[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote:
> So many, like the previous ranter, see the US' way of doin
> things, like mass consumption of pertroleum, as the way
> the world ought to be.
The standard of living (quality of life) has improved
dramatically for people of all social classes (in any
particular society, and the sharpest improvement is mostly
for the lower classes) since the harnessing of various forms
of natural energy. This is absolutely inarguable. The
question is not whether using energy is a plus, it most
certainly is, but if it can be used more effectively.
> Instead of genuine conservation starting with NOT buying
> large, inefficient vehicles.
Please explain how a joule of energy saved in the gas tank
results in a joule of energy saved in the aggregate
economy, all other things equal. You can't, because it
doesn't. And after all, that is the real goal of so-called
"energy conservation": to reduce energy consumption in the
aggregate economy.
Folks should reduce the energy consumed in their gas tanks
because it would make them richer, not because it saves
energy in the aggregate economy. "Gas tank" energy savings
do not result in energy savings in the aggregate economy,
all other things equal.
> NO OTHER place in the world has these giants, like
> Suburbans, Excursions, Expeditions, etc...
What is your point?
