Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

shakran · 07-04-2006, 05:04 AM

Interesting views, but I think you're 1) overly pessimistic and 2) wrong.

there IS a solution to the oil consumption problem - but people won't like it. First, you make the CAFE vehicle fleet MPG average much higher (say, 40mpg) and you don't exempt trucks/SUV's/minivans/vans from that average.

Then you start thinking longterm and begin serious development work on REAL alternative energy sources for cars - not fake feelgood crap like ethanol and hydrogen. I'm talkin' solar-cell roofs and batteries here, with a small gas engine as backup if you get 2 weeks of clouds.

Then you start thinking real conservation and increase the public transportation infrastructure. Highspeed trains, light rail, subways, etc. It's pathetic that only a few cities have rail-based public transportation, especially since at least some of those cities (Washington D.C. for instance) prove that subways really work. No one who knows any better drives in DC. They're all on the Metro.

It's even more pathetic that Amtrak is an underfunded beast who's trains, not counting Accela, go a max of 80mph for only short stretches. More people would choose to take the train if they could get to their vacation destination without wasting their whole vacation on the travel portion.

Even if we accept the premise that invading China, Russia, etc, is morally ok (bullshit), it still would, at best, delay the inevitable. We would still face an energy crisis, just much farther down the road.

And then we get to the morality part. The fact that the American people did not rise up and revolt against a government who would commit the CRIME of invading a country that wasn't attacking us, and was giving us NO real reason to invade, is disgusting. Now you're suggesting that we condone doing it again and again.

This is the United States, not Napoleonic France. Quite frankly, if this country were to become an imperialistic, land grabbing bully, I would find a new place to live.

07-04-2006, 05:04 AM	#13 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Interesting views, but I think you're 1) overly pessimistic and 2) wrong. there IS a solution to the oil consumption problem - but people won't like it. First, you make the CAFE vehicle fleet MPG average much higher (say, 40mpg) and you don't exempt trucks/SUV's/minivans/vans from that average. Then you start thinking longterm and begin serious development work on REAL alternative energy sources for cars - not fake feelgood crap like ethanol and hydrogen. I'm talkin' solar-cell roofs and batteries here, with a small gas engine as backup if you get 2 weeks of clouds. Then you start thinking real conservation and increase the public transportation infrastructure. Highspeed trains, light rail, subways, etc. It's pathetic that only a few cities have rail-based public transportation, especially since at least some of those cities (Washington D.C. for instance) prove that subways really work. No one who knows any better drives in DC. They're all on the Metro. It's even more pathetic that Amtrak is an underfunded beast who's trains, not counting Accela, go a max of 80mph for only short stretches. More people would choose to take the train if they could get to their vacation destination without wasting their whole vacation on the travel portion. Even if we accept the premise that invading China, Russia, etc, is morally ok (bullshit), it still would, at best, delay the inevitable. We would still face an energy crisis, just much farther down the road. And then we get to the morality part. The fact that the American people did not rise up and revolt against a government who would commit the CRIME of invading a country that wasn't attacking us, and was giving us NO real reason to invade, is disgusting. Now you're suggesting that we condone doing it again and again. This is the United States, not Napoleonic France. Quite frankly, if this country were to become an imperialistic, land grabbing bully, I would find a new place to live.