LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2005, 08:11 AM   #46
davholla
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: London
Distribution: Linux Mint 13 Maya
Posts: 729

Rep: Reputation: 32

The problem with bio fuels is that although they can help, we need more than we grow for them to completely replace oil and coal.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004...rs-not-people/

Of course there is not one solution to problems caused by fossil fuels. There are a mixture of things that could help eg bio-fuels, wind power, wave power, (possibly nuclear) and sadly energy conservation. If we all used a bit less it could help stop pollution and the need to damage places like Alaska.

I think those who trust the big petrochemicals to look after the enviroment really should read more dilbert cartoons !
 
Old 03-15-2005, 09:10 AM   #47
Marius2
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Munich
Distribution: SuSE 9.2, 10.2, 10.3, knoppix
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by al_periodical
I wonder where the hell did you guys get those energy just to protect forest,animals,plants,insects,worms,fungus,bacteria and their habitat.
Of course you are aware that without "forest,animals,plants,insects,worms,fungus,bacteria, and their habitat", there will be no al_periodical either?
 
Old 03-15-2005, 09:47 AM   #48
al_periodical
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: redhat9
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Of course you are aware that without "forest,animals,plants,insects,worms,fungus,bacteria, and their habitat", there will be no al_periodical either?
simple and straight to the point,i love that.
but i think it is not easy to drives this simple common sense into somebody's mind

Last edited by al_periodical; 03-15-2005 at 09:50 AM.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 09:55 AM   #49
berrance
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Hull - England
Distribution: Ubunto and slowly switching to debian
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Donboy
I own an SUV myself, but it's only a 4.3 liter engine, so I consider it to be more of a "conservative" SUV and not a gas-guzzling monster like the Ford Expedition.
i havent read the much of this thread yet so ignore me if this has already been pointed out

IMHO, ONLY 4.3 thats huge compered with cars in the UK and you consider 4.3 to be small try getting something smaller from europe. i mean you can pay even a litre of fuel in the UK let alone a gallon!!! if you where driving that around in the UK you wouldnt have a lot of mony left plus you probably would get done for high emmisions. I would say the average family car in the uk is a 1.8, so 4.3 compared with 1.8 is huge! how much fuel do you people need????
 
Old 03-15-2005, 10:12 AM   #50
al_periodical
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: redhat9
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
I would say the average family car in the uk is a 1.8, so 4.3 compared with 1.8 is huge! how much fuel do you people need????
as usual , i wonder how did the american policy maker at the top of all americans didact that roughly how much of the world's natural resources should go to the first world and second world(furthur splitting within them) and how much of the left-over world's natural resources should be best left to the Third World ? While many or most of the Third Worlds are the producers who are "importing back" thier own resources.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 10:15 AM   #51
davholla
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: London
Distribution: Linux Mint 13 Maya
Posts: 729

Rep: Reputation: 32
Surely, it is not good for Americans to have cars that use more fuel than neccessary ?
After all even if gasoline is cheap, it still costs money.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 12:15 PM   #52
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 683

Rep: Reputation: 63
There is more to a gallon of gas than the price of the fuel. I hear complaints from Europeans all the time how gas is so high and the US has gas so cheap. How much of that is taxes? And taxes are fault of who?
 
Old 03-15-2005, 12:41 PM   #53
gulo
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
Blinker, it's mostly that the US subsidizes Big Oil to a larger degree than does the EU.

http://www.walksacramento.org/gas.html

Quote:
The Real Price Of Gas Executive Summary

This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA)
identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles
and the internal combustion engine that are not reflected in the retail
price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay
indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in
other sectors.

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary
areas:

(1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies;
(3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services;
(4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other
Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use.

Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per
year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per
gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 12:48 PM   #54
gulo
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by davholla
The problem with bio fuels is that although they can help, we need more than we grow for them to completely replace oil and coal.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004...rs-not-people/
Actually most of the down-side that article claims has been refuted by main-stream research here in the US.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 01:11 PM   #55
trickykid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,149

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 261Reputation: 261Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally posted by Blinker_Fluid
There is more to a gallon of gas than the price of the fuel. I hear complaints from Europeans all the time how gas is so high and the US has gas so cheap. How much of that is taxes? And taxes are fault of who?
But you also have to accept the fact that Europe and larger cities have very good mass transit, so raising the taxes or gas prices is a good thing, it limits those to owning one and to use mass transit.
Where I live, it sucks and rather more open, further apart, so your forced to have a car unless you live downtown. If I lived in New York or San Francisco, I wouldn't even bother with owning a car and ride the bus or subway, etc, everywhere. I hate seeing big SUV's with stay-at-home mom's who don't necessarily need a big gas guzzler to tote themselves or kids around town, its pointless and wasteful to me. Oh well..

That's the one thing I wish the United States had more of though, better mass transit systems nationwide cause I'd certainly use it.

Last edited by trickykid; 03-15-2005 at 01:13 PM.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 01:17 PM   #56
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 683

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally posted by gulo
Blinker, it's mostly that the US subsidizes Big Oil to a larger degree than does the EU.

http://www.walksacramento.org/gas.html
So did you even read that article?
Quote:
Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state
income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in
undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel
taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of
$4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users.
Total BS My state taxes fuel at $.25/Gallon which is almost double the current sales tax. Then it goes on and adds costs like fire and police and puts some number out there for cost of air quality and cost of urban sprawl. I guess they forgot to add up the cost of pulling numbers out of the air or we would really have something here.

Sorry I'm laughing got to love these numbers:
Quote:
travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)
uncompensated damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2 billion)
subsidized parking ($108.7 to $199.3 billion)
insurance losses due to automobile-related climate change ($12.9 billion)
aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion)
That's a nice little article if you're into fiction...
 
Old 03-15-2005, 01:49 PM   #57
prj
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: South Wales
Distribution: Kubuntu, Ubuntu server, SuSE 11, Knoppix, Puppy, Myth. Oh alright then, all of them
Posts: 177

Rep: Reputation: 30
25c state tax - Would you guys please have a word with our chancellor, Gordon Brown - we are up to about 80% (over a $ per litre, not gallon!) tax on petrol so far and he increments it as and when he pleases.

You got it cheap in the States for sure.

And I wish public transport was covered by this but it's not - most of the money goes on "social" schemes to keep the PC and Eurocrats brigade happy.

Last edited by prj; 03-15-2005 at 01:52 PM.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 01:55 PM   #58
gulo
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 15
Yes, the article does take things a little too far IMHO also, but consider the range it gives. $5 to $15 / gal! Even if you disagree
with some of the claims, and only want to take the most conservative estimate, we're still paying $3 or $4 / gal in our taxes!!!!

Why is this important? Because to level the playing field, bio-fuels would need to be equally subsidized ( comparatively, they're only lightly subsidized ). If even by the most conservative estimate then, if E85 or Bio-D were as subsidized as gasoline, then the US Federal and State
governments would be paying me $2.00 to $3.00 per gallon to just drive around town.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 02:35 PM   #59
stabile007
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Distribution: Ubuntu, Gentoo
Posts: 74

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by trickykid
But you also have to accept the fact that Europe and larger cities have very good mass transit, so raising the taxes or gas prices is a good thing, it limits those to owning one and to use mass transit.
Where I live, it sucks and rather more open, further apart, so your forced to have a car unless you live downtown. If I lived in New York or San Francisco, I wouldn't even bother with owning a car and ride the bus or subway, etc, everywhere. I hate seeing big SUV's with stay-at-home mom's who don't necessarily need a big gas guzzler to tote themselves or kids around town, its pointless and wasteful to me. Oh well..

That's the one thing I wish the United States had more of though, better mass transit systems nationwide cause I'd certainly use it.
Case in point: SEPTA which by fair the the crappiest Public Transportation authority ever to grace the face of a major city.
 
Old 03-15-2005, 02:42 PM   #60
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 683

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally posted by gulo
Yes, the article does take things a little too far IMHO also, but consider the range it gives. $5 to $15 / gal! Even if you disagree
with some of the claims, and only want to take the most conservative estimate, we're still paying $3 or $4 / gal in our taxes!!!!

Why is this important? Because to level the playing field, bio-fuels would need to be equally subsidized ( comparatively, they're only lightly subsidized ). If even by the most conservative estimate then, if E85 or Bio-D were as subsidized as gasoline, then the US Federal and State
governments would be paying me $2.00 to $3.00 per gallon to just drive around town.
And why would the Bio-fuel make a difference? Most of the costs they indicate
Quote:
travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)
uncompensated damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2 billion)
subsidized parking ($108.7 to $199.3 billion)
insurance losses due to automobile-related climate change ($12.9 billion)
aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion)
Doesn't have anything to do with the fuel itself. The article has no basis in fact. The subsidies it claims are some politicians way of saying you are not paying enough taxes. If we paid an extra 11.7 Billion in taxes do you think it would do anything for aesthetic degradation of cultural sites?
I can make up some numbers if you like for example amount of time spent driving to work instead of walking $12 trillion, Emergancy services response time truck vs horse and buggy $89 Million dollars, Time spent at home instead of still walking to the store - Priceless.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black Sea oil J_K9 General 14 10-28-2005 07:03 PM
The Iraq War: was it for oil? primo General 51 09-07-2005 01:42 PM
SUSE 9.2 ftp - no software proposal alanbarnard SUSE / openSUSE 3 03-19-2005 01:57 PM
A Modest Proposal shane25119 General 4 09-30-2004 06:24 PM
Alaska Penguin captgoodnight Linux - General 16 09-07-2002 04:01 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration