Re: in response to ttaM3 (archive)

if you are saying the more gas we use, the more expensive it's going to get... does it mean if we drink more water, and the water cost SHOULD increase?

The fundamental difference between water and gas is that water is a renewable resource, whereas gas is not. The natural water cycle ensures that rivers keep flowing and lakes are full, unless man or a natural disaster interferes. Thus, even though you may experience a temporary increase in water prices if you consume more than reserves allow, the price will return to its initial starting point as soon as that reserve is replenished. But crude oil does not replenish because the time it takes (millions of years) for anaerobic and geological processes to create fossil fuels is much larger than our stay here on earth. In this way, as the world consumes more gasoline less is left for future use and thus the supply-demand curve is upset and the price will rise (unless the government provides huge subsidies). That's why natural markets work best for regulation. If we allow the price of gasoline to reach world levels, then only the people who truly need to use the fuel will buy it. Of course, I realize that this would create economic havoc in the U.S. One more thing, as far as tapping into Alaska's reserve of oils, which is P50 estimated (50% accurate) to contain 10 million gallons of crude oil, you can forget about it. The real cost of gasoline would not decrease by more than a few cents for more than month if we were to drill in this site. The ecological consequences would be dire and to most, not worth the small, temporary reduction in gas prices.

i think that's something the government needs to regulate. Plus, if we need to drive certain miles everyday, will you be riding the bus just because you are going to save the energy consumption? because we all know it's more convinence to have your own car, we can manage our time better... (my opinion)

It is much more convenient to drive, at this point in time at least. What I am saying though is that perhaps it would be more efficient and more convenient to use mass transit if such systems existed. Unfortunately we don't have efficient working systems of public transportation in most cities. That has to do with the development of American cities and infrastructure, which is another issue.

i see all the cars should obey the what-so-called emission regulations. but hey, are all the PC companies pump out more waste materials than everybody else? i'd remember reading the TIME megazine stating that there are "huge amount" of wasted materials (i don't recall the exact figures) in order to produce "1" unit of CPU. how about the government should reinforce the big companies more than individual residents in the states? like you said, we do pay taxes. if drivers don't have rights to pollute, how about the big guys?

The big guys do pay taxes in the form of marketable permits that are exchangeable thus reducing the cost of pollution reduction. The plants that find it easiest to reduce emissions sell their permits to those that find the cost of pollution abatement to be much higher than the cost of the permits. If you want more governnment regulation of big business as far as the environment goes, then vote accordingly.

Thanks for your response Appleton, I'm glad to see my post hasn't been ignored. Hope I cleared up some points.

matt

i think this is unfair. i am no environment studies. living in bay area and paying $2.30 per gallon at 76 gas station is outrages. i still remember the good old days where i paid only $1.35 for premium gas 4 years ago.

please excuse for any grammatical mistakes.

Appleton
95 Silver M3c with no cat and who always obey the traffic laws

Follow Ups:

[ Follow Ups ] [ E36 M3 Message Board ] [ Msg. Board FAQ ]

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.