View Full Version : Something to whet your knifes with
Skybird
09-28-05, 06:57 AM
I do not agree with the partially polemic tone of the author, but he has some points that are pretty much representative for most of public opinion on things over here.
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21026/1.html
No diabolic intentions meant :cool:
I do not agree with the partially polemic tone of the author, but he has some points that are pretty much representative for most of public opinion on things over here.
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21026/1.html
No diabolic intentions meant :cool:
You just can't help yourself can ya Skybird?
I propose... ecologic jihad!
And when they found our shadows
Grouped 'round the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then, the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
ROFL
Some of that was quite astute and amusing ;) won't take it as the last word though...
Europeans are now bawling their eyes out when they read that Americans in many places are still paying more than three dollars per gallon - almost half as much as you pay in Europe. It's more than some Europeans can bear
lol $5 a gallon is still less than what we are paying over here in the UK, quit whining, the last time I checked it was about $7.14 a gallon at the pump here.
And I really like this last bit:
And the rest of the world? Al Naomi of the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans put it very well back in August of 2002:
We're not going to be the only ones in the boat. We're just in the boat first.
:rotfl: sod you jack I'm alright and looking after me and mine :D
Abraham
09-28-05, 12:59 PM
Americans just don't have the slightest idea what Europeans are paying for gas and energy in general.
However, cheap fuel is not mentioned in the Constitution, so one day that will change...
On the other hand, high gas prices in Europe are caused mostly by taxes and hardly change the behaviour of car drivers. They are accepted as a fact of life.
high gas prices in Europe are caused mostly by taxes
This is certainly true :) I think it's something like 40% of the cost of the fuel is 'duty', followed by Value Added Tax at 17.5% so all in all two thirds of the price of a litre of petrol/diesel is tax and duty added on by the UK government. This is absurd- but try telling johny-two-jags that. Where does all the money from this and my road tax and the millions of quid cashed in from speed traps go every year? Well I think I know, projects like: the M4 Bus lane! :rock: :rotfl:
http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/m4buslane/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1120542.stm
I think it's a stupid idea and if you look at the pic on the beeb site you can see the bus lane right next to the fast lane of the motorway :o lol classic... :lol:
US Federal, State and local taxes are a large component of the retail price of gasoline. Federal and state taxes (not including county and local taxes) account for approximately 27 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Also, eleven States levy additional State sales and other taxes, some of which are applied to the Federal and State excise taxes. Additional local county and city taxes can have a significant impact on the price of gasoline.
What's the average percentage of taxes per gallon/liter in Europe?
I paid 98.5 pence for a litre of diesel last week. 55litre tank = £54.17 for a full tank, or thereabouts.
Abraham
09-28-05, 02:19 PM
When I was driving the subsim.commers around last week during the Meeting I suddenly had to pay € 97 (about $ 120) for a full tank (but that was after Kethrina & Rita of course)...
Didn't spoil our mood though.
:D
Psycluded
09-28-05, 02:31 PM
See... this is one of the many reasons I ride a motorcycle. At $2.70/gal, I pay about 7-10 dollars a week for gas and I use the bike to commute and for pleasure in the evenings. I get about 40mpg, and will get about 180-200 miles per tank with a 4.8 gal tank.
I think everyone should convert to 2-wheels.. ;)
XabbaRus
09-28-05, 02:56 PM
I think in the UK at least 60% of the price of a litre of petrol or diesel is tax, maybe more.
bradclark1
09-28-05, 03:05 PM
lol $5 a gallon is still less than what we are paying over here in the UK, quit whining, the last time I checked it was about $7.14 a gallon at the pump here.
You have national health so stop your whining. Try paying for health insurance.
I think in the UK at least 60% of the price of a litre of petrol or diesel is tax, maybe more.
60%? Is that common throughout Europe?
OT.
Sadly the NHS is far from what it was designed to be. If it's not life threatening, some people have waited months or years even- to the detriment of their health - for treatment for things like hip replacements etc. If you can afford it go private, else you'll be in for a long wait, with a good chance of any treatment being postponed or delayed. Even then, my experience of the NHS (with relatives) is that there is such a pressure on bed space that some are encouraged to leave hospital perhaps before they should, to make room fore the next body. This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4284522.stm) is the kind of thing which seems to get the most attention at the moment- not decent patient care and attention to hospital cleanliness- cheaper is most definitely not better.
It's not all bad, but it's just it's not all that good either when it comes down to it. A percentage of my salary is deducted automatically, as 'national insurance' to pay for the NHS but the chances are I'd get faster, better treatment (if you can afford it ofcourse) by going private. Unfortunately our NHS service is a second rate organisation with second rate funding and management; bloated and inefficeint.
Back to the fuel thingy, I think I'm right in saying the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) fuel prices in the whole of europe, so our prices are probably the exception, not the rule.
Back to the fuel thingy, I think I'm right in saying the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) fuel prices in the whole of europe, so our prices are probably the exception, not the rule.
Fuel has two prices, the cost of fuel itself and the artificial cost added in taxes that the government applies to each unit sold. That makes it hard to judge which nation is actually paying more unless you know what percentage of the cost is in taxes.
Skybird
09-28-05, 05:57 PM
I think in the UK at least 60% of the price of a litre of petrol or diesel is tax, maybe more.
60%? Is that common throughout Europe?
I think so, but cannot confirm for sure. In Germany I think taxes also make up for at least two thirds or more of the fuel price.
That's an interesting problem. If people do buy more ecopnomical cars or use less gas, it is a real hit to the national budget. We have seen cigarette prices beeing rasied very substantially in recent years, too, for health reason, they said, and make smoking less affordable for the schoolkids. But noone in the government seriosuly expected that people would smoke less. the additional money was planned with. But people DID smoke less, opening a billion euros deficit in the budget - for which they had to come up for with new debts.
Truth is German state, and I assume many others, cannot afford their people riding bicycle only and living healthy and stop smoking. Tells something about the truthfulness of politicians making popular advances in these directions to gain some votes.
On the oil price, it is worth to mention that analysts said that AT LEAST one third of the price that oil currently costs in the wake of the two hurricanes is caused by speculation only and has no economical basis in market realities. The few make nice profits at the cost of the community. Thank you very much, Sirs, I think for such immorality and lack of responsebility you deserve to get dumped in the ocean - in an act of self-defense by the community.
We have an comparable problem with the linking (binding?) of the price for earth gas to that of oil. Is it a unique german condition, or is it like this in other countries as well? They sometimes said it was arranged like that in international consensus after the oil crisis.
P.S. I just checked some German sites, with different results. Ministry of Economics says the tax is raised as a fixed price of 65 Cent per litre no matter what the price for oil and the gas station is, where as all other non-governmental sources insist on taxes (depending on type of gasoline) are in percent, no fixed prices, and are between 73 and 85% of the actual gas price. I assume the ministry tries to play it down, and other try to make it look as worse as possible, but a value around 80% is mentioned very often in the medias, and for years now. Common practice is that the companies accuse the government, and that the government accuses the companies. And while they keep on word-fighting, both make nice profits with avoiding actions by their endless debates.
Courts are currently negotiating the first file where people try to enforce that oil and eartzh gas companies must make their price calculation public. so far the way they come to their price models is kept strictly secret,. means: the households do not know whyt they pay what they pay, and they do not know for what they pay. I think if in a few years the final verdict is spoken, hopefully against the companies, it will become pretty nasty for them.
Fuel has two prices, the cost of fuel itself and the artificial cost added in taxes that the government applies to each unit sold. That makes it hard to judge which nation is actually paying more unless you know what percentage of the cost is in taxes.
True. The AA (automobile association) website used to have a guide to the petrol station fuel prices in 'you local area' and a breakdown of the current fuel duty and VAT figures -the fourcourt prices being mostly emailed in by AA members, I think. Had a look for it earlier, but I recall something about it being discontinued a while back :-?
All I found so far was out of date http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4255780.stm
some interesting views here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4134350.stm
just saw this http://www.aamotoringtrust.com/index.asp?PageID=31&Year=2005&NewsID=50
'bout the closest I could find as a list, but it still doesn't show a breakdown of the actual tax figures etc :-? just the overall amount I guess.
It's not all doom and gloom though, as we're used to fairly costly 'wobbles' with our petrol prices :lol: it's always contentious when we view the hideous alternative of trying to guarantee getting to work or whatever, using the dreaded public transport :88)
I am fortunate enough to be able to cycle to work 2 or 3 days a week to my current job, but occasionally I've had to travel as much as 15 or 25 miles one way for previous work. When that happens and I look at my expenses at the end of the month and I'd been shelling out (no punn intended) about 180 quid a month just getting to and from work :o and that's just far too much to spend, so I had to change jobs to lower paid, but closer employment, so swings and roundabouts for me :sunny:
Any rise in the cost of fuel, be it due to tax/duty or the base cost of a barrel of crude oil, sends most of us britts flapping :lol: though the main problem is the cost added by the government in tax, which in turn makes any slight rise in the actual price of the stuff that comes out of the ground all the more noteworthy at the pump, not to mention the cost of speculation on the rise and fall of prices.
The Avon Lady
09-29-05, 05:23 AM
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050928/lcrstr050929.gif
Onkel Neal
09-29-05, 09:17 PM
A few isolated Americans are, admittedly, calling for sustained high gas prices so that the country can finally kick its oil habit, but it's the same people who were doing it before Katrina -- such as Robert Samuelson in Newsweek:
What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5. We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax.
What a load of horsesh*t :lol:
Tell me, if Europeans are so eager to conserve fuel (so they claim), why do they drive at excessively high rates of speed?
Oil companies are not only bad guys; they have also been hit by the storms. Oil production in the Gulf, where the US gets around a quarter of its domestic supplies, is running far below capacity. The rigs in the Gulf are expensive offshore projects launched because the US burned all of its large oil fields on land long ago. High time to think about alternatives? You bet!
Oil companies are bad guys? Ok, time for the eco-nuts to put up or shut up--why don't these people screeching for "alternatives" create and present these alternatives themselves? Why are they waiting for someone else to do it? Why doesn't Greenpeace or whomever invent an alternative to petroleum? Simple answer: they don't have a clue.
Sea Demon
09-29-05, 09:57 PM
Why doesn't Greenpeace or whomever invent an alternative to petroleum? Simple answer: they don't have a clue.
Hit the nail on the head here. They don't have a clue. Also, these same people that blame these last two hurricanes on 'global warming', totally ignore the last strong hurricane cycle 50 to 60 years ago. Also Galveston was racked by a strong one in 1900. These people don't realize Hurricanes have been hitting the gulf coasts for centuries, and there have been recorded warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Earth at one time was nothing but a big chunk of ice. Last time I checked, there's no evidence the wooly mammoths started driving Cadillac Escalades around. :lol:
For every 'scientist' you show me that believes all the 'global warming' hype, I can come up with a source that says..."BS!".
And for the record, I'm not against alternative sources of energy. If ExxonMobile decided to invest in other sources and decided they were going to grow into an "energy" company rather than just an "oil" company, I would say good for them. But like Neal says here, the loudest voices from Greenpeace have no idea. No clue. Like it or not, our economy runs on oil. Get used to it. Or better yet, rather than waste your time "protesting" everything, focus your energies on developing these other sources of energy you deem so important.
Sea Demon
Skybird
09-30-05, 05:54 AM
"If you are not a million-dollars-heavy corporation, do not critizise million-heavy corporation for doing bad things." - And if you have a million-heavy corporation yourself, then you wouldn't want to. That's what this kind of counter-argument comes down to.
Most people here drive at reasonable speeds on the autobahn, only a minorty tries to drive races. In most populated places you even must drive slow, becasue the traffic doesn'T allow you to race anymore. But even if you drive a car at high speeds over here, most models for the european market still consume far lesser fuel than those fuel-killers the american market still likes. Although minivans, muxury-limousines pickups or landrovers also sell well, most cars beeing sold are small, intelligent desogns with comparably small gas-consuming. And I talk of the car classes smaller than a VW Golf. "Europeans eager to race at excessive speeds?" Statistically the US people lead the list for how minimal a distance must be in order to make them stop using the car to do that business. Using the car even for reaching that letter box two hundred meters away, eh? If that is not excessive... some clever guy even used the statistics to get a mean number, per head, for this calculation, I do not remember the value he mentioned, but the distance was four or five times as low as the value for the average European (means: if the avergae European wants to reach the baker on sunday morning and it would need a distance of at least 1000m to make him think avbout using the car, the average American already would use that car for a distance of 200 or 250 meters). :lol:
Greenpeace and others shows alternatives regularly in their regular print medias. So does organizations as well that have no links to ecological scene. So does independent scientists, and puplicists. And if today still someone needs to be pointed towards alternatives, then it is not Greenpeace but this guy who does not know much about anything, because the possible alternatives are pretty much general knowledge nowadays. It's the same as with the argument that it is not proven that climatic change is man-made and will have bad effects. This kind of doubt most of the time is sown by sources and scientiest that are in closer relation to interested industry circles that does not want to much change with regard to their short-termed profit. Where as the more independent studies more or less agree on man beeing the deciding factor. BTW, just in the last days the MPI Hamburg, one of the internationally leading adresses on climatic research, have released a new study that incorporates all known and some previously unused factors in it's model and leave little or no doubt in that we see the fastest and most dramtic climate change earth has ever seen in the last one billion years, whereas the British have released another study some days ago that leads to comparable conclusions like the Hamburgers did.
The Hamburg study, like many before, also indicated that the effects we see today have a longterm self-dynamic that will prevent from stopping them or reverse them. We are not about how to prevent us falling from the cliff. we are in need to learn flying before we crash on the ground at the bottom, for we already are in free fall.
German cities and communities at the shores of the the north Sea, although beeing bankrupt, since years heavily invest in strenghtening dykes and increase their heights, not as part of usual maintenance, but in expectation of what we will see in the close future (and already see right now). I expect they do similiar especially in Holland and Denmark, and I have confirmation that they do like this is Denmark at least.
In Germany we have a complete net of earth-gas stations for according cars, and sales numbers for such cars raise quickly, they are not often to be seen, but that is about to be changed in the coming years, for buying them is only a little more expensive, but maintenance and fuel costs are only half as much as that for traditional cars. It's becoming popular not only for taxi companies and public mass transportation (more and more busses are on earth gas, too), but private households as well, althought the network of gas stations by far isn'T as dense as that for oil-based gasoline and people need to do reach much farther to get their tanks filled up again. First companies even have started to switch over to - agricultural oil-driven machinery. Probably they all are corn-picking eco-idiots, but I wonder why their construction companies still get their work done. :hmm: And this includes caterpillars, trucks, cranes, and other heavy equipment. It counts well for their financial calculations, and it achieves the needed horse power that is needed with such heavy gear. The argument that these things are toys and do not do have enough power is no longer valid, as long as not something very special like super-cranes or tunnel-drill-equipement is mentioned, but let's say ordinary construction.
If you give the impression there are no economically/financially-working and technical reasonable alternatives, then it is you who is the one not knowing anything. Oil business makes it's business with oil. That it has the strong interest to give the impression there is no alternative to it is crystalclear - it looses money if that impressions reaches to much publicity, and if a mssive change would occure, our beloved Uncle Neal maybe would loose his job :). But it's the same business that currently in Germany is brought to the courts to make it bend to public demand that it should make public the way it comes to it's price calculations instead of keeping the various components of the price for oil itself as well as that for oil-refined products such as gasoline a strict secret - and demanding customers to follow every price raise they order at gas stations and on oil market in general. so far they are defending the secrecy with all they have. I wonder why. It is a fair demand by any customer to know what it is he is paying for.
A couple of points which interested me: Anybody know what the comparison (if any) there is between the average eoruopean car engine size/associated fuel economy figures and that of the US? It's kind of the trend over here to not have big V8 motors burning about the place- possibly due in part to the fact that we don't really have any need for motors which trundle along at 55mph for thousands of miles accross the country- probably the longest journey in the UK is about 600 miles from north to south coast. For us in the UK our 'high rate of speed' only really extends to motorways (national motorway speed limmit 70mph, built up areas 30mph and 'A' roads 60mph) assuming ofcourse there are no roadworks or contraflows where the traffic is reduced to a crawl of long tailbacks and inner city speeds :D
There's a big push for more efficient fuels (read: diesel at around 40% efficient, compared to petrol's megre 20% return), I drive and oilburner (1.8D normally aspirated, ford escort) and get considerably more mpg from a full tank than my previous vehicle which had a 1.6 petrol injection engine. Indeed someof the more modern diesel plants in cars these days return some quite astonishing economy figures- a while back I had to travel from Leicester to Preston, using one of our company hire cars (vauxhall vectra 2.2 DTI) it returned about 52 mpg at a steady 65-70mph. The return trip, after I had collected another vehicle from the VW breakdown garage in Preston, was in a VW passat 1.8T (petrol turbocharged engine) -at the same average speed on the same bit of motorway it acheived a pittiful 24mpg!
I think it's certainly a consideration when thinking about alternative fuel types/sources that without the support of the petroleum industry any research and development towards the future of cleaner more efficient fuels will be most likely limmited to fringe experimentation and left wing 'eco-nut' (as it was so delicately put) proponents of cleaner, more efficeient fuel sources. Mainly because only the oil companies have the required amount of financial muscle to actually do anything about a serious drive to 'alternative' fuel. If they are not prepared for a little 'risk vs reward' the future of alternative fuel products is dim- it would be kindof stupid for them to not be foresighted enough to corner the market for alternative fuels early on if there is going to be a world wide depletion of fossil fuels... isn't that just good business accumen?
Anybody know anything about synthetic fuel oil? presumably more or less the same stuff hitler ran part of his war machine on way back when... Also be interesting to know more about bio-diesel; seems like a replennishable source which you can grow and re-grow and refine with a degree of sustainability, seems like a bonus when you consider the traditional view of diesel engines as chuggy, slow, smokey contraptions is giving way to quieter, more powerful and efficient diesel power plants. The age of the petrol engine is reaching its limmit and the former underdog (diesel) is making a comeback. Besides, any motor which you can run on a combination of cooking oil and meths can't be all that bad, asside from the fact that you smell like a chip-shop when driving about :rotfl:
At the end of the day there are plenty of 'alternatives to petroleum' as a source of fuel- either here already or waiting in the wings... the only question remaining to be answered is who is going to put their money where their mouth is and fund serious development of research and the supply and support infrastructure to make these alternatives a going concern? Saying 'why don't Greenpeace or whomever do something about it' is like asking why the chimps in the rainforrest are not doing anything to curb deforrestation :roll: :lol: they can throw a few nutts and bannanas from among the branches at the guy wielding the chainsaw, but they don't stand a chance of preventing him from cutting their tree down.
The logical choice for this research and development is the oil companies themselves- as far as I can see, they have the technology, the funding and to a greater or lesser degree, the adaptable infrastructure to support such a fundamental change of direction in fuel choice. All they need now is the will to do so I guess. Maybe if it's marketed to them as a way of ensuring longterm proffitmaking rather than being good for the environment, would this not catch their attention sufficiently to take the whole idea seriously?
Skybird
09-30-05, 05:54 AM
Beat you by a second, jumpy! ;)
Skybird
09-30-05, 06:06 AM
Jumpy, you think that every American is crisscrossing from coast to coast all of the time? If so i wonder how they have time left to make their living :) there are many metropoles and highly populated cities that give me a hard time to imagine why you would be in need for such "monster cruisers" :) you were describing in the beginning of your post. Living in NY, for example, small size of a car must be an enormous advantge (thinking of parking slots, for example). If I would go to L.A. I would take a bus, train, or a small airplane.
I agree on that the oil companies' financial muscle are needed. If they take their responsebility serious, I have my doubts.
True, though I was thinking more in terms of the culture (as it appears anyway) perhaps this is a misconception on my part? but there seems to be a history of the freedom of the open road, the 'big country' ethos from the early days of the oil industry where bigger is better- hence a leaning towards large V8 engines simply because the resources to run such engines is/was freely available- the V8 engine is a stunning peice of engineering; it's very design, in the forms that I have seen anyway, far outlasts some of the basic four cylinder engines due to it having to produce less revs per minute for the same power when compared to a normal 4 cylinder motor producing the same horsepower/torq at higher revs. Unlike the UK where whilst we have oil resources too, we have tended to husband our natrual energies more frugally (at least in more recent years), reasulting in larger vehicle engines and harsh emmisions generally being the exception not the rule.
Skybird
09-30-05, 06:36 AM
Ooouch, I am no engineer, you know much more about this stuff than I ever will. I agree on this: a V8 makes for some nice music. :)
Abraham
09-30-05, 07:00 AM
I don't see how anybody can claim that Europeans are more eco-counscious drivers than Americans. I think it was California that lead the world with the most stringend emission limits. Amercans drive in general much more relaxed than Europeans. Traffic jams - the biggest and most senseless polluters are everywhere.Although minivans, muxury-limousines pickups or landrovers also sell well, most cars beeing sold are small, intelligent desogns with comparably small gas-consuming.SUV's are rapidly gaining popularity in Europe - we're always doing the same as the U.S., only just a few years later - and I can hardly believe Skybirds argument that we prefer smaller and more intelligent cars. Actually, I'm sure if it was not for the excessive taxing on cars everybody here would love a fast sportscar or an SUV as well. It may well be that Statistically the US people lead the list for how minimal a distance must be in order to make them stop using the car to do that business but I am pretty sure we Europeans are quickly gaining in this field also. I certainly do...
The only field the Europeans beat the US is hypocrisy; almost all 'eco' measures that are claimed for the common good are only used to top up the Treasury. We in Europe may have the idea that we are doing much better environment-wise than the U.S. because of our government's actions of taxing everything.
What's better than the government taking somebody's money and leave him with a good feeling...
:D
If you give the impression there are no economically/financially-working and technical reasonable alternatives, then it is you who is the one not knowing anything. Oil business makes it's business with oil. That it has the strong interest to give the impression there is no alternative to it is crystal clear - it looses money if that impressions reaches to much publicity, and if a mssive change would occure, our beloved Uncle Neal maybe would loose his job :)."This was lesson 1 of the course: Economics for the simple-minded.
In next weeks program Skybird will explain the interest of multinationals in the long-term continuation of their business and the economic necessity of conquering new markets and extending their range of products and services, including studying alternative energy sources, in a competative business environment."
almost all 'eco' measures that are claimed for the common good are only used to top up the Treasury. We in Europe may have the idea that we are doing much better environment-wise than the U.S. because of our government's actions of taxing everything.
In the reality of 'eco legislation' I'm afraid I'd have to agree on this point- at the very best, most of our government regulations concerning emmisions and prudent consumption are nothing more than lipservice... the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Chances are there are more points to be scored in an election run up if consessions are made to green issues.
But again, having said that, of all of my friends who drive cars, none of them own a vehicle with a 3.5L V8 under the bonnet (a small engine by some of the 5litre plus american standards). Though as astutely pointed out, for many this is probably due to the prohibitive cost of running such a vehicle here, rather than for any concern for the environment :roll:
Onkel Neal
09-30-05, 09:46 PM
Most people here drive at reasonable speeds on the autobahn, only a minorty tries to drive races. In most populated places you even must drive slow, becasue the traffic doesn'T allow you to race anymore.
I disagree. I drove from Ghent to Amsterdam and I had to hold 85 mph to keep from being an obstacle to the drivers behind me. And on the autobahn, everyone drove higher than 65mph, much higher. That's not showing the proper concern for the world, you know.
Statistically the US people lead the list for how minimal a distance must be in order to make them stop using the car to do that business. Using the car even for reaching that letter box two hundred meters away, eh? If that is not excessive... some clever guy even used the statistics to get a mean number, per head, for this calculation, I do not remember the value he mentioned, but the distance was four or five times as low as the value for the average European (means: if the avergae European wants to reach the baker on sunday morning and it would need a distance of at least 1000m to make him think avbout using the car, the average American already would use that car for a distance of 200 or 250 meters). :lol:
Great statistic, where can I find it? No wait, don't bother, but let me match you with this statistic: Europeans average 10 times more fuel consuming stops and starts on each trip to pick up cigarettes at the gas station. According to the guy who compiled these statistics, Europeans stop and buy a pack, smoke them up in about 20 miles, then stop to buy another pack, repeating over and over. I think this smoking must be adding to global warming as well.
Greenpeace and others shows alternatives regularly in their regular print medias. So does organizations as well that have no links to ecological scene. So does independent scientists, and puplicists. And if today still someone needs to be pointed towards alternatives, then it is not Greenpeace but this guy who does not know much about anything, because the possible alternatives are pretty much general knowledge nowadays.
Showing alternatives is nothing but empty talk. Let's see you act on these beliefs. Change the world with action, not nagging. Eco-advocates need to back their words up with action.
In Germany we have a complete net of earth-gas stations for according cars, and sales numbers for such cars raise quickly, they are not often to be seen, but that is about to be changed in the coming years, for buying them is only a little more expensive, but maintenance and fuel costs are only half as much as that for traditional cars. It's becoming popular not only for taxi companies and public mass transportation (more and more busses are on earth gas, too), but private households as well, althought the network of gas stations by far isn'T as dense as that for oil-based gasoline and people need to do reach much farther to get their tanks filled up again. First companies even have started to switch over to - agricultural oil-driven machinery. Probably they all are corn-picking eco-idiots, but I wonder why their construction companies still get their work done. :hmm: And this includes caterpillars, trucks, cranes, and other heavy equipment. It counts well for their financial calculations, and it achieves the needed horse power that is needed with such heavy gear. The argument that these things are toys and do not do have enough power is no longer valid, as long as not something very special like super-cranes or tunnel-drill-equipement is mentioned, but let's say ordinary construction.
Ok, in this case I would applaud them for actually doing something. I would even refrain from slapping a derisive label on them (eco-nuts, for example) because they are backing up their words. And if their ideas works, superb, more power to them, and I'll join them.
If you give the impression there are no economically/financially-working and technical reasonable alternatives, then it is you who is the one not knowing anything. Sure. So why haven't these "economically/financially-working and technical reasonable alternatives" taken over? Are the oil companies paying the politicians to hold them back? :lol:
Oil business makes it's business with oil. That it has the strong interest to give the impression there is no alternative to it is crystalclear - it looses money if that impressions reaches to much publicity,
That also smacks of conspiracy thinking. Yes, Oil companies make their money producing oil, but if a better alternative comes along, either the oil companies or some other business men will make sure it hits the market. You must think the oil industry is stupid and rife with evil madmen. Do you think the record companies tried to keep vinyl albums on the shelves and hush up CD technology?
and if a mssive change would occure, our beloved Uncle Neal maybe would loose his job :).
Oh heck, that's ok, that's how business works :) I can easily change careers, people with ambition are always in demand. Ask your inner child, he'll confirm it.
A few isolated Americans are, admittedly, calling for sustained high gas prices so that the country can finally kick its oil habit, but it's the same people who were doing it before Katrina -- such as Robert Samuelson in Newsweek:
What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5. We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax.
What a load of horsesh*t :lol:
What else is going to make people realise that they don't need a car that is, as the Simpsons so beautifully put it: 12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tonnes of American pride? :lol:
Higher oil prices cause automotive manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars. This is why Toyota's hybrid fuel/electric Prius is in such high demand, with 100,000 being shipped to the US this year. The other car companies are scrambling to catch up, and they now expect about 20 new hybrid models to come onto the market by 2007.
What else is going to make people realise that they don't need a car that is, as the Simpsons so beautifully put it: 12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tonnes of American pride? :lol:
There is considerable variation in peoples transportation needs. A one (small) size fits all solution would not be preferable.
Abraham
10-01-05, 01:25 AM
Ha, ha. Onkel Neal has been in Europe. Now he has some first hand knowledge of European bad habits... ('thoug I don't smoke!).
While Skybird has made some sensible remarks, his conclusions are wrong.
The reality is that Europe and the U.S.A. are two highly develloped economies with different approaches to taxing of energy. Both have a history as great polluters and both are working on ecological measures and cost-efficiency in energy consumption. Europe could be ahead in this field, which I really don't know, but if so, it's only a matter of small differences. Those differences are certainly is not contrasting enough to bring up the well known European hypocrisy and portray the U.S. as The Great Polluter of The World and Europe as lilly white...
Edited
Skybird
10-01-05, 06:26 AM
"In reality". If abrahams says so, it already is a contradiction in itself. He means: his reality.
Make your own conclusions if it really can be like Abraham's unbiased and competent remarks tries to make you believe.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_co2_emi
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2002.tot (from: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_CDIAC_CO2_EMISS_MODERN.html )
Look at these wellknown data with a background of nation'S different economy sizes and production efficiencies ( latter index led by europe for heav industry, led by america for science, hitech, space tech, computer, military production, controlling global cash flow patterns and influencing financial markets), different population sizes, and different energy consummation habits, I once red a summary of this book on industrial efficiency: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=3515
Use Google to learn about efficiency of energy production and distribution in nations, and you see that especially in the energy sector the Us is having substantial problems and the gap between europe and the US is big, not small. also, the european distribution network for electricity, oil and earth gas is simply superior to the american design that did not got modernized since a too long time for wishes to spare the needed investments. the many blackouts in american states, especially California, that were caused by inadequate supply systems and too excessive privatization speak evidence. When was the last time europe was effected by a majopr blackout not caused by heavy weather of any kind?
It comes down to this (and I have red quite some material on this over the years). Compared to it'S industry's size the US is a far greater polluter than would be needed and if adopting standards as they are valid in Germany or Denmark, for example. If comparing nations by means per head of it's population, it is very much off and away concerning energy consumation, pollution by CO2 and CO emissions, and general ressource consummation. In other words: the average American consumes far more gasoline, electrical energy, and material ressources (to make products of them) than the average European.
UN-sites hold plenty of statistics (comparisons between nations) on these things. Needs some time to search for them.
America is leading in many scientifc fields, computer tech, space tech, military goods (which all falls together, somehow), but it's heavy industry is vulnerable and still basing on very old structures and production methods for the most. The steel war some years ago was a very clear illustration of that, but it'S not only about steel. Europe does not lead in all heavy industry fields, in fact it doesn'T, because leadership many of these sectors already have travelled to the Far East. That the US is the biggest polluter in the world (CO2, CO, and some studies even say Methan (due to the massive artificial agriculture, intense stock-farming and Rice in special), while others point to the Far East in this regard (Rice) ) is because it so massively depends on old, aged production methods in it's energy and heavy industry sector. If it would modernize in these sectors it would cut jobs (an adaptation whole europe already went through, that'S why american steel cannot compete with european steel and thus Bush'S attempt to protect steel market at all cost), would lower subsidies (as it did throughout europe), and would lower emissions in general. There hase been emmission reduction concerning other polluting factors, up to 50% since the fifties (sulphur-based, and others), but these are not unique for America, but have been dumped in all Western world to comparable degree.
How someone who -judging by his lightweight remakrs - obviously does not know too much about this can nevertheless conclude that if there are differences between america and Europe they nevertheless cannot be big, remains a mystery. New in the program: "Abraham's world". And if the European hypocrisy is "well-known", than surely Abraham'S tendency to twist and distort or ignore facts until they match his views is as well-known by now, too.
I'll be off to Dortmund in less than an hour. Over the weekend you all will need to play alone. Behave and don't watch too much TV.
Onkel Neal
10-01-05, 07:27 AM
"In reality". If abrahams says so, it already is a contradiction in itself. He means: his reality.
Make your own conclusions if it really can be like Abraham's unbiased and competent remarks tries to make you believe.
Well, you could insert "Skybird" in place of "Abraham" and get a clear picture of what I am thinking when I read 50% of your posts, mate.
"In reality". If Skybird says so, it already is a contradiction in itself. He means: his reality.
Make your own conclusions if it really can be like Skybird's unbiased and competent remarks tries to make you believe.
How someone who -judging by his lightweight remakrs - obviously does not know too much about this can nevertheless conclude that if there are differences between america and Europe they nevertheless cannot be big, remains a mystery. New in the program: "Abraham's world". And if the European hypocrisy is "well-known", than surely Abraham'S tendency to twist and distort or ignore facts until they match his views is as well-known by now, too.
Tsk, not nice :-?
the average American consumes far more gasoline, electrical energy, and material ressources (to make products of them) than the average European.
Yes, true but part of that also can be attributed to the size of the nation and climate. People in the southern US and Texas use a lot of electricity to keep their homes below 38 degrees in the summer. Come stay in Houston for a couple months in the summer without electrictity, you'll lose all your feathers. I bet if the European govts dropped their taxes on gas, many would opt for larger cars.
Now, one may think I oppose your viewpoint 100% but actually I am inclined to agree with some of it. I do favor smart environmental management and resource conservatism. I drive a small (by US standards) car with only a 2.7L engine, I keep the air conditioner set at 80F in the summer. My main complaint is (as I have said in the past) you only know one song and you like to sing it over and over. And it wears on one.
I'll be off to Dortmund in less than an hour. Over the weekend you all will need to play alone. Behave and don't watch too much TV. Thanks for letting us know you are away, now I won't be worried and posting "Where did Skybird go?"
PS: From the slice of Germany I visited last week, it looks like a splendid country. I'll have to get back there in a few years for a longer visit.
Rockstar
10-01-05, 08:10 AM
... the average American consumes far more gasoline, electrical energy, and material ressources (to make products of them) than the average European.
Probably because we work longer hours in turn we want to play often too.
American’s average annual work hours now exceed Europe’s by more than 25 percent. Surprisingly, France has the longest European work hours.
Europe’s shorter work expectations are becoming institutionalized, and hence not likely to change back quickly. Consider the following:
Around six weeks of paid time off is now the annual norm across Europe. This is 2 to 3 times as many paid days off per year than Americans.
Vacation time has nearly doubled since the 1970s in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.
France recently extended its three-year law reducing the workweek to 35 hours from 39. The law now includes companies with fewer than 20 employees.
A 2002 Timbro study found that the average European worker took more than 30 days of sick time per year.
According to a New York Times report, on an average day in Norway, 25 percent of Norway’s workers call in sick.
Sit on your buttocks all day and you won't expend much energy.
Abraham
10-01-05, 11:14 AM
"In reality". If abrahams says so, it already is a contradiction in itself. He means: his reality.
...
Make your own conclusions if it really can be like Abraham's unbiased and competent remarks tries to make you believe.
...
How someone who -judging by his lightweight remakrs - obviously does not know too much about this can nevertheless conclude that if there are differences between america and Europe they nevertheless cannot be big, remains a mystery. New in the program: "Abraham's world". And if the European hypocrisy is "well-known", than surely Abraham'S tendency to twist and distort or ignore facts until they match his views is as well-known by now, too.
@ Skybird:
Did you press the "Preview" button before the "Submit" button when you posted this?
Don't you think you got a little bit too much personal and patronising against me.
Not that I mind, but this forum is for exchanging view with a certain level of respect for others and not for personal vendetta's.
You have surprised me with the weirdest postings recently, likeThe scriptures my God has wirtten are different. He told me that Ive a right to sleep with your wife, so will you please shut up and send her over this evening, yes. Ah, and while we are at it, he also wrote that I have a right to use your banking account, so give 2000 dollars to take it with her when she comes, yes? Be a nice guy, just do as God has wanted, please. It is written, so it must be, you see. All I want is to live in peace with you. to give just one of many examples of weird personal postings. You have even remarked in postings that you sometimes could kill me and that you doubted my very existence.
I really have nothing against you in person, but you seem to have a problem with criticism; you seem to be full of personal spite and acid. I am not intimidated by your knowledge, sarcasm, intelligence, or whatever you bring to bear in our discussions. In my time as a student I used to discuss till daybreak with people like you over a beer or two. But others on the forum start to get irritated and that's not the idea of this forum. I also find the quality of your argumentation more and more lacking lacking (see quote above).
I therefor decided to refrain from further comments on your postings and ignore them, also if I agree with some of your postings - which has also happened...
It might be better for the atmosphere on the General Topics Forum... and itmight perhaps be better for you as well.
;)
Around six weeks of paid time off is now the annual norm across Europe. This is 2 to 3 times as many paid days off per year than Americans.
Six weeks?! lol someone please tell me where I can get a job with that kind of holiday entitlement :D
I get 20 days annually, and untill recently that had to include the statutory bank-holidays- so in reality I only got thirteen days actual annual leave :o also our company allows for a maximum of three weeks time allocated for illness per year should it be needed, though if you take more than three days off on the trot due to sickness you must produce a doctors certifficate to prove you are/were unwell.
This is pretty much standard for most forms of employment here, particularily if you earn less than 17k per annum (like me :roll: - actual figure is £13,000pa before any tax deductions... boooo! sssss!).
Around six weeks of paid time off is now the annual norm across Europe. This is 2 to 3 times as many paid days off per year than Americans.
Six weeks?! lol someone please tell me where I can get a job with that kind of holiday entitlement :D
I get 20 days annually, and untill recently that had to include the statutory bank-holidays- so in reality I only got thirteen days actual annual leave :o also our company allows for a maximum of three weeks time allocated for illness per year should it be needed, though if you take more than three days off on the trot due to sickness you must produce a doctors certifficate to prove you are/were unwell.
This is pretty much standard for most forms of employment here, particularily if you earn less than 17k per annum (like me :roll: - actual figure is £13,000pa before any tax deductions... boooo! sssss!).
It's all how you divide the numbers. 3 weeks (15 days?) of paid sick leave per year is very rare over here. I've worked for many companies over the years and have seen anything from 2 days to a maximum of 10 with most being less than 5.
So if you add, say 8 days, of the extra sick time you get to your 4 weeks vacation time the numbers come close to matching what he said. Presently i get 3 sick days and 10 vacation days per year at my job (trade school Teacher) and that's all i'll ever get as long as i'm here.
Presently i get 3 sick days and 10 vacation days per year at my job (trade school Teacher) and that's all i'll ever get as long as i'm here
That's bloody awful m8 :down:
The sick leave thing we have is definitely something which we can't abuse, although it's there if needed for something serious. I think last year I had 4 sick days in total and none so far this time, but I think my boss would get a bit suspicious if I took a weeks annual leave preceeded by a week on the sick! :rotfl: not that I'm not tempted ;)
As far as I know, most fulltime positions wheather 'salaried' or 'waged' offer sick pay in one form or another. The only time when this doesn't apply is when you work for a temping agency- usually any time you take off sick (ie. when you are not earning the agency a commision for your employment) is unpaid and given that there is a large market for tempory employment positions from office work to warehousing here, a large proportion of the workforce don't really have any kind of security against a rainy day. And when most tempory work is minimum wage (about £4.20 per hour, I think) this means many will have to continue to work to break even as long as they are able, with nothing really left for any kind of retirement except for the much maligned state pension, which somehow remains the same regardless of how much the cost if utilities and local services rise- our Council Tax being such a one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4299632.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4290596.stm
XabbaRus
10-01-05, 04:36 PM
Nuclear power, the only realistic alternative in my mind.
Yes wind power, solar power and wave power are great in theory but each on their own can't provide the amount of energy currently supplied by conventional power stations.
Even a mix of the technologies.
Nuclear power stations provide the power wihtout the emissions.
Now I haven't forgotten about the waste issue. Well you plan for that. Disposal has to be built into the plan. Hopefully progress will be made with fusion technology.
There is also the net carbon saving to be taken into account when building these things. If more CO2 is going to be generated building a powerplant than will be saved over the lifetime of its operations then is it worth it?
Wim Libaers
10-02-05, 09:13 AM
Nuclear power, the only realistic alternative in my mind.
Yes wind power, solar power and wave power are great in theory but each on their own can't provide the amount of energy currently supplied by conventional power stations.
Even a mix of the technologies.
Nuclear power stations provide the power wihtout the emissions.
Now I haven't forgotten about the waste issue. Well you plan for that. Disposal has to be built into the plan. Hopefully progress will be made with fusion technology.
There is also the net carbon saving to be taken into account when building these things. If more CO2 is going to be generated building a powerplant than will be saved over the lifetime of its operations then is it worth it?
Probably also a reason why Europe has lower CO2 emissions. The US has a lot of the dirtier coal-burning plants (which spit out much worse stuff in addition to CO2), while clean nuclear is more common in Europe. Of course, our eco-nuts are hard at work to outlaw nuclear power, after their previous success: stopping fast breeder reactors which would have created less waste and be more efficient than the reactors currently in use. Their approach makes sense if they want total energy reduction: getting the cleanest technology banned is easier when there are still alternatives, so they do that first, and at the end when the only tech left is very dirty, they can still oppose that because the flaws are obvious. And then we can go back to the stone age.
XabbaRus
10-02-05, 04:30 PM
I thought the UK still had a fast-breeder reactor.
Damo1977
10-03-05, 08:03 AM
When I was driving the subsim.commers around last week during the Meeting I suddenly had to pay € 97 (about $ 120) for a full tank (but that was after Kethrina & Rita of course)...
Didn't spoil our mood though.
:D
What car you driving? My pro-American friend :P
Abraham
10-03-05, 10:21 AM
When I was driving the subsim.commers around last week during the Meeting I suddenly had to pay € 97 (about $ 120) for a full tank (but that was after Kathrina & Rita of course)...
Didn't spoil our mood though.
:D
What car you driving? My pro-American friend :P
Volvo V70 XC
And I am not your pro-American friend. I am just not anti-American...
:)
Wim Libaers
10-03-05, 05:07 PM
I thought the UK still had a fast-breeder reactor.
True. And it lost fuel contracts due to nuclear power reductions in other countries, and is not expected to be in use much longer (2010 probably).
Onkel Neal
10-03-05, 09:38 PM
When I was driving the subsim.commers around last week during the Meeting I suddenly had to pay € 97 (about $ 120) for a full tank (but that was after Kethrina & Rita of course)...
Didn't spoil our mood though.
:D
What car you driving? My pro-American friend :P
You make it sound like there is something wrong with people who like America. How would you like it if people were pathologically abusing your homeland?
Damo1977
10-03-05, 09:46 PM
When I was driving the subsim.commers around last week during the Meeting I suddenly had to pay € 97 (about $ 120) for a full tank (but that was after Kethrina & Rita of course)...
Didn't spoil our mood though.
:D
What car you driving? My pro-American friend :P
You make it sound like there is something wrong with people who like America. How would you like it if people were pathologically abusing your homeland?
:damn: Geez man, settle down. So Mr Stevens its alright for Americans to give other countries ****e, but when it is returned you can't take it. I take it as a joke when you Americans give us Aussies ****e, and than return it. I think that is fair. If I was seriously anti-American, well, I believe you would have known about it now...........
Heres a present for you too
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/8956/2004tq.jpg
:P
Onkel Neal
10-03-05, 09:49 PM
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. Try abusing France, for example, or Germany/England/Canada/Venezuela, etc for several months here, I will have the same response.
Clank!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.