05-29-2007, 05:58 AM
Hail Jarulf, good to see another European weigh in on the discussion:)
I wanted to clarify the main reasons for my posts.
First off, a lot of places in Europe seems to have a system that works great. Higher taxes and tariffs on gasoline (enforced by government legislation) have made people shy away from driving in favor of public transportation. Note, I don't think this is the case for *all* of Europe. Nor do I think it's a bad system.
Secondly, I was replying to a comment Eppie made originally about the low cost of gasoline in America being the problem. My reply was to say the answer has nothing to do with increasing prices at the pump. Both Europe and the United States buy their crude oil at roughly the same price per barrel. The price difference is almost entirely based on taxes and tariffs, in other words higher prices in Europe is often a conscious decision by European governments. Former Russian states denied access to the Russia oil pipeline excluded, of course.
Now, to reply to your post directly Jarulf. The reason I brought up Nevada is to illustrate the US does have a lot more barren areas, and they are located often between highly valued areas. States like Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico have cities, but are for the most part pretty unusable barren stretches of land (again, forgive me anyone from the area for the unfavorable light). To the east is the farming mid-west, to the west is California. The purpose was to say, now if I have economic or personal interests in those two areas, how am I going to travel? I'm going to drive. There's no other strong infrastructure of travel. And honestly, building one there makes zero sense fiscally.
As for Europe, I'm aware there are some pretty barren places. I'm in agreement with your example of Scandinavian countries, there's definitely a lot of unused 'barren' space. But I still disagree with the sentiment (not necessarily from you, but from other loungers!) that there's little difference between Europe and the United States. There is, and I don't believe what works over there will necessarily be a solution over here. If I recall correctly, Europe and the US have roughly the same size land mass. But Europe has about 700 million people in it, to the US's 300 million. The population density is over double in Europe. I concede that my comparison of Belgium and Nevada was rhetorically slanted - comparing one of the least populated states with one of the most densely populated countries. But I think the underlying point is valid: the structure of Europe as a whole is very different than it is in the states.
I agree with your point about the structure of the towns making a big difference as well. This may or may not be what you meant, but in the town I grew up in and my parents live in, there are almost no sidewalks. Nothing is accessible by foot, and there has been no attempt to make it so by the town. Now I already can hear the cries to pave every street and make it better! But that's exactly not the solution. The people here pay a high enough tax burden as is, and taxing them more for sidewalks (construction, upkeep etc) is something people don't want. And yes, it quite literally went to a town vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated.
But to be clear, just because I see the solution as apples and oranges for what works here vs. Europe, I'm not defending the US remaining on the path it is currently. We do consume a lot of crude oil in its many forms, and we do create a massive amount of waste per person as a country. The solution has to come in efficiency and alternative energies. The world as a whole needs to push hard into developing the technology to make these two goals a quickly attainable reality. I don't think we'll find much disagreement here at the Lounge about that.
But to leave it at such a vast generalization is what I have a problem with. Perhaps in Europe the solution will be making more efficient smaller engined cars. Or using solar power reflected by mirrors (quite a feat I must admit). But these technologies may not work the same way in the US. In the US the solution might be powerful diesel truck engines that burn cleaner and more efficiently in the farming mid-west. And more of our landfills (which there certainly are a lot of due to our waste output) could be converted into methane energy production. About the actual specifics, it's entirely up to debate. But what I do think is the solution isn't a one size fits all technology. Hydrogen fuel, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The answer isn't in one route to a better planet. It's developing many different ones for different applications.
Cheers,
Munk
PS. Does anyone else agree saying things like 'teach people to conserve by changing their mentality' is a platitude? Seriously, it's like saying "lower crime by teaching people to be lawful". Isn't that a given? It's not a bad thought, but do we need to say it on the news every few days? Who out there is disagreeing with it?
I wanted to clarify the main reasons for my posts.
First off, a lot of places in Europe seems to have a system that works great. Higher taxes and tariffs on gasoline (enforced by government legislation) have made people shy away from driving in favor of public transportation. Note, I don't think this is the case for *all* of Europe. Nor do I think it's a bad system.
Secondly, I was replying to a comment Eppie made originally about the low cost of gasoline in America being the problem. My reply was to say the answer has nothing to do with increasing prices at the pump. Both Europe and the United States buy their crude oil at roughly the same price per barrel. The price difference is almost entirely based on taxes and tariffs, in other words higher prices in Europe is often a conscious decision by European governments. Former Russian states denied access to the Russia oil pipeline excluded, of course.
Now, to reply to your post directly Jarulf. The reason I brought up Nevada is to illustrate the US does have a lot more barren areas, and they are located often between highly valued areas. States like Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico have cities, but are for the most part pretty unusable barren stretches of land (again, forgive me anyone from the area for the unfavorable light). To the east is the farming mid-west, to the west is California. The purpose was to say, now if I have economic or personal interests in those two areas, how am I going to travel? I'm going to drive. There's no other strong infrastructure of travel. And honestly, building one there makes zero sense fiscally.
As for Europe, I'm aware there are some pretty barren places. I'm in agreement with your example of Scandinavian countries, there's definitely a lot of unused 'barren' space. But I still disagree with the sentiment (not necessarily from you, but from other loungers!) that there's little difference between Europe and the United States. There is, and I don't believe what works over there will necessarily be a solution over here. If I recall correctly, Europe and the US have roughly the same size land mass. But Europe has about 700 million people in it, to the US's 300 million. The population density is over double in Europe. I concede that my comparison of Belgium and Nevada was rhetorically slanted - comparing one of the least populated states with one of the most densely populated countries. But I think the underlying point is valid: the structure of Europe as a whole is very different than it is in the states.
I agree with your point about the structure of the towns making a big difference as well. This may or may not be what you meant, but in the town I grew up in and my parents live in, there are almost no sidewalks. Nothing is accessible by foot, and there has been no attempt to make it so by the town. Now I already can hear the cries to pave every street and make it better! But that's exactly not the solution. The people here pay a high enough tax burden as is, and taxing them more for sidewalks (construction, upkeep etc) is something people don't want. And yes, it quite literally went to a town vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated.
But to be clear, just because I see the solution as apples and oranges for what works here vs. Europe, I'm not defending the US remaining on the path it is currently. We do consume a lot of crude oil in its many forms, and we do create a massive amount of waste per person as a country. The solution has to come in efficiency and alternative energies. The world as a whole needs to push hard into developing the technology to make these two goals a quickly attainable reality. I don't think we'll find much disagreement here at the Lounge about that.
But to leave it at such a vast generalization is what I have a problem with. Perhaps in Europe the solution will be making more efficient smaller engined cars. Or using solar power reflected by mirrors (quite a feat I must admit). But these technologies may not work the same way in the US. In the US the solution might be powerful diesel truck engines that burn cleaner and more efficiently in the farming mid-west. And more of our landfills (which there certainly are a lot of due to our waste output) could be converted into methane energy production. About the actual specifics, it's entirely up to debate. But what I do think is the solution isn't a one size fits all technology. Hydrogen fuel, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The answer isn't in one route to a better planet. It's developing many different ones for different applications.
Cheers,
Munk
PS. Does anyone else agree saying things like 'teach people to conserve by changing their mentality' is a platitude? Seriously, it's like saying "lower crime by teaching people to be lawful". Isn't that a given? It's not a bad thought, but do we need to say it on the news every few days? Who out there is disagreeing with it?