Col Rouge

BART was the product of supposed “experts”. No it wssn't. All the expertise concerning public transport was in Europe as the US had let it's systems run down. Insead of going to Europe the Americans tried to do their own thing and failed. They eventually had to import European experience.

I don't care whether or not you are convinced about the automobile contribution to global warming your opinion is ill informed and is of no value. Cars do make a substantial contribution. For reasons you will probably not understand trams are still more efficient than cars despite their fuel. Incidentally a lot of their peak energy comes from hydro, but I don't expect you to know that.

The inhabitants of Thursday Island ruined their environment and then faced a food shortage which they solved by killing each other until they had a sustainable population. Good enonomic rationalism! The point is they had no science to enlighten them - we do.

And Col I consider it selfish to do something that has the potential to harm others. You rabbit on about choice, how about responsibility?

"Remove “individual” from society and what is left? Nothing!" If you destroy the environment there are no individials left. Your philosophy is selfish and silly. And what have the economic rationalists achieved? They are the ones who should stay in the sand pit while the real players keep us going.

Col Rouge, you say:

'what you seek is to impose your will on the choices of other people. That is plain selfish of you.'

I say, by insisting on your right to keep driving your motor car without regard to the pollution and congetsion it causes, it is you that is imposing your will on the choices of other people. And, being selfish, of course you remain unconvinced about the plethora of evidence regarding the burning of fossil fuels, much of it by private car commuters, and climate change.

Par for the course for a Thatcherite/neocon

Bobtail “Libertarians think society can purely run on selfishness and individualism.”

FACT it the world is run on individualism.

Self and family first, extended family second. friends third, nation forth.

Fact you, bobbity, have a higher affinity, sense of responsibility and interest in your family than you do for mine. The difference between us, I admit it rather than hypocritically deny it.

As for “What's selfish is to be apart of a society and gain all the benefits of it but be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it.”

You do not know what benefits I endow this “society” with nor what “sacrifices” I have made, throughout my life, to become and discharge my responsibilities as an Australian Citizen. "Discharge" including participation in the taxation system, upholding our laws, contributing to the development of my profession in Australia, engaging in bringing up my children and more recently in developing an organisation which empowers others to earn an extremely good income.

Yours is simply the vitriol of the impotent.
Those who cannot moaning on at we who can.

So huff and puff all you want bobtail, you will not deter me from pointing out the transparency of the “kings new clothes” and the lies of failed politicians like Gore or socialism in general.

Logic “I don't care whether or not you are convinced about the automobile contribution to global warming your opinion is ill informed and is of no value.”

My vote counts as much as yours. My ability to persuade, when I want to persuade, would out shine yours on your best day (although I don’t bother to persuade here, this is play time and opportunity to leftie-bate).

As for responsibility, Responsibility is inseparable from choice. I discharge my responsibilities properly and challenge the efforts of politicians and social engineers to assume any right to exercise responsibility for me or in my name.
I make the decisions in and live my life. I do not need some socialist tosser playing power games and pretending they know best or trying to tell me when and how I should live or do anything.

I recall, about 15 months ago, a study was released by a NSW uni, on the GHG emitted by various methods of transport. I heard a bit on the ABC radio one day, & thought it interesting, & expected to get to studdy it in detail. However, after mention on a couple of news bulletins, it disappeared of the face of the earth.
So, all I have is the headline. "Public Transport Produces 15% More GHG, Per passenger Kilometer, Than The Private Car".
The study was done in Sydney. I wonder just how it was wiped from the face of the earth so quickly.

The same thing occured quite a few years back, when the last blur green allege outbreak occurred in the Murry/Darling system. A South Australian expert, interviewed on the ABC radio stated that the outbreak was almost as bad as the 1902 outbreak.
This lasted three bulletins before it disappeared, replaced by someone claiming the problem was a new phenomena, caused by farming, & town wastes entering the river.
I wonder why I'm cynical?

Some good points on all sides, particularly from D.B. who points out everyone can exercise their precious choice, take their car everywhere because it's convenient, then crawl along at 0.5 kmph.

I own a car but either cycle or catch the train to work. It saves me the stress I witness in most Sydney motorists, though I gotta breathe their poison.

The article doesn't even mention alternatives such as in the Netherlands, which rely heavily on cycleways. Perhaps we're all fat & happy after all.

Col

I do not know what your capabilities of persuasion are but if they are as good as you claim it is a pity given you insistance on your right to choose and damn all else coupled with you apparent lack of scientific and technical knowledge.

Your dislike of experts intrigues me. Who would you see if you had a severe illness? Apparently not a Doctor. Do you have an expertise or even a good knowledge of anything yourself.

And what do you say about passive smoking? Do you think you have the right to always do what you like regardless of it's affect on others? And what about rape or robbery. Is that OK if the criminal wants it?