but the difference between an SUV and a midsized car isn't as big as a mid sized car and public transit. And while public transit is ideal, it's not going to replace the car for those who drive. Modern life depends on a car in most of North America.
Article focused on McGuinty for its Liberal? Wonder why they skipped over Dion.... And Harper doesn't seem to favour reducing gas taxes anymore, only pointing out that his recent GST cuts have resulted in a 2-3 cent savings / litre of gas.
edit: as to the poll, going against my usual anti-enviromentalism and saying yes to high gas prices.
Article focused on McGuinty for its Liberal? Wonder why they skipped over Dion.... And Harper doesn't seem to favour reducing gas taxes anymore, only pointing out that his recent GST cuts have resulted in a 2-3 cent savings / litre of gas.
edit: as to the poll, going against my usual anti-enviromentalism and saying yes to high gas prices.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
I would prefer the planet, but I don't drive, so...yeah.
IMO, the odds of humanity discovering alternatives to gas that are cost-effective and just as good at fueling our lives are pretty high. We've gotten through worse; World War twice, genocide, etc, etc. Plus, as a species, we're pretty innovative: fire, the wheel, the rest of the simple machines, capitalism, communism, war, etc
If we don't get a gas alternative, and gas does run out, we're screwed, though.
IMO, the odds of humanity discovering alternatives to gas that are cost-effective and just as good at fueling our lives are pretty high. We've gotten through worse; World War twice, genocide, etc, etc. Plus, as a species, we're pretty innovative: fire, the wheel, the rest of the simple machines, capitalism, communism, war, etc
If we don't get a gas alternative, and gas does run out, we're screwed, though.
Cellulosic ethanol
It's good for you. Plus it's cheap. I'm not going to repeat my America rules the world with gas thing again. I think you know which is the better choice. Oil from the Gulf or ethanol from Kansas?
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
They use far less of it per person.
I know this sounds awful, but I kinda have a hard time geting worked up over the planet, as least, in compared to other things.
I would gladly take higher fuel prices, if doing so would hasten the development of other fuel sources. I'm much more interested in the massive economic benefit, no to mention the national security bonuses, that would come with energy independence
I own a car, but when fuel prices started to climb, I changed my living arangements so I wouldn't have to drive as much. I don't need to much more than a tank a month now, so I can afford to still pay a little more if I have to.
I would gladly take higher fuel prices, if doing so would hasten the development of other fuel sources. I'm much more interested in the massive economic benefit, no to mention the national security bonuses, that would come with energy independence
I own a car, but when fuel prices started to climb, I changed my living arangements so I wouldn't have to drive as much. I don't need to much more than a tank a month now, so I can afford to still pay a little more if I have to.
On the other hand driving across the UK isn't the same as driving across Canada or the US. To visit my mother, it's a 13 hour drive. My grandparents are 11 hours and my mom to my grandparents is 9 hours. And compared to the US and Canada, we all live close by.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
If this actually summarizes your beliefs, then you, sir suffer from blinding self-interest. May I remind you that citizen of a small country or not, you are also a member of the human race and a citizen of the planet Earth, and that you have duties to that race and that planet. The primary duty is to ensure that said race and planet survive. (See Nussbaum, Sen, Appiah, McConnell, et al. For Love of Country? a New Democracy Forum on the Limits of Patriotism) Summary: if you put your country's short-term interests over the long-term interests of humanity, you, sir, are an . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Whatever you think of global warming, burning fossil fuels is just plain bad news for the environment in general. That is NOT pseudoscience.
Question: Should it? Shouldn't there be an active attempt to increase the use of public transportation? Besides environmental impacts, the automobile has had a profound and in most cases negative effect on culture. I come from Metro Detroit, and the influence of the auto industry has made my home region the most car-dependent place on the planet, bar none. LA comes close, but they have buses and trains; we barely have the former and haven't had the latter in decades.
The effect of extreme car-dependence is extreme racial and socioeconomic self-segregation, with white-collar whites living almost exclusively in the (very affluent) northern and northwestern suburbs over half an hour from Detroit, working-class whites in the (halfway decent) northeastern and southern suburbs closer to Detroit, and blacks and other disadvantaged minorities living almost exclusively in the (catastrophic) city of Detroit itself. This self-segregation is perpetuated by self-serving crypto-racist county officials (like the Grand Dragon/County Executive of Oakland County L. Brooks Patterson) who, in the name of the interest of their constituents, have refused to allow necessary institutions such as regional public transportation of any kind and metropolitan government. Both of these would increase the mixing of races and classes and possibly, hopefully create some kind of metropolitan community, and reduce the truly appalling inequalities present in the region.
Similar threads
