Celivia

Well said. You have picked the hole in the economic rationalist view of the world.

Logic, I mentioned what I do to context the stupid and derogatory name calling which Celevia (and PK) indulged in by calling me a “future eater”. It had nothing to do with engendering “respect”, which neither you or I merit from simply founding a company.

The way I write is part conditioned by 350 word limit. That you find it “coloured” is your problem to deal with.
Imagine me writing in a peak cap if that helps you balance the text to your presumptuous and preposterous expectation.

“in my extensive experience”, I can only assume your view is “coloured” by an ideological posture reinforced by your need for pretentious and pompous self appointment to “expert”.

It is inconsistent with my “user experience” of public transport.

As for “public do not act in an environmentally favourable” , that would be the same “public” who elect the politicians to employ the bureaucrats to “SERVE”.

It is not the public who elect the politicians to ask the bureaucrats and “experts” what we should be allowed to do.

Celivia The waste avoided is through improvements in control of the commercial production cycle of food goods. One major sponsor is an industry association.

“Does this not worry you, knowing that the average Australian car emits 4 to 5 tonnes of CO2 per year?”

How much do the trucks which freight the goods which you then buy from your local supermarket pump out on your behalf?

How much is pumped by you breathing (a considerable amount if “producing nothing but hot air” is anything to go by).

Have you considered how much CO2 is absorbed by trees?

Does it worry me ? No , because in the context of the benefit derived from using my car, like earning a living, public transport will never get me where I need to be either efficiently or effectively.

(don’t bother trying to hang an emotional guilt trips on me Celivia, I was once married to a narcissist, so I have heard them all, seen them all and you are but an amateur)

continued

Cont.

“environment that is beyond repair.” That will happen if the breeders keep on breeding,
Stop the erosion of the worlds rain forests and other resources by capping the unsustainable population growth of the least able, rather than pretending you will do anything by presuming moral indignation and criticism of the needs of the more able.

Re “envy and small mindedness” I could be referring to your comments

“A pathetic excuse eagerly snapped up by the Rich” – has all the rancour of small minded envy.

Or “Yeah one can feel really safe on public transport since they sacked a lot of the rail staff.”

Or maybe “The real ‘future eaters’ .. are financially secure .. ‘alright Jack’ they don’t have to do anything about social equity and sustainable living.”

Oh how green is your envy Celevia!

And as for “financially secure” that is a state of mind, I have remortgaged my house to fund my business, I take the risks. If it fails because I miss an appointment when I was waiting for a tram which did not arrive, I lose my house.

And you have the audacity to pretend you think you know enough about me to call me a “Future eater”?

You may “choose” not to drive in a car but you cannot presume to tell me what I “must” do. Certainly, not until you are prepared to pay the full economic and un-subsidised fare on public transport (ie without it being subsidised by me) otherwise it is akin to “biting the hand which feeds you”.

“ENVIRONMENT which sustains humanity NOT the ECONOMY!”

ECONOMY - “the disposition or regulation of the parts or functions of any organic whole; an organized system or method.”
ECONOMICS – “the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management “

if you knew anything before commenting it should be “Economy” embraces the “Management of the Environment”

Rather than something to be juxtaposed against it for cheap political point scoring.

Col et al. This is a warning. If the debate continues like this I will suspend someone. It's getting more and more abusive. There are some good points here, but they're obscured by the name-calling.

Thank you GrahamY.

To get back to Alan Moran's article my problem with it is as follows.

It only considers cost as though that was all that matters. It shows little concern for the environment or for the social needs of those who are unable to drive.

In estimating the cost of cars he does not seem to give a figure to the incidental costs such as policing, accidents or environmental damage.

These factors cannot be dismissed or ignored. If the true cost of running a car were paid by the users I wonder if cars would be as popular as they are. While cars are needed for many journeys there are others that could be met by public transport. Also public activities such as offices, cinemas etc. could all be located near public transport.

It is interesting that Alan ignores European and Asian experiences. The world does not stop at the boundaries of the English language.

Excellent post, Logic.
Cost, indeed, is only a small part of the equation. This is so obvious that I don’t understand that factors apart from cost are being deliberately ignored.

Col,
“…calling me a “future eater”.
YOU were the one who called the Third World people ‘future feeders’. These people are the most vulnerable ones and have NO OPTIONS unlike people from developed countries. We have a responsibility to fix what we have exploited.

Aren’t we ALL future eaters to a certain extend? The comment about future eaters was not just directed at you but at all people who oppose the idea of using the greener options we have or are able to create!
You point out that trucks are a problem, too- which is all the more reason for striving for cleaner fuels for cars as well as trucks.

“How much is pumped by you breathing…“
I won’t hold my breath till someone comes up with a greener breathing method:)

“…public transport will never get me where I need to be...“
The whole point is to improve public transport to such an extend that public transport WILL take you to where you want to be effectively.
Is your car a hybrid? It sounds like you just want to continue your lifestyle at the expense of everyone else.

“I was once married to a narcissist, …”
How unfortunate for you that you made such a mistake by marrying a narcissist, but what has this to do with arguing against working towards a sustainable environment?

““environment beyond repair.” That will happen if the breeders keep on breeding,”
…and if polluters keep on polluting. Industries and traffic are two of the biggest polluters. People and governments of developed countries have options. Third world people (breeders) don’t have the options that we have.
There are families in Australia too that have more than 2 kids. The govt. even encouraged people to have more than two children to sustain the population.

Cleaner cars and public transport are crucial in reducing greenhouse gases. Again, what do you think about taxing cars according to emission levels?-continued