spot wrote: The figures are easy enough to find, and no. And we did the thing about "Germany a huge man. of automobiles" earlier, the USA pushes out far more of the wretched things - what was the 2002 figure? USA 11,960,354, Germany 5,569,954? It's a question of scale, not blame. It's a question of whether there's an active desire to improve public transport, for example. Have you ever heard an American actually want a good regular bus service? I haven't got a car, I walk if I'm not pressed for time or I jump on a passing bus if I want to arrive faster than that. I just bought my ticket to London for next weekend - £4 return. Why would I want to drive? I suspect that dislike of cars is unamerican, it would qualify as communist agitation if anyone actually thought of saying it.
Well for one thing I dont see nobody making the slightest attempt to inform the public of the importance of emissions, oil consumption, or anything else for that matter. So how can you blame someone who doesnt know theres a problem?
And the whole car thing, If those numbers are correct(and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because Im not trying to step on anyones toes) then dont you think a country that is more than 5 times as small as the U.S producing almost as half the amount of cars is somewhat of a tall tell sign that they are indistinguishable when it comes to their desire for producing vehicles without a care for the environment? seems to me like if Germany were the least bit larger they would be producing as many cars, if not more. Maybe if you combined the car production numbers of Germany and Japan, that in which combined are not even half as large as the U.S. and what you have is a significantly smaller stretch of land compared to the U.S producing more automobiles, and in it for the big buck. U.S doesnt look so much like a leech now does it??
Take the names of countries out of the equation, and what you have is lands compared to one another equal in diameter with a common people producing automobiles.
Japan, Germany, France -19,730,101
USA - 11,960,354
land not even equal in size yet produces over 75% more.
No, No, No.
No, No, No.
K.Snyder wrote: U.S doesnt look so much like a leech now does it??It does when you consider that over half of Japanese and German car production goes in exports, while the USA is a net importer on a massive scale. If you "dont see nobody making the slightest attempt to inform the public of the importance of emissions", then you're living in a very strange part of the planet indeed. Perhaps it has something to do with the Lysenko-style perversion of scientific independence that US government funding of research has engendered?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No, No, No.
spot wrote: It does when you consider that over half of Japanese and German car production goes in exports, while the USA is a net importer on a massive scale.
Do you want to compare the population stat too?
The bottem line is they are producing cars with the same intent, which is money. And to me this shows a lack of care for "emissions" as well.
Do you want to compare the population stat too?
The bottem line is they are producing cars with the same intent, which is money. And to me this shows a lack of care for "emissions" as well.
No, No, No.
spot wrote: If you "dont see nobody making the slightest attempt to inform the public of the importance of emissions", then you're living in a very strange part of the planet indeed. Perhaps it has something to do with the Lysenko-style perversion of scientific independence that US government funding of research has engendered?
Come on Spot, you know as well as anyone else that something on a massive scale such as this takes time. People have to learn about things, unless of course you think that people diliberatly sabatoge the earth to fulfill their secret ambition to destroy the Earth itself??
Come on Spot, you know as well as anyone else that something on a massive scale such as this takes time. People have to learn about things, unless of course you think that people diliberatly sabatoge the earth to fulfill their secret ambition to destroy the Earth itself??
No, No, No.
K.Snyder wrote: Come on Spot, you know as well as anyone else that something on a massive scale such as this takes time. People have to learn about things, unless of course you think that people diliberatly sabatoge the earth to fulfill their secret ambition to destroy the Earth itself??I do so dislike people trying to rubbish my comments by putting inane words into my mouth. Read what I say, don't invent suggestions that would never cross my mind and try to pass them off as my motivation.
You can get a rough idea of national "care for emissions" from contrasting the US EPA's national annual fuel economy trends report ("US fuel economy has held roughly steady since 1997, varying only between 20.6 and 20.9 MPG") with the UK Energy Commision statement that the lowest economy region of the UK, the London area, has an "average vehicle fuel economy of 33 miles per gallon".
Perhaps the simple way to boil the figures down is to divide national transport fuel consumption by head of population, as you suggest, especially if you can get a trend across the last twenty years to see which way the figures are tending. I'm sure you can do that, I don't like to be the only one doing the legwork in these threads.
*appended clarification* - as mentioned earlier in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=18 there is a conversion factor of 1.2 US gallons to 1 UK gallon which applies when comparing the above economy figures.
You can get a rough idea of national "care for emissions" from contrasting the US EPA's national annual fuel economy trends report ("US fuel economy has held roughly steady since 1997, varying only between 20.6 and 20.9 MPG") with the UK Energy Commision statement that the lowest economy region of the UK, the London area, has an "average vehicle fuel economy of 33 miles per gallon".
Perhaps the simple way to boil the figures down is to divide national transport fuel consumption by head of population, as you suggest, especially if you can get a trend across the last twenty years to see which way the figures are tending. I'm sure you can do that, I don't like to be the only one doing the legwork in these threads.
*appended clarification* - as mentioned earlier in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=18 there is a conversion factor of 1.2 US gallons to 1 UK gallon which applies when comparing the above economy figures.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
No, No, No.
spot wrote: I do so dislike people trying to rubbish my comments by putting inane words into my mouth. Read what I say, don't invent suggestions that would never cross my mind and try to pass them off as my motivation.
You can get a rough idea of national "care for emissions" from contrasting the US EPA's national annual fuel economy trends report ("US fuel economy has held roughly steady since 1997, varying only between 20.6 and 20.9 MPG") with the UK Energy Commision statement that the lowest economy region of the UK, the London area, has an "average vehicle fuel economy of 33 miles per gallon".
Perhaps the simple way to boil the figures down is to divide national transport fuel consumption by head of population, as you suggest, especially if you can get a trend across the last twenty years to see which way the figures are tending. I'm sure you can do that, I don't like to be the only one doing the legwork in these threads.
I didnt think you felt that way, which is why I was joking about it.
Im not going to try and compete with you on an intelectual level, but everyone knows that european cars were built small in conjunction to tight driving quarters, which in turn releases less carbon dioxide.
Yes, America does commute and commutes alot, but dont give somone a million dollars and expect to tell them what to do with it.
You can get a rough idea of national "care for emissions" from contrasting the US EPA's national annual fuel economy trends report ("US fuel economy has held roughly steady since 1997, varying only between 20.6 and 20.9 MPG") with the UK Energy Commision statement that the lowest economy region of the UK, the London area, has an "average vehicle fuel economy of 33 miles per gallon".
Perhaps the simple way to boil the figures down is to divide national transport fuel consumption by head of population, as you suggest, especially if you can get a trend across the last twenty years to see which way the figures are tending. I'm sure you can do that, I don't like to be the only one doing the legwork in these threads.
I didnt think you felt that way, which is why I was joking about it.
Im not going to try and compete with you on an intelectual level, but everyone knows that european cars were built small in conjunction to tight driving quarters, which in turn releases less carbon dioxide.
Yes, America does commute and commutes alot, but dont give somone a million dollars and expect to tell them what to do with it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
No, No, No.
I'm foursquare against any law limiting our freedoms ...
even those freedoms that harm our environment ...
as well as the freedom to try to convince people to curb those freedoms and think long-term.
Stop the blaming for a sec. Do you [whoever may be reading this] care about emissions, gas prices, etc etc etc? Then stop looking for excuses to fail and start doing something about it - however small and ineffective. Throw that one starfish back in the ocean, to draw on an allusion.
If you don't care, then don't care - meaning don't be so defensive.
even those freedoms that harm our environment ...
as well as the freedom to try to convince people to curb those freedoms and think long-term.
Stop the blaming for a sec. Do you [whoever may be reading this] care about emissions, gas prices, etc etc etc? Then stop looking for excuses to fail and start doing something about it - however small and ineffective. Throw that one starfish back in the ocean, to draw on an allusion.
If you don't care, then don't care - meaning don't be so defensive.
No, No, No.
Accountable wrote: I'm foursquare against any law limiting our freedoms ...
even those freedoms that harm our environment ...
as well as the freedom to try to convince people to curb those freedoms and think long-term.
Stop the blaming for a sec. Do you [whoever may be reading this] care about emissions, gas prices, etc etc etc? Then stop looking for excuses to fail and start doing something about it - however small and ineffective. Throw that one starfish back in the ocean, to draw on an allusion.
If you don't care, then don't care - meaning don't be so defensive.
I care, but you cant scold somone who you know would care if they dont realize the importance of the situation, is all im trying to say.
even those freedoms that harm our environment ...
as well as the freedom to try to convince people to curb those freedoms and think long-term.
Stop the blaming for a sec. Do you [whoever may be reading this] care about emissions, gas prices, etc etc etc? Then stop looking for excuses to fail and start doing something about it - however small and ineffective. Throw that one starfish back in the ocean, to draw on an allusion.
If you don't care, then don't care - meaning don't be so defensive.
I care, but you cant scold somone who you know would care if they dont realize the importance of the situation, is all im trying to say.
No, No, No.
Diuretic wrote: But stop those gutless wimps from allowing the wilderness to be trashed.I can't imagine what you think Arabia was before Shell, Esso and BP - excuse me, Persian Oil - got to work on it. A more pristine wilderness would be hard to describe.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
No, No, No.
Diuretic wrote: Everyone should stop blaming the oil companies for a start. It's not their fault that the price of petroleum is going through the roof. I don't know how the price of petroleum is set on the international markets but I'm pretty sure that the oil companies have little, if anything, to do with it. I agree.
Diuretic wrote: Secondly, there is no price-gouging. That is a scared politician's fantasy. It's called market forces folks and it's the genius of a market economy.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: The wealthy will continue to largely ignore the price of fuel, they're insulated from the effects of price movements in everyday commodities but in a capitalist economy that's quite natural behaviour.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: None of us have a sacred right to petroleum, it's a convenience.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: But all of us have the right to a decent environment. I am totally opposed to any idea that the petroleum companies should explore and retrieve oil to destroy the environment (I know, fossil fuels destroy the environment but let's not get too purist right now, it's a separate issue) that is currently protected. The Middle East has plenty of petroleum and an environment that isn't exactly pristine wilderness so let's discourage any of our gutless politicians (in whatever country we live) from buckling at the knees and allowing the petroleum companies to smash the wilderness up simply to get at petroleum which is available elsewhere using the empty promise that fuel will be cheaper.In the US, almost all industries go to great pains to preserve the local environment as much as possible. It's just good business to keep the local people happy. We don't need laws to force the issue. Environmentalist watchdog groups are more effective than gov't in this.
Diuretic wrote: Market forces - the genius of Adam Smith - sit back and watch it at work and marvel at it.I agree
Diuretic wrote: But stop those gutless wimps from allowing the wilderness to be trashed.... through market forces, not law.
Diuretic wrote: Secondly, there is no price-gouging. That is a scared politician's fantasy. It's called market forces folks and it's the genius of a market economy.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: The wealthy will continue to largely ignore the price of fuel, they're insulated from the effects of price movements in everyday commodities but in a capitalist economy that's quite natural behaviour.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: None of us have a sacred right to petroleum, it's a convenience.I agree.
Diuretic wrote: But all of us have the right to a decent environment. I am totally opposed to any idea that the petroleum companies should explore and retrieve oil to destroy the environment (I know, fossil fuels destroy the environment but let's not get too purist right now, it's a separate issue) that is currently protected. The Middle East has plenty of petroleum and an environment that isn't exactly pristine wilderness so let's discourage any of our gutless politicians (in whatever country we live) from buckling at the knees and allowing the petroleum companies to smash the wilderness up simply to get at petroleum which is available elsewhere using the empty promise that fuel will be cheaper.In the US, almost all industries go to great pains to preserve the local environment as much as possible. It's just good business to keep the local people happy. We don't need laws to force the issue. Environmentalist watchdog groups are more effective than gov't in this.
Diuretic wrote: Market forces - the genius of Adam Smith - sit back and watch it at work and marvel at it.I agree
Diuretic wrote: But stop those gutless wimps from allowing the wilderness to be trashed.... through market forces, not law.
No, No, No.
Diuretic wrote:
None of us have a sacred right to petroleum, it's a convenience. But all of us have the right to a decent environment. I am totally opposed to any idea that the petroleum companies should explore and retrieve oil to destroy the environment (I know, fossil fuels destroy the environment but let's not get too purist right now, it's a separate issue) that is currently protected.
I agree that we should protect the environment, afterall our childeren are whats really important. But how do you expect a lion to stop eating meat after it has hunted its entire life? Our(world) economys souly depends on oil and I dont just mean the privilages of beeing able to drive where you want to go. A lot of our industrys are based on oil, and to think what would happen if 30-40% of the worlds population went unemployed because of this. CHAOS. How many gas power plants are in the world? Blackouts left and right, not to mention that oil plays an effect on this new technological age we are going through. The very computer you are on right now needed oil to produce.
Whats more important, a stable economy or healthy invironment??
We need a new energy source and we need one that is reliable.
None of us have a sacred right to petroleum, it's a convenience. But all of us have the right to a decent environment. I am totally opposed to any idea that the petroleum companies should explore and retrieve oil to destroy the environment (I know, fossil fuels destroy the environment but let's not get too purist right now, it's a separate issue) that is currently protected.
I agree that we should protect the environment, afterall our childeren are whats really important. But how do you expect a lion to stop eating meat after it has hunted its entire life? Our(world) economys souly depends on oil and I dont just mean the privilages of beeing able to drive where you want to go. A lot of our industrys are based on oil, and to think what would happen if 30-40% of the worlds population went unemployed because of this. CHAOS. How many gas power plants are in the world? Blackouts left and right, not to mention that oil plays an effect on this new technological age we are going through. The very computer you are on right now needed oil to produce.
Whats more important, a stable economy or healthy invironment??
We need a new energy source and we need one that is reliable.
No, No, No.
K.Snyder wrote: "Yeah its the big trucks that are waisting all the oil in the world"
"Not the countless other things that oil is used for"
Thats part of the problem K. Think about it, everyone thinks what damage can my one rv do ?
It all adds up.
We need collective thinking to make a dent in the problem.
"Not the countless other things that oil is used for"
Thats part of the problem K. Think about it, everyone thinks what damage can my one rv do ?
It all adds up.
We need collective thinking to make a dent in the problem.
I AM AWESOME MAN
No, No, No.
Coal !
We have more coal than the Saudi's have oil.
Thats nice and dirty.
We have more coal than the Saudi's have oil.
Thats nice and dirty.
I AM AWESOME MAN
No, No, No.
Diuretic wrote: Healthy environment.
Yes, we have been thinking in far too restrictive a way. We're discussing oil but we should be discussing energy. Problem is of course that the really big corporations that give politicians of all countries and political persuasions their instructions have a vested interest in oil because they can make billions from it and because it's a mature industry.
The environment I know is way more important as does everyone else, and I know that natural gas is somewhat cleaner than coal. But if the world runs out of oil, then the world is going to see a state of pandemonium like none other(IMO). Forget the depression of the early 20th century, Rum cake compared to whats going to happen if/or when we run out of oil. And running out of oil is not because of big trucks, cars together with trucks is a different story. but the difference in having a truck compared to a car is irrelevant unless the majority of the population had these big trucks. Would it be better with what we know now to discontinue the production of these gas hogs? Absolutly, but dont blame the guy who got yesterdays news and make him think hes emptying the oil reserves just because he simply wanted a big truck.
Yes, we have been thinking in far too restrictive a way. We're discussing oil but we should be discussing energy. Problem is of course that the really big corporations that give politicians of all countries and political persuasions their instructions have a vested interest in oil because they can make billions from it and because it's a mature industry.
The environment I know is way more important as does everyone else, and I know that natural gas is somewhat cleaner than coal. But if the world runs out of oil, then the world is going to see a state of pandemonium like none other(IMO). Forget the depression of the early 20th century, Rum cake compared to whats going to happen if/or when we run out of oil. And running out of oil is not because of big trucks, cars together with trucks is a different story. but the difference in having a truck compared to a car is irrelevant unless the majority of the population had these big trucks. Would it be better with what we know now to discontinue the production of these gas hogs? Absolutly, but dont blame the guy who got yesterdays news and make him think hes emptying the oil reserves just because he simply wanted a big truck.
No, No, No.
Diuretic wrote: I won't blame the individual who simply complies with normal behaviour in society - most of us behave in a given way simply because it's "normal." But we're all easily sucked in to things (think 1970s fashion, gross but acceptable at the time). So now we will easily be sucked into chucking rocks at SUV drivers. I don't think so. It's not their fault if they purchased what was being sold. No, I reserve my opprobrium for those who deserve it, the policy makers who are presiding over disaster. Time for them to extract the digit, not blame individual consumers who are, after all, only doing their economic duty.
My point as well.
If they spent as much money trying to inform the public of the importance of energy saving, and environmental saftey as they did marketing vehicles it would be a lot different.
My point as well.
If they spent as much money trying to inform the public of the importance of energy saving, and environmental saftey as they did marketing vehicles it would be a lot different.