The Forum > Article Comments > Pulling together a national fuel strategy > Comments
Pulling together a national fuel strategy : Comments
By David Lamb, published 25/1/2006David Lamb asks did we believe we could go on without paying for the cost of repairing the causes of climate change.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by dunart, Monday, 5 June 2006 10:36:30 AM
| |
I believe the best way to save on fuel is to change the way we use our car, and how we drive.
I found an interesting article here: http://publicarticles.info/articles/fuel_efficiency/index.asp Have anybody applied any of the fuel efficiency techniques in the above article and please share the results with everybody? Thanks! Posted by theshining, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:46:47 AM
| |
Thanks for this link theshining. And welcome to the Online Opinion Forum.
Now here are a few more things we can do 1. car pool with your work mates 2. get on ya bike and leave the car at home 3. drive only so far on ya way to work and then walk, run or ride the rest of the way – if you can find a secure place to put ya vehicle. 4. walk or jog to nearby shops 5. get a bus or train, again maybe in combination with walking or riding 6. lobby our silly governments to stop increasing the population, because if the number of consumers continues to increase, our personal improvements are not going to lead to overall reductions in emissions. Don’t just think about your personal gains or savings. Espouse genuine sustainability – which means limits to growth (human expansion)….and the development of renewable energy sources. Each point from 1 to 5 is as significant as all or most of the points on the ‘PublicArticles.info – How to save on fuel’ site. I particularly practice points 2 and 6. Point 2 alone has led to a better than 50% improvement in fuel efficiency for daily commuting needs. Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 31 July 2006 7:29:03 PM
| |
The following is from ‘Cleaner Cycling’ by John Dee, in ‘Road Ahead’, the bimonthly magazine of the RACQ (February/March 2006).
“In the last 12 months bike sales in Australia topped 1 million for the fourth straight year” “…..bikes have outsold cars for the last 6 consecutive years” “Prior to recent petrol price hikes, the Australian Greenhouse Office estimated that cycling 10km to work every day saved you $1700 a year in transport costs” “Cost savings also come when you buy and maintain your bike [which is] only 1% of the cost of buying and maintaining a car” “When you consider that 60% of car trips…. are less than 10km, there’s a great potential to increase bike usage” “For each 3km you ride your bike instead of driving, you can reduce your personal greenhouse emissions by about 1kg” “But the benefits of cycling are not just environmental. Regular cycling will also make you as fit as an average person 10 years younger than you” So……getonya bikes ya slackers! Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:24:10 PM
| |
David
I am pleased you have raised this issue. you will be aware that the ghg benefits of ethanol use in petrol blends as presently done, are trivial. The costs of doing this so far are huge - probably in excess of half a billion dollars of public money. You will know that this decision was made by government to satisfy big business and the national party. As a nation we cannot afford to waste such huge sums of money for very limited, almost negligible, GHG returns. Public funds must be used to achieve real GHG benefits. probably the most effective way of doing this is through public information to reduce waste and consumption. We need a massive public education blitz - like the AIDS or workplace reform campaigns. I have no doubt that this could save 10 to 20% GHG very quickly. But will the government (or Rudd) do this? The answer is NO. Why? Because they do not want to offend big business - growth is God. Of course quality, non politicised, research, is also very important; I believe some bio ethanol production might be energy efficient and GHG friendly - for example using wood as feedstock also geothermal. But money must be spent where there is real value for the investment; at present conservation is the best of these and should have the highest priority. Posted by last word, Saturday, 16 December 2006 5:47:47 PM
| |
No argument at all. I've been a Schumaker fan for years.
Posted by David Lamb, Monday, 18 December 2006 8:12:54 AM
|
If you look at the fuel to wages ratio, it has not changed much over the last 35 years.
The only message people understand, is a higher price relative to wages, so forget about all this regulation answers, and remove indexing of wages to energy costs and the problem will sort itself out.