There is no question man has squandered much of the Earth's natural resources. That is not the fiasco to be discussed in this segment however. The greed and tip toe dance around helping the situation is. It is a facade that we know about and yet ignore.
I heard a presidential candidate comment in a recent debate that pressure should be enforced to make cars get 100 mile per gallon. While I agree with that, I would ask where has this guy been for the past 50 years?
There is already the technology there. There have been engines designed that get 100 miles per gallon. ( At over 100 MPG and with the lowest exhaust emissions and a very reasonable sticker price, the Eco Spirit's debut was widely anticipated - London Tines 2002)
There are even more designs of cars to get at least 50 miles per gallon. Which is way more than the average car gets now.
In fact it doesn't have to be more expensive either. So what is the real hold up? Since the crunch of the "70"s the average fuel use of car has not changed or kept up with technology. 1980 23.1 mpg including all cars and 2004 24.7 mpg. according to Department of Transportation. However in 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle reported: "While official overall gas mileage of new U.S. passenger cars rose from about 14 miles per gallon in the late 1970s to a peak of 22 miles per gallon in 1987, it has since declined to 21 miles per gallon."
Even using the flex fuel engines reduce the gas portion per gallon by 15% by adding ethanol. That adds up to a huge savings of ordinary combustible fuel if everyone used this. Why don't we? Ethanol is by now means new technology.
Why do we rely so much on truck delivery and not have more rail service? Why do trucks and buses consume more fuel than technology offers?
No one is suggesting that we should not continue to explore more energy improvements and options. However when are we as a public going to stand up and say to the powers to be "you're stinking greedy and you're more of a problem than a solution!"
When we realize that even the newer options are measured by profit potential. Take Hydrogen for example. This would require more nuclear power. Most likely new nuclear plants. The politicians who have their nose in that industry would blow your mind. Coincidence? Cha-ching! It would conserve fossil fuel to some degree I admit however.
There in lies another problem. Does the consumer help? Absolutley not. We buy the gas guzzlers regardless of their notorious ineffeciency. Then we complain about it. But we still pull up to the pump like sheep to the slaughter.
What choice do we have? If we have to have a mini van we could purchase the ones that get 25 MPG or above. Of course affordability is an issue. But the guzzlers aren't any less expensive for the most part.
We could also go back to the days when we don't take 50 separate trips to and from the house. Maybe on the way to and from soccer practice we could hit the bank, the grocery store and etc.
I am not trying to trivialize this problem but the people who are "addressing" the problem are really just lining their pockets with our cash. That is the energy fiasco and we are living it.
