Jump to content

8 good things about higher gas prices


beforewisdom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pretty much true. High prices stimulate innovation. The biggest problem with high prices, however, is food and commodities prices go up.

 

The good thing is alternatives are emerging. Check this out

http://www.primidi.com/2005/03/07.html

 

http://www.primidi.com/images/skysails_1.jpg

Where the weather/wind conditions are reasonable - e.g. on Atlantic routes - fuel savings of about 27% can be achieved. On routes where the superior internal volume capacity of the WindShip can be properly utilised, 50% fuel savings are possible.

 

Trucking and shipping are a problem. Now they have to focus on trucking. Trucking is based on cheap oil, which may soon be no more. Railroads are great, cause you can electrify them and you're not dependent on any fuel. Nobody's figured a good way to electrify trucks for now.

 

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/05/28/5690841-sun.html

LONDON -- Hundreds of trucks rolled into central London yesterday, jamming a major route into the British capital in a protest against rising fuel prices.

 

Around 300 truck drivers honked their horns and parked on a highway on the edge of the city.

 

The protest forced police to close off a section of road and divert hundreds of motorists during morning rush hour.

 

The truckers are protesting the soaring cost of fuel in Britain, where diesel fuel now costs around $2.35 a litre.

 

They say thousands of trucking jobs are in jeopardy and are calling on Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour government to lower fuel taxes for trucking companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping for a corresponding drop in the human and domesticated animal birth rate. I hope that we do not find another source of cheap fuel as this has resulted in a population explosion that needs to end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at all of the poor people with big famlies.

 

The only way to reliably reduce the population is to educate people and give them good economic opportunities.

 

Pet population is a matter of will. There are orgs with the money to make it happen, like HSUS. They have enough cash to educate people and provide discount sterilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education certainly is one way of reducing population. However, the advent of cheap fuel is what started us on this unprecedented population boom due to the green revolution in agriculture and mechanization of farming. When the US government won't fund family planning and education in poor countries, I think we can safely say that we've missed the opportunity to educate. A smaller and more expensive food supply may be the only way we see a decrease in population growth. It won't be a pleasant way to happen but it appears that it'll be the only way in our current world - unless pandemics/epidemics make a dent.

 

As for animals, I was actually referring to domesticated agricultural animals. If they are too expensive to grow then maybe we'll see a decrease there as well.

 

When we discuss food and energy shortages, we need to keep in mind that the current consumption that feeds into the problems. I'm a bit mystified that people seldom discuss the curbing of population as a way to conserve fuel and food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A smaller and more expensive food supply may be the only way we see a decrease in population growth.

 

Are you suggesting that starving poor people is a good means of population control? It really sounds that way, but I'm hoping it's just my mis-interpretation.

 

Regardless, I have to disagree. The countries with the smallest and most expensive food supplies tend to be the ones with the highest and growing populations. Wealthier countries with affordable food supplies, such as the USA and most European countries have declining populations. The US population is growing mainly by immigration, not native births. The immigrants are from the countries with limited and expensive food supplies.

 

The only way to reliably reduce the population is to educate people and give them good economic opportunities.

 

You're right on here Beforewisdom. People with good economic opportunities, decent housing, cars etc. willingly self-regulate their reproduction in order to maintain their lifestyle. Poor people have little pleasure in life other than their families and so are willing to keep reproducing.

 

Education and economics go hand in hand as well. It's amazing how many people, even here in the USA, are ignorant of their own bodies and reproductive systems. I have met adult women who did not know that urine and babies come out of separate openings! How scary is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael;

 

You are right the poor have kids because there is little else for them to have. It isn't the only problem with the poor. They have more kids to overcome the high mortality rates that exist in third world countries. The rural poor in those countries also do it for labor so that there is enough labor for the family to produce necessities and survive. Lastly, they have more kids so that their children will be able to afford to keep their parents alive when they are too old to work.

 

Its all economics and the economy is driven by affordable energy so I don't think working on the population first will help.

 

Even so, women in the 3rd world are not stupid and they want the best for their families. Various groups have had great success on population issues doing little more than teaching poor women to read.

 

They want to do what is best for the future of their family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have met adult women who did not know that urine and babies come out of separate openings! How scary is that?

 

I lol'd

 

I have heard of Americans who do not know Canada isn't part of the United States.

 

Every nation has it's idiots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The countries with the smallest and most expensive food supplies tend to be the ones with the highest and growing populations.

 

Logic dictates that sooner or later there will be a population peak and the population will decline. Nature's work, a species over-reproduces until it exceeds its food resources, thus killing itself.

 

I agree that education is the answer but what is more likely to occur first? Third world poverty increases exponentially and I doubt they can become educated and break long standing traditions of having as many offspring as possible before food supplies run dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third world poverty increases exponentially and I doubt they can become educated and break long standing traditions of having as many offspring as possible before food supplies run dry.

 

There is plenty of food now, and millions more acresjust in this country that aren't being used. Our government is still paying farmers NOT to grow food, and as long as you see people with lawns, there is no food shortage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is plenty of food now, and millions more acresjust in this country that aren't being used. Our government is still paying farmers NOT to grow food, and as long as you see people with lawns, there is no food shortage.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that there is enough food for us or the entire world for that matter. This is a mute point because for the many reasons the food is not getting to them. Cost of transport, food spoilage, conflict, governmental beauracracies, etc. The problem lies with countries who do not have the resources or have already used up their own resources. So quite frankly, "they" have a shortage of food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem lies with countries who do not have the resources or have already used up their own resources. So quite frankly, "they" have a shortage of food.

 

The two biggest countries in this situation, who have basically maxed their food production and populations are China and India. Both have rapidly developing economies and even more rapidly developing military forces, including anti-sattelite missiles and nuclear weapons. I don't believe they will simply sit around and starve. If they can't get what they need on the open market, they will take it by force. Just something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is something to think about. There have been many wars over resources - food will be no different. By the way, China is purchasing farmland abroad to feed its people.

 

Michael, if you read my earlier post as I intended, you would note that I did not think starvation of the poor was a "good" method of population control. It is my fear that this will become a reality because we've failed in the education of our species over the last few decades. No doubt, education of women is the best way to curb population growth - but there are too many roadblocks in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem lies with countries who do not have the resources or have already used up their own resources. So quite frankly, "they" have a shortage of food.

 

The two biggest countries in this situation, who have basically maxed their food production and populations are China and India. Both have rapidly developing economies and even more rapidly developing military forces, including anti-sattelite missiles and nuclear weapons. I don't believe they will simply sit around and starve. If they can't get what they need on the open market, they will take it by force. Just something to think about.

 

 

Smart man you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story with food shortage is pretty sad because there are countries that don't consume all of their produce and instead of selling it or giving it for free to the hungry they prefer to lose it either in the sea or burning it. They don't sell it because when they put more in the market the price goes down so it's not profitable anymore. If then its not profitable they could give it for free to the poor countries but as they receive it for no cost they sell it back and then the price goes down anyways.

 

As of gas climbing prices I think that nowadays few things drive the regular Joe to consume less, and high prices is at the top of the list. It would be good for the environment and as in a short spam of time there will be no huge shift to alternatives the extra money can be used to develop cleaner technologies. High prices though, are not very easy on persons with low incomes but rebates would do some job.

 

EDIT: I was still thinking in the food distribution ideas that I wrote and ironically they're kind of effortless explainations, but it's what sometimes happens. I would try to reach an agreement between the receiver and the giver so that the supplies are used to feed the country. Or give the food to an ngo that would make sure that those who need it will receive it. But this world is not perfect yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...