AAFitz wrote:Pedronicus wrote:I've got a cute idea
lets aim the nukes at the Americans that use 26.1% of the worlds energy per year, whilst only being 4.53% of the world population.
That's the best way to stop the requirement for oil.
Complaining about energy usage while using a computer to play a game is about as productive as spray painting on a wall.
In any case, its easy for someone on an island with a pretty moderate temperature throughout the year, to complain about a continent with extremes in temperature from 120F degrees to -120Fdegrees. We also as you mention have a pretty small population in relation to our size, so it does indeed take more time to get where we are going. Weve only been settling the place for over 400 years total--not counting the time native Americans lived here, but they werent as much settling...and by settling, I suppose I mean conquering.
I had some friends from Scotland who were completely annoyed that our gas prices were much lower, until they had to go out and get jobs, and realized that they couldnt possibly afford to even have those jobs if the gas prices were the same.
We have a massive continent, its friggin hot, and its friggin cold. I agree that there is much, much waste at the same time, but dont go thinking normal Americans are going out spewing gas all over the place for fun. We use it to go to work, and keep from freezing, and keep from melting. And use it to play some silly games on the internet as well, but most, try to conserve as much as they possibly can, and if other options were available, wed take them in a second.
This is true, but it is also false.
If gas prices were higher, then wages would have to follow. BUT, the biggest issue is mass transit. Just as an example, Los Angeles had planned a subway system in the 50's. It was killed, ostentiably due to earthquakes, but in truth, because GM saw a huge market and did not want the competition. To this day, Los Angeles is a big sprawl with only poor mass transit. It has improve some in recent years, but nowhere near what it could be.
Or, take Amtrak. It got a bad name under Reagan. Truth is, trains are very efficient means of moving goods and people, far better than planes. The problem is that while our government puts millions into roadways, the jurisdiction of rails is almost entirely private. So, you have stretches run by companies that do a great job of maintaining tracks, followed by another company that does as little as possible. The system is only as strong as its weakest link. So, we have stretches of failures that cause big, spectacular accidents and dissuade people from rail travel. Plus, our rail system has been largely denuded.
I have rails running 3 blocks from my house, and connections that essentially surround us on all sides (though by some miles). Yet, if I want to ride a train, I have to drive 2 hours to catch one. And, that is the ONLY connection for a couple hundred miles in every direction. I can actually catch a small commercial flight just 30 minutes away, a flight from a big airport just 1 1/2 hours away. There are 3 Airports within 2 hours, 5 airports, including 2 international ones, within 2 1/2 hours.
When gas prices go up, more people use mass transit. More people using them mean they can be more profitable. Sadly, too my systems, though were designed to actually not be profitable.