3 ms·

$4 a gallon is peanuts. Price of gas in Rome, Italy was 1.87 euro per litre when I was there in July. Per litre, not gallon! So people get around town on littl

by kamjam 14y ago

$4 a gallon is peanuts. Price of gas in Rome, Italy was 1.87 euro per litre when I was there in July. Per litre, not gallon! So people get around town on little mopeds, motorbikes, small cars and a lot of SMART cars around as well. I agree there is a lot of forward momentum with hybrid/electric cars in terms on technological advancement, but the uptake in the US is abysmal. Just because you drive an electric car does not mean there is no CO2, that electricity needs to be generated from somewhere and unless that source is renewable energy then you are back to square one. But it's not just cars you need to think about: generation of electricity, airplanes, ships, cheap exports from the rest of the world... I remember reding a study a few years ago stating that shipping outputs a lot more CO2 than air travel. Also, ships use the cheapest, nastiest, left over fuel from the refinement process so ends up throwing our more CO2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenv... I agree the US probably feels like it has to do something, but constantly patching over the cracks is never really going to fix the problem. It can't allow itself to become wholly dependent on oil produced by enemies of the state in an inherently unstable region ran by crazy dictators and terrorists. Yes. Thanks for the insightful comments. I'll be sure to vote you in for president when you run for election.</sarc>

deelowe 14y ago
Consumers are not the issue here really. It's cargo that's the concern. That's where most of the pollution is (from oil anyways) and that's where the price of oil affects the economy. I don't think people realize just how much the US is dependent on oil for it's goods. Most consumer products are made overseas, shipped into a port, offloaded onto a train, and then delivered to retail locations via trucks. On top of that, it's already an incredibly efficient process, so it's going to take a major shift before industry moves to another solution (sorry, don't have a better link right now): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a-freight-train/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a... Remember, the reason why is because of this: http://mapfrappe.blogspot.com/2011/02/countries.html http://mapfrappe.blogspot.com/2011/02/countries.html Also, there's no need for sarcasm. Please provide a rebuttal if you disagree. My argument is that Russia and the middle east is inherently unstable (I do not care to go into why as I understand fully how much a part the US has in that). The US needs to maintain it's oil producing capacity or else it becomes pretty easy to hurt the US without ever attacking it.
- kamjam 14y ago
  Yes, I know consumers are not the issue. Cargo is, and that's why I brought it up, your original argument only mentions cars specifically and everyone driving hybrid is going to make little impact and as things currently stand everyone driving fully electric won't do squat. I think we are beating the same drum though. The map of country size comparison... should the land mass off a country determine your "allowed usage" or should be be proportional to population? Since the higher your population the more energy needs you have... I'm sure there is some complex set of graphs related to this somewhere... The sarc comment is for your extremely generalized comment, it's very much an American view on the "rest of world" and makes you sound very ignorant. I fully agree with your US influence comment though, and not just within that region, but that's a whole other story... What the US needs to do is reduce it dependence on oil so that it becomes less difficult to hurt it's economy. Oil will run out at some point (aside from the irreparable harm that is being down to the environment) and at the moment all they are doing is shifting the problem on to the next generation.
  - deelowe 14y ago
    Why do you keep attacking me? I've been civil to you. The reason I compare land mass is because the infrastructure is different. The US has to move cargo over large distances and buys much of it's products from producers over seas. It's completely dependent on oil from that perspective. The size of the country also hurts development of things like high speed rail and public transportation due to issues with urban sprawl unlike it's european and asian counterparts where these projects have done well. There's a land mass nearly the size of Russia with very sparsely populated areas strewn about and tons of existing infrastructure in the way. Then there are also cities that are in some cases the size of small European countries with a population that's less dense. The logistics of these make solving the cargo and transportation issues very difficult. In the mean time, the US can't sit idle and just let things collapse unless it wants risk civil unrest. Combine all this with military and economic threats from China, Russia, and the middle east and it's no surprise to me that the government wants to ensure the US can continue to play a major role in oil production. Keep in mind that oil is a commodity, so it's not about the money. This is purely about the future of the country. Regarding my comment about cars, see the reply above to someone who made a similar point. There's evidence that progress is being made. It's just developing in niche markets where innovation typically happens (consumer cars, race cars, small power companies, etc..). I wasn't trying to say that CSX would start moving cargo via tesla cars. Please tell me you didn't really believe that. I'm not convinced the issue is one of a lack of demand. It's just a really difficult problem to solve and when the well being of the country is at state, the politicians aren't going to willing throw it's economy into a depression or risk one of it's enemies forcing it's hand. Hope is not a strategy. Finally, no sane country is going to willing limit it's oil usage. That's especially true for a country that's been in a recession for over 4 years and every good and service is impacted by the cost of oil.

by kamjam 14y ago

deelowe 14y ago

Consumers are not the issue here really. It's cargo that's the concern. That's where most of the pollution is (from oil anyways) and that's where the price of oil affects the economy. I don't think people realize just how much the US is dependent on oil for it's goods. Most consumer products are made overseas, shipped into a port, offloaded onto a train, and then delivered to retail locations via trucks. On top of that, it's already an incredibly efficient process, so it's going to take a major shift before industry moves to another solution (sorry, don't have a better link right now): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a-freight-train/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/how-efficient-is-a... Remember, the reason why is because of this: http://mapfrappe.blogspot.com/2011/02/countries.html http://mapfrappe.blogspot.com/2011/02/countries.html Also, there's no need for sarcasm. Please provide a rebuttal if you disagree. My argument is that Russia and the middle east is inherently unstable (I do not care to go into why as I understand fully how much a part the US has in that). The US needs to maintain it's oil producing capacity or else it becomes pretty easy to hurt the US without ever attacking it.

kamjam 14y ago
Yes, I know consumers are not the issue. Cargo is, and that's why I brought it up, your original argument only mentions cars specifically and everyone driving hybrid is going to make little impact and as things currently stand everyone driving fully electric won't do squat. I think we are beating the same drum though. The map of country size comparison... should the land mass off a country determine your "allowed usage" or should be be proportional to population? Since the higher your population the more energy needs you have... I'm sure there is some complex set of graphs related to this somewhere... The sarc comment is for your extremely generalized comment, it's very much an American view on the "rest of world" and makes you sound very ignorant. I fully agree with your US influence comment though, and not just within that region, but that's a whole other story... What the US needs to do is reduce it dependence on oil so that it becomes less difficult to hurt it's economy. Oil will run out at some point (aside from the irreparable harm that is being down to the environment) and at the moment all they are doing is shifting the problem on to the next generation.
- deelowe 14y ago
  Why do you keep attacking me? I've been civil to you. The reason I compare land mass is because the infrastructure is different. The US has to move cargo over large distances and buys much of it's products from producers over seas. It's completely dependent on oil from that perspective. The size of the country also hurts development of things like high speed rail and public transportation due to issues with urban sprawl unlike it's european and asian counterparts where these projects have done well. There's a land mass nearly the size of Russia with very sparsely populated areas strewn about and tons of existing infrastructure in the way. Then there are also cities that are in some cases the size of small European countries with a population that's less dense. The logistics of these make solving the cargo and transportation issues very difficult. In the mean time, the US can't sit idle and just let things collapse unless it wants risk civil unrest. Combine all this with military and economic threats from China, Russia, and the middle east and it's no surprise to me that the government wants to ensure the US can continue to play a major role in oil production. Keep in mind that oil is a commodity, so it's not about the money. This is purely about the future of the country. Regarding my comment about cars, see the reply above to someone who made a similar point. There's evidence that progress is being made. It's just developing in niche markets where innovation typically happens (consumer cars, race cars, small power companies, etc..). I wasn't trying to say that CSX would start moving cargo via tesla cars. Please tell me you didn't really believe that. I'm not convinced the issue is one of a lack of demand. It's just a really difficult problem to solve and when the well being of the country is at state, the politicians aren't going to willing throw it's economy into a depression or risk one of it's enemies forcing it's hand. Hope is not a strategy. Finally, no sane country is going to willing limit it's oil usage. That's especially true for a country that's been in a recession for over 4 years and every good and service is impacted by the cost of oil.